Tongue of Saruman

(Original article is by E Michael Jones.
Commentary from a good Catholic is surrounded by * * -- it starts and ends with an *)

*"'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'*
*'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since
yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another
among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as
in his own house.'"*

*In His June 22, 2010 article, "Traditionalism at the End of its Tether",
Mr. Jones begins with a reference to the "Eye of Sauron." This is ironic
though apt, as Mr. Jones himself takes on the role of Saruman to His
Lordship Bishop Williamson's Gandalf. In a long-winded rambling text, our
Saruman-clone mixes truth, half-truths, bad logic and lies in a honeyed
poison directed at His Lordship Bishop Williamson, His Lordship Bishop
Fellay, and the whole of the FSSPX. I will undertake an intertextual reply
and analysis to this latest artifact of the Enemy.*

When the Eye of Sauron that goes by the name of mass communication first
fastened its fiery gaze on Bishop Richard Williamson in the wake of the
pope’s attempt to bring the Society of St Pius X back into communion with
the Church by lifting the excommunications that followed latae sententiae
from the act that made Williamson a bishop, his excellency was living in
Argentina, where he was rector of one of the society’s seminaries. He now
lives in Wimbledon, England, home of the famous tennis tournament. If home
is the place that has to take you in when no one else wants you, it’s clear
that the SSPX headquarters on Arthur Road was his home.

*The negative and mocking tone is set immediately. Firstly, as stated MANY
times by several official organs and personages within the Vatican, the
FSSPX is NOT out of communion with Holy Mother Church, i.e. the FSSPX is
WITHIN the Church (see my previous posts on this site with regard to this
subject). In a favored тαℓмυdic manner, Jones begins with a lie asserted as
the truth, and hence, dives into his insidious diatribe of misdirection. A
favorite device of the Enemy, and the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.*

The lifting of the excommunications as a prelude to healing the schism gave
birth to the hope that Bishop Williamson might find a home in the Church
again, but, as I approached Wimbledon, the signals were mixed.

*Once again: the Vatican has precisely stated the FSSPX is not, and was
never in schism. In the Vatican's view, Archbishop Levebfre commited a
'schismatic act.' It is another discussion to discuss the actuality and
validity of this thesis and the grounds for his excommunication and that of
the four auxiliary bishops at the core of the matter. These censures applied
to only five individuals in the FSSPX. Even they were not in schism. They
did not deny the authority of the Pope, they did not declare themselves
separated from the Catholic Church, and they did not have the intention of
schism, but of reacting to necessity. Leaving that aside, the Vatican has
stated over and over again that the FSSPX, as an insitution, was NEVER in
schism, nor were her priests and the Faithful who attending the sacraments
in her chapels. Again there is the issue of faculties, a legal issue, where
there is disagreement between the FSSPX and the Vatican, but no issue
regarding the FSSPX's standing as a part of the Catholic Church.*

The lifting of the excommunications signaled the start of negotiations, but
the signals emanating from the negotiations were also mixed. Walter Cardinal
Kasper announced a few days before my arrival that the negotiations were
going nowhere; indications from the other side were equally gloomy.

*Using Cardnial Kasper as source immediately should send the warning bells
ringing. This denier of Christ's divinty, this arch-modernist and heresiarch
has a clear anti-Christ agenda. Firslty, these are NOT negotiations. They
are discussions on doctrine. Negotiations for the FSSPX's normaliztion
within the Main Stream Chruch are NOT being discussed. So Kasper, is also
using тαℓмυdic deception, by misrepresenting the reality to promote his
agenda; to wit, to forstall any possiblity of the modernist main stream
Church from returning to Tradition. Birds of a feather...*

Bishop Fellay, another of the four bishops, had been interviewed at the SSPX
seminary in Winona, Minnesota and the interview had been posted on YouTube.
Fellay began the interview by throwing Williamson under the bus, and it went
downhill from there.

*Here he links two non-realted events as if they prove something together.
Whatever the truth of the matter, there certainly appears to be tension
between Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson in what we in the various
statements and interviews, at least from Bishop Fellay's side. This is,
indeed, unfortuante. The style of the two men is different, and Bishop
Fellay is the Superior General and surely wants to control the image of the
FSSPX, or so it appears.*
*
*
*However, if one looks at the statements of the two prelates, one quickly
sees their views are overwhelmingly the same on nearly all fronts, as even
Mr. Jones later acknowledges.*

“The Church has cancer,” Bishop Fellay opined, “and if we embrace the Church
we’ll get cancer.” He went on to say that the SSPX reserved the right to
consecrate other bishops if the negotiations turned out to be
unsatisfactory.

*Again, another lie. As I understand it, Bishop Fellay has never linked the
two. He has stated that the FSSPX cannot run on just three active bishops.
He has said consecratig more bishops is a possiblity as necessity dictates,
but he has NEVER linked the doctrinal discussions to this possibility.*

Hope for unity seemed a long way off as I gazed at the preparations for this
year’s Wimbledon tennis tournament from a passing train. The fields
surrounding Wimbledon were full of people, many of whom were pitching tents
on this blazingly hot day in late June.

*Now we get to the heart of the Enemy's misdirection, 'hope for unity.' This
is set up as the paramount good to deflect the core issue of TRUTH.*

The hubbub surrounding the tennis match seemed particularly distant because
at this particular moment a Ugandan by the name of Jasper was shouting the
letter of Paul to the Hebrews into my ear above the din of the train. Jasper
began the conversation by informing me that he used to be a Catholic. He
was, in fact, a seminarian, until he was captured by the Ugandan
revolutionary movement known as The Lord’s Army and marched off to God knows
where. As Ugandan armies go, the Lord’s Army was probably not as bad as the
army of Idi Amin, which murdered hundreds of thousands of Ugandans and
dumped them into the Nile. There were so many corpses in the water that even
the crocodiles couldn’t eat them all. As a result, they began clogging the
intake pipes of the local power plant. So being a captive of the Lord’s Army
wasn’t as bad as the situation a few years before, but it was no picnic
either. Jasper and his fellow captives were marching somewhere or other when
they ran into the current regime’s army, the successors of Idi Amin, at
which a point a firefight ensued and Jasper was wounded in the leg.

At this point he paused in his autobiographical narrative to reach down and
pull up the left leg of his trousers to reveal a number of coin size scars
on his chocolate-brown leg.

“That’s where the bullets entered my leg,” he says.

At this point everyone in the train stops what they are doing and takes a
look at his leg. Then they gaze away and go back to their newspapers or gaze
off into space listening to their I-pods. Jasper in similar fashion goes
back to reading the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, pausing for emphasis to
read “and remember always to welcome strangers, for by doing this some
people have entertained angels without knowing it.” It’s clear that Jasper
feels that this passage has some special relevance to our situation.

*This is an interesting anecdote, and is Jones' way of saying that the FSSPX
is just another erring protestant sect. Another evil device.*

“The Church has cancer,” Bishop Fellay opined, “and if we embrace the Church
we’ll get cancer.”The scripture passage gets caught on a branch of my
consciousness like a valuable article of clothing being washed downstream in
the torrent of words which has been spouting from Jasper’s mouth ever since
I suggested that he rejoin the Church. Everyone, it seems, is a spiritual
Robinson Crusoe these days, willfully marooning himself on a spiritual
island of his own choosing and declaring himself his own pope. I try hard to
concentrate on what he is saying, especially when he refers our present
encounter to the angel quote in Hebrews, but at he moment I can’t figure out
whether I’m supposed to be the angel to him or he the angel to me.

*Note how Jones weaves the crazy Prod and His Lordship Bishop Fellay
together in this sly passage. If you have ever met or watched an interview
with Bishop Fellay, one thing one is struct with is his calm demeanour. To
link him to a crazy Ugandan prod is particulaty scurilous.*

“You need faith,” he tells me.

“No,” I reply, half wondering what the London commuters are making of our
conversation. “I have faith. You need the Church.” My reply unleashes
another torrent of Bible verses of the sort I have heard more than once from
ardent fundamentalists in America. When I bring up, “You are Peter and upon
this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail
against it,” Jasper goes etymological on me, claiming that “ecclesia” means
“assembly,” which is true enough, and that therefore any assembly which
proclaims the word of God is the Church.

“You and I are church,” Jasper tells me earnestly, omitting the definite
article like someone in the liturgy program at Notre Dame.

“No, we’re not,” I reply. “I am a member of the Church and you are an
ex-member, and that’s the point of this whole discussion.”

*Here again, Jones pounds is thesis on further, to wit, the FSSPX is in
schism, it is outside the Church.*

This too elicits another torrent of scripture, which pours forth from his
mouth like the flood-swollen river in Brazil which I saw the night before on
the BBC. The theological equivalent of refrigerators, cars, hen houses,
etc., sweep past my ears as I try to assess the theological significance of
it all. This must be happening for a reason, I keep telling myself, but all
I can say to Jasper is, “You’re not listing to what I’m saying,” which, of
course, releases another torrent of scriptural passages, which would still
be pouring forth as I write this if the train hadn’t arrived at Wimbledon
Park station, at which point I get up and disembark.

At some point during our conversation, I told Jasper that I was going to
give a talk on the priest sex abuse crisis in Ireland. The image this
conjures in Jasper’s mind must be fertile because it mutates over the course
of our train ride together into a scene in which he envisions me arriving in
a house full of pedophile priests with nothing more in my spiritual arsenal
than the talk I’ve prepared to defend myself. It’s clear he doesn’t think
much of giving talks. He urges me instead to cast out demons in the name of
Our Lord Jesus Christ. For a moment I consider taking him at his
ill-informed word. Pedophilia, schism, whatever: chuck the talk and drive
out the demons with a command. The idea would recur to me throughout the
day.

*Jones has now as much as admited he has come to the interview with His
Lordship Bishop Williamson with his mind made up, that the FSSPX is in
schism. He is looking to conduct a 'seeming' interview so he can say he went
to the horse's mouth to get his facts. He is trying to clothe himself in a
false legitimacy.*

When I got to St. George’s House on Arthur Road, the headquarters of the
SSPX in England, Bishop Williamson greeted me at the door. It’s been roughly
ten years since we last met in person, at the SSPX seminary in Winona,
Minnesota, where I gave a talk to the seminarians on horror movies. This
time the conversation was more focused on the situation in the Church. After
the initial pleasantries, his excellency informed me that, as a result of
the media circus of 2009, he had been stripped of all assignments in the
SSPX.

*I should imagine that His Lorship was responding to a question from Jones,
and doesn't just blurt out to everyone he meets that he is in exile. But,
with Jones' sloppy journalistic style we just don't know.*

This comes as no surprise because I had seen the Bishop Fellay interview on
YouTube.

*This is another non-sequitur. Jones is increasingly revealing his mushy
thinking capabilites.*

So, after being expelled from Argentina, Bishop Williamson returned to
England, where he now resides, all dressed up with no place to go.

*This is simply a nasty comment, and is NOT true on a few counts. Firstly,
Jones seems to be implying that His Lordship is not a 'real' bishop, just
someone 'dressing up' as one. Newsflash Saruman! The lifting of the
excommunications acknowledges, de facto, that Their Lordships, Williamson,
Fellay, de Mallerais, and Galleretta are, indeed, bishops! In fact, that was
NEVER in question, even if it was and is a popular misapprehension.
Secondly, His Lordship travels freely around the UK and has even since
traveled to the USA. Even though these are his personal travels,and as far
as I understand are more or less 'unofficial' he is still an apostle, and,
of course, should dress as one, as he always does.*

Whatever hopes which the lifting of the excommunications in January 2009
engendered were superceded by the uproar surrounding the media lynch mob
which attempted to derail any reunification of the society and the Church by
bringing up the issue of h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. By now the waves of that storm
have subsided, but it looks as if the chances of reconciliation have
subsided with them.

*Again, several mis-statements of fact in the тαℓмυdic fashion. Firstly, yet
again (note how he continues to slam this theme home), there is no
're-unification' to accomplish as the FSSPX has NEVER been separated from
the Catholic Church. Secondly, the storm around His Lordship's statements
regarding the blasphemously named psuedo-h0Ɩ0cαųst (note how he uses the
terminaology of the Enemy, thus, continuing the lie and the myth), has NEVER
subsided. Indeed, the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan keeps it in the news on nearly a
biweekly basis.*

Both the SSPX and Professor Schockenhoff are arguing that their
interpretation of Vatican II should be taken as normative.

*Say what? Slid that new name in with no preparation. Ah, but we will see
that this is only a continuation of a general theme. That theme is that the
FSSPX is just another group that has it wrong. First they are just like
protestants, now they are just like liberals.*

As I mentioned, shortly before I arrived in England, Walter Cardinal Kasper
announced that Rome’s negotiations with the SSPX were not going well.
Writing on the Chiesa.com
Website<http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1343575?eng=y>,
Sandro Magistro wrote that Kasper’s misgivings were amplified in an article
written by Eberhard Schockenhoff, one of Kasper’s former students, and now
professor of moral theology at the University of Freiburg. The article
appeared in the April 2010 issue of the German Jesuit magazine Stimmen der
Zeit, and in it Schockenhoff claimed “that the real disagreement between the
Church of Rome and the Lefebvrists does not concern the Mass in Latin, but
the teaching of Vatican II, especially on ecclesiology and on freedom of
conscience and religion.” Both Schockendorf and Kasper fear that the
readmission of the SSPX will doom their interpretation of Vatican II and all
of the projects of the past forty-some years which have been based on it.
Schockenhoff fears that “exegetical manipulation of the conciliar texts”
will allow both Rome and the SSPX to marginalize the true meaning of the
council by misrepresenting what Schockenhoff and presumably Kasper consider
genuine reforms as postconciliar misunderstandings and aborted experiments.
This would allow an “antimodern protest movement based on preconciliar
Catholicism” to be smuggled into the Church. It would also mark the end
(although Schockenhoff doesn’t say this) of the hegemony of the German
professors, whose interpretation has been dominant but fading since the end
of the council.

*Now, this is an interesting use of the truth. What is important here is the
use of the word 'interpretation.' The Vatican II council docuмents are what
they are. It is presisely because they use mushy Freemason/revlotionary
language, and can be 'interpreted' in a light the ignores Tradtion that the
FSSPX do not like them. But the FSSPX do NOT have an interpretation of the
docuмents. In fact, the doctrinal discussions (not negotiations, note the
mis-statement again (the say the lie it enough times and it becomes true
tactic is tried and true)) center around several core issues. Among the
topics mentioned by His Lordship Bishop de Galaretta are: the Magisterium
before and after the Council; liturgical reform; ecuмenism and
interreligious dialogue; papal authority and collegiality; freedom of
conscience, freedom of religion, secularism, as well as human rights and
human dignity in the doctrine of the Council. So we will fly over the next
several paragraphs, that while intersting, serve really to continue to
protray the discussions as a contest about the interpretation of the Vatican
II docuмents, which they are not.*

The influence of the German professors has faded even more, parodoxically,
since the accession of Benedict XVI (the quintessential German professor) to
the chair of Peter. Schockenhoff compares the negotiations with the SSPX to
“a hermeneutic tightrope walk, which attempts to square the circle.” He also
compares it to “playing with fire.” The issue is interpretation: Whose
interpretation of the council is going to prevail? Put another way,
readmitting the SSPX would mean the end of the hegemony of the German
professors’ interpretation of the Council, which the German professors like
to portray as “the will of the majority of the Council fathers”:

By proposing an official interpretation, another meaning gets imposed on
central conciliar texts other than the meaning which the will of the
majority of the Council fathers intended. . . . . What’s at stake here is
the direction of the future path of the Church, a direction which the
Council chose when it decided to open itself up to the modern world, when it
chose ecuмenical solidarity with the orthodox and reformation churches as
well as dialogue with the Jєωs and other world religions.

The main person responsible for wanting to “square the circle,” i.e., make
the council docuмents compatible with both modernity and tradition is, in
Schockenhoff’s view, Pope Benedict XVI. Magister claims that “In explaining
how to interpret the Council correctly, Benedict XVI shows how it did in
fact introduce new developments with respect to the past, but always in
continuity with ‘the deepest patrimony of the Church.’” And as an example of
this interplay between newness and continuity, the pope illustrates
precisely the conciliar ideas on freedom of religion: the main point of
division between the Church and the Lefebvrists.”

On December 22, 2005, Pope Benedict gave a speech to the curia in which he
tried to explain the Zeitgeist which was regnant when the council was in
session:

The Council had to find a new definition of the relationship between the
Church and the modern age. This relationship started out difficultly with
the Galileo trial. It broke completely, when Kant defined “religion within
pure reason” and when, in the radical phase of the French Revolution, an
image of the state and of man was spread that practically intended to crowd
out the Church and faith. The clash of the Church's faith with a radical
liberalism and also with natural sciences that claimed to embrace, with its
knowledge, the totality of reality to its outmost borders, stubbornly
setting itself to make the “hypothesis of God” superfluous, had provoked in
the 19th century under Pius IX, on the part of the Church, a harsh and
radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, there were
apparently no grounds for any positive and fruitful agreement, and drastic
were also the refusals on the part of those who felt they were the
representatives of the modern age.

However, in the meantime, the modern age also had its development. It was
becoming clear that the American Revolution had offered a model of the
modern state that was different from that theorized by the radical
tendencies that had emerged from the second phase of the French Revolution.
Natural sciences began, in a more and more clear way, to reflect their own
limits, imposed by their own method which, though achieving great things,
was nevertheless not able to comprehend the totality of reality.

Thus, both sides began to progressively open up to each other. In the period
between the two world wars and even more after the second world war,
Catholic statesmen had shown that a modern lay state can exist, which
nevertheless is not neutral with respect to values, but lives tapping into
the great ethical fonts of Christianity. Catholic social doctrine, as it
developed, had become an important model between radical liberalism and the
Marxist theory of the state.

As a result of this opening to the modern world, discontinuities began to
emerge. Catholics began condemning things that the Saints of previous eras
considered praiseworthy. Similarly, things that the Council considered
praiseworthy—things like Schockenhoff’s “dialogue with the Jєωs”—would have
been condemned as pernicious by Church fathers like St. John Chrysostom.
Before long the discontinuities became too big and too important to ignore,
or as Pope Benedict put it:

It is clear that in all these sectors, which together are one problem, some
discontinuities would emerge. Although this may not have been fully
appreciated at first, the discontinuities that did emerge – notwithstanding
distinct concrete historical situations and their needs – did prevent
continuity at the level of principles.

The Church now finds herself in the process of reconciling those
discontinuities, and it is this process of re-establishing continuity with
tradition which Schockenhoff sees as a betrayal of the meaning of the
Council. The SSPX, on the other hand, sees the process of reconciliation as
a betrayal of Church doctrine, and it is at precisely this impasse that the
negotiations with the SSPX stand at the moment.

*That was painful. It is Jones restating his theses in yet another form. But
the paragraph immediately above givesit away. What is now taking shape is
Jones' attempt to equate raving liberals with the FSSPX, and to portray the
Holy Father as the reasonable arbiter.*

The pope feels that the Council succeeded at being both new and connected
with the past:

By defining in a new way the relationship between the faith of the Church
and some essential elements of modern thinking, the Second Vatican Council
revised and even corrected some past decisions. But in an apparent
discontinuity it has instead preserved and reinforced its intimate nature
and true identity. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic both
before and after the Council, throughout time. It “presses forward amid the
persecutions of the world and the consolations of God,” announcing the cross
and death of the Lord until he comes (cf. Lumen Gentium, 8).

Yet those who expected that with this fundamental “Yes” to the modern age,
all tensions would melt away, and that this “opening up to the world” would
render everything harmonious, underestimated the inner tensions and
contradictions of the modern age; they underestimated the internal tensions
and the dangerous fragility of human nature, which have threatened man’s
journey throughout all historical periods and configurations. Given man’s
new power over himself and over matter, these dangers have not disappeared;
instead, they have acquired a new dimension. We can clearly illustrate this
by looking at current history.

*It is hard to tell here if Jones is quoting the Holy Father or himself
extemporizing. Suffice it to say, who ever is the author it is bosh.
Doctrine, or more properly Dogma, once stated cannot the changed or
'corrected.' It cannot be updated of modified to suit a new age. It is, as
God is, eternal and unchanging; that's it and that's all.*

Bishop Fellay

At this point an uncanny similarity emerges between the SSPX and the
liberals who want to keep them out of the Church.

*Voila! Here we have it!*

Both the SSPX and Professor Schockenhoff are arguing that their
interpretation of Vatican II should be taken as normative. Both the SSPX and
Professor Schockenhoff (for obviously different reasons) would claim that
the pope was “attempting to square the circle,” by thinking that modernity
and Church tradition were reconcilable. Both the SSPX and Professor
Schockenhoff have made a particular interpretation of a particular council
as the litmus test for membership in the Church. Neither the SSPX nor
Professor Schockenhoff seems capable of entertaining the idea that the
Church had embarked upon projects in the wake of the council which were
based in some sense or other on council docuмents but which went way beyond
what the council docuмents authorized. “Gespräch mit dem Judentum” or
dialogue with the Jєωs is one example cited by Schockenhoff which has led to
an almost total discontinuity with the past, something the American bishops
discovered when they had to revise their catechism. Should the Church
perdure in this particular implementation of the council? Or should she
admit that this and other projects which the council spawned, unlike the
docuмents themselves, are nothing more than failed experiments based on an
inadequate understanding of what was really happening during the
revolutionary ‘60s? Is the Church committed to repudiating the Gospel in the
name of dialogue? One would hope not, but the question needs to be
contextualized before it can be answered. If we identify the Council with
“Gespräch mit dem Judentum,” as Professor Schockenhoff does, then the answer
is far from clear. Schockenhoff might go so far as to endorse postconciliar
aberrations like the claim that “the Mosaic covenant is eternally valid,” a
claim both made and repudiated by the American bishops, but would the pope
go that far? Probably not. But the pope’s track record on continuity in this
regard is far from clear. He seems unaware that dialogue with the Jєωs, as
currently practiced, entails repudiating the Gospel, and that proclaiming
the Gospel is antithetical to dialogue with the Jєωs. As things stand now,
the issue is far from resolved, and the only thing that unites both the
German professors and the SSPX at this point seems to be their belief that
the pope is determined to square the circle.

*Saruman here uses a very interesting device. There is, of course, truth in
the above paragraphs. Liberals (that evil alliance of sodomites, communists,
crypto-ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan members, neo-modernists, et al.) clearly know
whothere enemy is and clearly understand that any reconciling of the
docuмents of Vatican II and to doctrine will eventually end up in chucking
them into the dustbin, because largely they are mush, written to be so. The
FSSPX clearly understands this as well. It is also true that the Holy
Father's hegelian mind thinks he can square this circle. It is really proof
of the FSSPX's rejection of sedevacantism using the argument that the
present Holy Father and a number of his predecessors really do hold the
belief that they can reconcile these two things. It is VERY true that the
true Enemy of the Church AND the FSSPX hold no such illusions.*

It was clear that there were people within the Church who didn’t want
reunification to happen because it threatened their interpretation of
Vatican II as the normative view. George Weigel was one of the people who
felt threatened. “It is not easy,” he wrote in an editorial in Newsweek in
February 2009, “to see how the unity of the Catholic Church will be advanced
if the Lefebrvist faction does not publicly and unambiguously affirm Vatican
Council II’s teaching on the nature of the Church, on religious freedom, and
on the sin of anti-Semitism. Absent such an affirmation, pick-and-choose
cafeteria Catholicism will be reborn on the far fringes of the Catholic
right, just when it was fading into insignificance on the dwindling Catholic
left, its longtime home.” Having a Neocon like George Weigel accuse the SSPX
of “pick-and-choose cafeteria Catholicism” was a classic instance of the pot
calling the kettle black. Weigel had been picking and choosing his peculiar
brand of Catholicism according to Neocon principles for years, beginning
with his justification of the war in Iraq all the way up to his reading of
Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical on church social teaching Caritas in
Veritatem. When Weigel put on his magic neocon glasses to read the pope’s
encyclical, some passages appeared in gold, which is to say, they were
congruent with the neocon agenda, while some passages appeared in red, which
meant that they were not and could safely be ignored by real Catholics,
which is to say, those who followed the neocon agenda as articulated by
George Weigel. To people like this, the h0Ɩ0cαųst denial brouhaha was the
answer to a maiden’s prayer because it provided a way to shut down unwelcome
discussion of suppressed topics. But by June 2010, the time of my meeting
with Bishop Williamson, it looked as if the h0Ɩ0cαųst issue had been
resolved. In the spring of 2010 Williamson was convicted in a German count
and fined 180,000 euros, a sum that was later reduced to 10,000 and is now
being appealed. Bishop Williamson had “put that issue behind him,” as the
politicians like to say. He was now “ready to move on with his life.”

*This is a bit of obscurantism here. It is used basically as a segue to
attack Bishop Williamson again.*

Or was he? At the height of the media cycle, Williamson wrote to the pope
and suggested that he be thrown, like Jonah, into the sea to calm the waves.
That is a fairly close approximation of what happened, but it wasn’t the
pope who threw his excellency into the sea, it was Bishop Fellay, who threw
him under the bus.

*This is a classic divide and conquer technique. Jones is trying to portray
a 'real' enmity between Bishops Williamson and Fellay. This is patently
false. Ther eare disagreements, to be sure. There is probably some tension.
But, Jones, and his ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan puppetmasters are here trying to
split the FSSPX. I would call attention to the fact that Bishop Willaimson
recently stood side by side with the other FSSPX auxilliary bishops at the
recent preistly ordinations are Econe. SOmething that COULD NOT have
happened without His Lordship Bishop Fellay making it so.*

Richard Williamson is now a bishop without a portfolio. In addition to
removing him from the seminary in Argentina, Bishop Fellay has forbidden
Williamson from saying anything in public, including presumably granting
interviews to people like me.

*This is a lie. Bishop Fellay has not forbidden to say anything in public.
There are some forbidden topics, to which Bishop Williamson adhers in
obedience. But that is it. The above statement is another lie to portray a
false emniity between the two prelates. A nasty Saruman device, but not that
subtle.*

If there was an assumption on my part behind this meeting it was that the
lifting of the excommunications and the subsequent h0Ɩ0cαųst denial brouhaha
had changed the situation.

*What a stupid assumption! This issue is the Truth. Either there is absolute
or there is not. It is, as His Lordship Bishop Williamson puts it, a fight
to the death.*

The only evidence I had to go on was Williamson volunteering to be thrown
into the sea, but that seemed indication enough that the situation had
changed him.

*No, it was an indication that His Lordship was willing to take the fall for
the team. He has NEVER changed his relationship to the Truth.*

The lifting of the excommunications had certainly changed my attitude toward
the SSPX—from accusations of the sort that we had leveled in the
investigative pieces we had run in the ‘90s to a desire to do whatever it
took to restore full communion.

*Mr. Jones does not appear to be very bright. Here he basically admits to
getting it all wrong in the '90s, so what? We should believe his tripe now?
Then again the central theme; unity at all costs.*

Actually, that desire had come into existence long before the
excommunications had been lifted. When we had met at the SSPX seminary in
Winona in the ‘90s, I had asked his excellency what I could do to help end
the schism. His reply was simple enough, “Get Rome to revoke Vatican II.”

“Is that all?” I said jokingly back then.

*Well, one can only say 'bravo!' m'lord! Can it be that Jones then thought
His Lordship was joking?*

The more we talked, however, the more I had the sinking feeling that nothing
had changed. “Semper idem” (always the same) was the motto of Cardinal
Ottaviani and the phrase had always seemed appealing in dealing with the
modernists, but now it began to recur in a different, less positive light,

*Right, I have to break in here. This is another тαℓмυdic device. Take a
truth and make it appear unappealing.*

which is to say, not so much as a reaffirmation of tradition, but as the
theological version of Groundhog Day, the movie in which Bill Murray plays a
weatherman from Pittsburgh who finds himself repeating the same day over and
over again. The SSPX had been claiming for over 20 years that the issue was
doctrine, specifically doctrinal issues concerning Vatican II, and in the
wake of the excommunications, they had persuaded Rome to engage in dialogue
under those auspices, but now it was clear, as Cardinal Kasper had pointed
out, that the dialogue was going nowhere.

*Yes, without a doubt, holding to the Truth, resolutely, year after year in
a world such as ours which doubts and denies every truth, with a infiltrated
and nearly collapses Catholic Church whose Churchmen at in all the places of
power seem to love the relgion of man and distain the religion of God, is a
hard and often tedious path. So was the path to Golgoltha. And, wearily I
note, the lie about the 'negotiations' again.*

This is not surprising because doctrine was never the heart of the matter.

*Horse hockey! Doctrine always was and always has be at the heart of the
matter. I flagrant and baldfaced lie!*

In fact, by allowing the dialogue on doctrine to proceed, Rome had fatally
undermined its own position.

*Oooops! Saruman just slipped up. Just admitted that what we have is
discussion about doctrine, not negotiations about interpretations or
normalization.*

The real issue is schism, not doctrine.

*Another shameless lie. Actually two lies in one.*

Heresy is a sin against doctrine, and in the negotiations which followed the
lifting of the excommunications, the SSPX was engaged in an attempt to turn
the tables on Rome and convince them that they were guilty of heresy. Before
entering into dialogue with the SSPX, Rome would have done better to watch
Bishop Fellay’s interview on YouTube. In it, Fellay gets to the heart of the
matter when he says, “The Church has cancer. We don’t want to embrace the
Church because then we’ll get cancer too.”

*Yes, unlike Mr. Jones and the Novus Ordo Chruchmen, Bishop Fellayand the
FSSPX have alwasy been very clear.*

If anyone had any doubts about the SSPX being in schism, this interview
should have laid them to rest.

*Here we go again, just keep speaking that lie Saruman, and hope the bewitch
masses will by it. Alas, they mostly do...*

As St. Augustine pointed out in both his treatises on Baptism and the
Donatists, schism has nothing to do with doctrine.

*Now we go off into la la land, as he lies and misdirects and tries to lead
his readers astray. Saruman never did repent, did he?*

Schism is a sin against charity. It involves breaking communion out of fear
of contamination—which is precisely how Bishop Fellay framed the issue in
his YouTube interview. Bishop Williamson has his own YouTube interview,
filmed in January 2010, in which he says essentially the same thing. The
only difference is that in his interview Williamson claims that the Church
has leprosy. In medical terms, the analogy is more apt because leprosy is
contagious, but the thought is essentially the same. The SSPX broke
communion with the Church when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated Williamson
and Fellay and two other bishops.

*WRONG!*

Refusal of communion out of fear of contamination is, as anyone who has read
St. Augustine knows, the classic expression of schism, but evidently no one
in Rome noticed this when they began their negotiations with the SSPX
because instead of dealing with the issue at hand, Rome embarked upon the
theological equivalent of Mission Impossible, which is to say a theological
discussion of the docuмents of Vatican with a group of people who were using
doctrine as a pretext to avoid talking about their own lack of charity.

*Sorry, Saruman, Truth trumps false Charity.*

What Rome overlooked in this matter was the psychological need on the part
of the SSPX to divert the negotiations into a discussion of doctrine.

*Oh, this is rich. Now he is in the open. Easy shot. He now resorts to the
using one of the the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's favorite devices; the creation of
'psychology'. Now the entire FSSPX is on the couch and Sigmund Freud can
take over the procedings.*

That need is based more on guilt than anything in the docuмents of Vatican
II.

*Ah, yes, it's that darned Catholic guilt thing. I thought we did away with
that in the '60s. [end sarcasm]*

The SSPX committed a sin against charity when Archbishop Lefebvre, claiming
that a state of emergency existed in the Church, broke communion by
consecrating the four bishops.

*Let's see, I think a simple No and No will sufice here as I hope my readers
are onto the тαℓмυdic tricks by now.*

Their justification for breaking communion is ultimately irrelevant because
the Church is always to some extent or other in a state of emergency because
the Church is always at the mercy of the venal and wicked men who rise to
positions of power in it because such men always rise to positions of power
in human institutions, but no state of emergency (real or imagined) ever
justifies breaking communion.

*Mr. Jones' bad and mushy logic seems to know no ends. To imagine that this
time in the Church is just a run of the mill 'emergency' i.e. not really an
emergency at all, is so laughable as to bring tears. I suggest Jones' bone
up on the St. Athanasius and the Arian heresy if he'd like a similar
parallel. Of course, his intention can only be to lie and defame, so he
wouldn't bother.*

The Irish priest sex abuse crisis is a case in point, and it was the
invitation to discuss that crisis in the light of tradition which brought me
to the SSPX headquarters in Wimbledon in the first place.

*So, that is how he got his foot in the door. Now it is becoming clearly.
Deception after deception, after deception...*

The Church and Her Enemies

In talking with Bishop Williamson, it becomes clear that the doctrinal issue
is uppermost in his mind, but that’s only because he refuses to admit the
real cause of the problem, namely, that the SSPX broke communion.

*It is hard to come to grips with such evil. Our Saruman is relentless in
his evil and his fork-tounged slander and calumny. First note how
immediately under the heading, 'The Church and Her Enemies' comes the name
of Bishop Williamson. This is another trick of the enemy, to juxtaposed and
thereby to imply a connection. He again, Jones, nevering letting go of his
lie, hammers on that the SSPX is not in communion with Holy Mother Church
and is, in fact, in schism; both simply lies, and not even an issue for the
Vatican and the FSSPX. Things are certainly irregular, but NO SCHISM EXISTS.
*

*Further, Saruman claims to know the inner mind of Gandalf (Bishop
Williamson), inferring that His Lordship knows the problem is Schism, but
simply refuses to admit it, and thus this is the reason why the FSSPX and
Bishop Williamson keep using the issue of doctrine as a canard to deflect
the 'real' issue. This is true Saruman subtle sweep poisoned deception.*

*Of course, as His Lordship in specific and the FSSPX in general have
always, consistently, and repeatedly maintained, IT IS ALL ABOUT DOCTRINE.
That is, it is all about the Truth. On one side (The New Church) is the
thinking that truth evolves, changes, adapts, 'reconciles' over time and
with whatever present one is in. On the other side (the FSSPX) is the
grounded-in-reality concept that, Truth is Truth, there are absolutes, and
such things NEVER change, have no need to be reconciled or adapted; yea, the
times, what ever times, need to confrom to the Truth.*

Schism is a word that never gets mentioned in traditional circles. It is
only with difficulty that I can broach the topic in our conversation. Bishop
Williamson wants to talk about the pope instead, who, according to his view,
sometimes says 2 plus 2 equals four and sometimes says 2 plus 2 equals five.

*Here we go again. He begins with a lie. Schism is, in fact, frequently
mentioned in traditional circles. The FSSPX, on its many websites, devotes
pages and pages to this question. Traditional constantly discuss how to
balance adhering to the absolute truth while being obedient to the Churchmen
and the Pope. As Bishop Williamson repeated tries to point out to the dim of
mind, Truth is a primary virture while obedience is derivative. Simply put,
that means Truth trumps obedience where the two come into conflict. This is
common sense.*

*Secondly, what His Lordship is doing in bringing up his favorite analogy of
conflict between FSSPX position and the New Church position, is to attempt
to reel Jones back to the main point, DOCTRINE.*

*[Now, a note on the below paragraphs. Saruman is going to use lots of Truth
imbedded with occaisonal lies, to make the lies look like truth. This is
another very common disinformation technique. Stay with me. I know this can
be tedious, but it is very instructive. You all most get savvy at
recognizing these techniques, and challenging and revealing them. It is
hard, like having long conversations with Gollum, because the lies are never
ending, and one eventually starts feeling 'slimed' by them all, and the dark
will behind them. But, alas, it is part of fighting the good fight, so we
must push on throught the slime.]*

The pope’s views of the Council are certainly tied to a view particular
Zeitgeist, the Zeitgeist of the ‘60s. When he claims that “It was becoming
clear that the American Revolution had offered a model of the modern state
that was different from that theorized by the radical tendencies that had
emerged from the second phase of the French Revolution. . . . Thus, both
sides began to progressively open up to each other” what he is really
telling us is that he had fallen under the influence of John Courtney Murray
and therefore under the influence of Time Magazine, which was responsible
for Murray’s celebrity status, as well as C.D. Jackson, who was the CIA
controller/liaison with Time/Life. We are talking about the widespread
promotion of the self-induced illusion that the Church no long had enemies.

*Right, interesting. No citations. But the result, however achieved is the
same.*

During the 1930s, the Church had enemies. When the Church was strong, which
is to say when it was united, the Church won the battles against her
enemies.

*Yes, this is very true.*

In 1933, the Church in America took on the Jєωs in Hollywood when Cardinal
Dougherty of Philadelphia called for a boycott of all Warner Brothers
theaters in his diocese. The success of that boycott led to the institution
of the Hollywood production code. In 1935 the Catholic Church led by Msgr.
John A. Ryan, head of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, defeated the
WASP ruling class’s attempt to get the federal government involved in the
funding of contraception. If you ask yourself what had changed in the 30
years between 1933 and 1963, it wasn’t Church teaching. Because of Vatican
II, the Church believed that she no longer had enemies. In fact, because of
a magical process known as dialogue, our former enemies had been transformed
into our friends.

*Yes, this is how neo-modernists think, though the real agenda is far
darker.*

Needless to say, this was not the traditional teaching of the Catholic
Church. The traditional teaching of the Church had been articulated some
1500 years earlier, when St. Augustine wrote that “Heretics, Jєωs and Pagans
have made a unity against Unity.” The loss of its enemies turned the Church
against itself. In the absence of external enemies, the presence of evil in
the Church had to be attributed to the Church itself. The Church, to cite
Bishop Fellay, developed “cancer.”

*We're still tracking with the truth.*

Benjamin Franklin once wrote that “Experience keeps an expensive school, but
fools will learn in no other.” What the Church had to learn in the expensive
school which experience has conducted for the past 45 years is that nothing
has changed. Our enemies were still our enemies. The only thing that had
changed was the sophistication of their tactics.

*Yes and no. They have always been rather sophisticated. But, we'll let that
ride for now.*

What the pope’s 2005 speech to the Curia shows is that Joseph Ratzinger was
influenced by a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by Henry
Luce, the publisher of Time/Life, and his Catholic agent, John Courtney
Murray. What it does not show is that there are flaws in the conciliar
docuмents. The same is true of Nostra Aetate and the Jєωs, who were paying
Malachi Martin to act as a double agent at the council.

*Right. This is largely false. Then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was influenced by
the French Revolution and a slew of German philosophers. Simplistically
specking, he is a Hegelian in his outlook to teh world, including to
religion (but this is a simplifacation). The statements made about Luca,
Maurray and Fr. Martin may or may not be true. Non of these affected Fr.
Ratzinger much. He flew far above these sorts of things.*

Now as in the past, the Church continues digesting the docuмents, which is
to say it continues to interpret them in light of tradition, which is what
the Church has always done.

*No! This is a lie. The absolutely huge perdonderance of Church docuмents,
ESPCECIALLY those emminating from Councils, are clear and precise to the
extreme. Almost like mathematical texts. Scripture has been unfolded and
meaning already there has been explained, but this whole 'digesting' thing
is a total fabrication. It is also bosh.*

Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the idea; but, as I was to learn in the course
of our conversation, evidently Bishop Williamson cannot.

*Another blatant lie. Archbishop Lefebvre DID NOT accept this idea. Bishop
Williamson follows very much in the Archbishop's thinking in all his
statements.*

What we’re talking about is the background of council docuмents like
Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, but not the docuмents themselves,
which were vetted by the world’s bishops.

*This is another lie. I don't have the time or space to write a treatise on
how the council worked and how the docuмants were drawn up and how the
agenda was hijacked by the modernists. There are plenty of good books and
articles about this. Research it yourselves. Jones is now stringing together
a long series of lies after 'priming' us with some truth. Again, an old
disinforation technique.*

Having attended more than one synod in Rome, it’s easy to see how an
individual bishop (or a bishops’ conference) might introduce a political
agenda into the Church’s deliberations, but it is not easy to see how this
agenda could prevail.

*Jones is either lying through is teeth or he is naive to a fault. If he
really believes this, he has not studied the subject much at all.*

In my experience the only thing that the world’s bishops could possibly
agree upon is Catholicism.

*What an absolutely assinine statement. Just take a look at all the heresies
of history.*

Bishop Williamson claims that there are ambiguous statements in the
docuмents of Vatican II, and that this fact justifies his separation.

*Truth followed by a lie. Bishop Williamson would probably say that it is
modernists who having denied the truth have separated themselves from the
One True Church. Certainly, Bishop Williamson has NEVER separated himself
therefrom.*

The former statement is undeniably true; the latter undeniably false.

*What a stupid statement. Funny how our Saruman echoes my words, though our
second clauses point in different directions.*

Maynooth, Ireland, June 19, 2010

*Right. The pretext to get in the door with His Lordship (remember?).*

Four days before our meeting, I attended a conference on “Fertility,
Infertility, Gender,” sponsored by the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics
at Maynooth, the home of the seminary for Ireland’s Catholic priests. The
participants at the conference are congenial enough, but looming behind the
conference is a pall of both sɛҳuąƖ and economic crisis in Ireland and the
Irish Church. A bishop freshly deposed by the pope for his negligent
handling of the crisis is in attendance. The seminary itself was criticized
for its tolerance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in recent articles in the Irish press.

*This is interesting. It is also a technique. Saruman is now going to lull
us into this digression, and then slam Bishop Williamson again, using his
[Jones'] previous previuosly built up calumnies against His Lordship. I'm
going to skip over this whole interlude to that point.*

One of the most powerful presentations at the Linacre Conference was given
by a Jesuit by the name of Kevin Flannery. Twenty-five years ago, he and
Paul Mankowski, another Jesuit speaker at the conference, showed up at my
house as newly ordained priests. At the time I took it as a sign of hope for
a bright future in the Church that the Jesuits would ordain dedicated men
like this. What I should have told these bright young men back then is “if
you wish to serve the Lord, prepare for suffering.” Paul Mankowski, who
would go on to receive a degree in Semitic philology at Harvard while
serving as boxing coach there, would spend the next 25 years circling the
ring with his Jesuit superiors, fending them off with theological jabs like
“I accept the authority of my Jesuit superiors insofar as it is congruent
with the teaching of the Catholic Church.” Father Mankowski spent years
teaching at the Biblicuм, but as part of the ongoing battle over his
allegiance to the Jesuits and his final vows he was summarily dismissed and
sent to teach freshman Latin at a ghetto high school in Chicago.

Father Flannery fared better at the Gregorian University in Rome, where he
is now a dean, but that only enabled him to become involved in abstruse
bioethical doctrinal battles at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. His talk was about one of those battles. Paragraph #12 of Dignitas
Personae, the most recent docuмent on fertility technology issued by the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has been taken to imply that
procedures like GIFT (or Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer) are morally
acceptable. Father Flannery feels that they are not because they “involve a
third active factor” which violates the integrity of the sɛҳuąƖ act. Father
Flannery used the rest of his talk to explain how this contradiction arose
and how he as a faithful Catholic had to deal with it:

How has the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gotten into this
tangle of setting out conditions for morally acceptable procedures and then
saying that procedures that cannot meet those conditions are acceptable? In
my opinion, what has happened is that, when the Church first began to
consider these issues and her thinking was more clear than it is now, she
set out sound principles for their analysis. She has also always been aware
of couples—both within the Church and without—who experience difficulties in
conceiving and who desperately want children: a very natural and, therefore,
good desire in itself. So, while continuing to propound the sound principles
at the core of the Church’s teaching, the Congregation has seized upon
whatever opportunity the language with which those principles are formulated
affords—or appears to afford—in order to approve procedures that might allow
couples to have children.

Father Flannery bolstered his case by citing one docuмent after another
which showed that “In this regard, the teaching of the magisterium is
already explicit” [“Ad rem quod attinet, magisterii doctrina iam explicata
est”]. He then attempts to explain how a doctrine that is “already explicit”
could undergo corruption by giving a close analysis of Pius XII’s 1949
address to midwives:

He first says that artificial fertilization outside of marriage is to be
condemned as immoral and that the child resulting from such a procedure
would be illegitimate. (Repeatedly in his addresses regarding this issue
Pius XII expresses concern for the upbringing of progeny and so also for
their legitimacy.) He then says that artificial fertilization “within
marriage, but effected by the active factor of a third party, is equally
immoral and, as such, to be condemned out of hand.” The problem with such a
procedure, he says, is that, “between the legitimate husband and the child,
fruit of the active factor of a third party (even were the husband
consenting), there exists no connection of origin: no moral and juridical
connection of conjugal procreation.” In effect, the problem is that the
husband in this marriage has not generated the child who results from the
procedure, for generation has been effected by the third party. It is clear
that the problem here for Pius XII is not illegitimacy, for he speaks of the
husband as legitimate; the problem is rather, who has generated the child:
who is the initiator, the agent, whose action results in the generation of a
child?

How then did the corruption of doctrine come about?

The small word iam inserted into the paraphrase makes all the difference.
Where Pius XII speaks simply of “the natural act performed in a normal
manner” [“l’acte naturel normalement accompli”], the paraphrase, imposing a
meaning upon the participle “accompli” it can hardly bear, speaks of an act
that has been normally performed in the past. The Supreme Pontiff is
suddenly not condemning all types of fertilization but approving one type—a
type in which clearly the act of generation is not the conjugal act but an
act performed by technicians in a lab.

Father Flannery, as a result, finds himself in a dilemma.

This all places individuals (such as myself) who believe that they owe to
the teachings of the magisterium religiosum voluntatis et intellectus
obsequium in something of a dilemma. One welcome way out of the dilemma
would be to discover that we (I) am simply wrong: there is something wrong
with the present analysis and there is nothing contradictory about the
teaching of DP§12 (and the related teaching in Donum vitae).

But let us say that I am not wrong. It is logically impossible to give
obsequium (of any sort) to a set of ideas that are contradictory and
recognized as such: obsequium involves at the very least acknowledgement
that a set of ideas could be true, but a contradiction cannot be true.

The way out of this dilemma is not to be found by leaving the Church
because:

. . . finding such a contradiction does not leave obedient sons and
daughters of the Church completely in the lurch, for the teaching office of
the Church is exercised within a tradition of moral reflection inspired by
the Holy Spirit. An incoherent paragraph or two in a magisterial
docuмent—such as are inevitable when human beings are writing the
docuмents—do not cancel out the tradition, but quite the converse: the
offending paragraphs (if they truly are such) ought to be judged from the
perspective of the tradition. This is the proper attitude to adopt toward
Dignitas personae §12, derived as it is from Donum vitae, which states that
“in this regard”—that is, in regard to homologous artificial
fertilization—“the teaching of the magisterium is already explicit.”

New Light

Father Flannery’s struggle throws a new light on the complaints of Bishop
Williamson.

*No, he doesn't. Jones' feeble ability to reason thinks it does, but that
does not make it so. But he hopes after this long digression you won't
realize that.*

To begin with, unlike Bishop Williamson, who complains about ambiguous
statements in council docuмents, Father Flannery believes he has come across
an actual contradiction of Church teaching.

*Bishop Williamson has said many times the Vatican II docuмents present us
with a range of qualities, from mildly acceptable , to vague, to down right
dangerous. He advocates dumping the whole pile of them into the Tiber.*

The only way the contradiction in DH 12 is going to be resolved is the way
the Church has resolved issues in the past, which is to say, by going over
the issue again and reconstruing it in the light of tradition.

*Bish, bosh, and more bosh. Tradition CANNOT somehow magically make a bad
text good. It cannot transform error. A thing is either truth or false.
PERIOD. Falsehoods, cannot be 'reconstrued' in the light of tradition other
than for tradtion to condemn them.*

Non datur tertius. There is no other way. To pretend there is is to be
radically anti-traditional.

*Throw in some latin, and then make a bold, and totally false statement, in
a vain attempt to make it true. Niiiice...*

This is precisely what the SSPX is refusing to do by refusing to affirm
their acceptance of the docuмents of Vatican II as interpreted in the light
of tradition.

*Errrr, what? Now use the false statement, preceded by a slew of lies to
attack the FSSPX again-- now calling them 'radically anti-traditional.' Of
course, if you remember, one of the original theses was that the FSSPX are
really just a bunch of protestants. See how the lie weaving works?*

All that Bishop Williamson and the SSPX have to do to be readmitted to the
Church is affirm the statement, “I accept the docuмents of Vatican II in the
light of tradition.”

*Noooo. Remember, the FSSPX is NOT outside the Church, even if Saruman wants
to beleive it is so. Jones is a relativist. He thinks if he thinsk it and
wants it it is true. Also, just regarding the VII docs, there are docuмents
that CONTRADICT tradition. They would have to go. Saruman wants you to feel
as all that lies between the FSSPX and the New Churchmen as small technical
question of no moment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The things
that lie between them is the Truth of Jesus Christ, upheld by the FSSPX and
largely denied by the New Churchmen.*

He does not have to affirm that x number of Jєωs died in the h0Ɩ0cαųst. He
does not have to affirm Professor Schockenhoff’s interpretation of Vatican
II or his endorsement of “Gespraech mit dem Judentum.”

*Ahh, yes. Bring up one of the Synogogue of Satan's favorite themes again,
just in case you might have forgotten about it.*

When Bishop Williamson tells me this affirmation of Vatican II in the light
of tradition is the condition which Rome has set for readmission to the
Church, I blurt out, “It’s that simple?”

*Mostly a lie again. Firstly, Bishop Williamson, should he have said
anything on this at all, would have been talking about normalization of the
Society's status int he Church, not about 'readmission.' Note how there is
NO direct quote here like those below.*

“It’s not that simple,” Williams replies.

“Yes, it is.” I feel like saying, but do not.

*Of course, if Jones had any intention of a real debate, he would have
asked.*

“If we sign this docuмent, we are affirming the validity of Vatican II which
means that we are affirming the very thing which is destroying the Church.”

*This is certainly something Bishop Williamson has said in the past.*

The statement is patently preposterous, *[no it is blatanty obvious and
true]* but I bite my tongue and
attempt to steer the conversation in another direction.

*Right. Why would he bite his tongue? If a good interviewer thought
something didn't make sense to the point that it was 'patently preposterous'
the it would only be natural, and well within his perview as long as he was
polite about it, to point the same out, or at least to ask about it and have
it explained. Of course, Jones-Saruman doesn't want ot give His Lordship the
chance, as he is not intersted in truth. He is interested in his own strange
agenda.*

“Has the Church failed in its mission?” I ask.

“No,” Bishop Williamson replies.

*Of course, His Lordship here is talking about "The Church", "the Mystical
Body of Christ" created by Jesus. His Lordship is not talking about the
institutions or the Churchmen.*

“Then there’s no reason to separate from the Church.”

“We haven’t separated from the Church..”

*This is what the FSSPX has always maintain, and what the 'official' Vatican
offices and personages responsible for such things have affirmed.*

“Then what are the negotiations about then?”

*I am sure His Lordship is getting rather irritated with this ninkompoop at
this point. Notice how Saruman sneaks in the word 'negotiations' again?*

Before long it becomes apparent that they are about bringing Rome around to
the point of view of the SSPX.

*A Lie. The FSSPX does not have a 'point of view' about the Truth. They are
pointing out what 1900 odd years of Church doctrine say as compared to what
Vatican II said, and what has been done and sdia since then. It is NOT an
opinion. It is a recitation of facts. This is a BIG point to get straight.*

As another sign that the discussions are doomed to go nowhere, Bishop
Williamson told me that an SSPX priest is planning to use their meeting with
the Ecclesia Dei commission in the Spring of 2011 as an opportunity to the
explain to Rome the errors in Dignitatis Humanae.

*Just a stupid statement that does not follow from what Jones says His
Lordship said. In Jones' eyes the FSSPX is ulterly to be condemned.*

By now it is clear that this dialogue became Mission Impossible for a number
of reasons. First of all, by concentrating on doctrinal issues in general
and Vatican II in particular, it avoided the main issue that needed to be
resolved, namely, schism, which has nothing to do with doctrine.

*The lies are thick and heavy now. The Vatican and the FSSPX set the
discussions on doctrine up, not Jones. I reckon they both knew what they
were doing. Since neither side thinks the FSSPX is in schism, it is fairly
obviously that would not be a topic of interest or moment.*

Secondly, there are large segments of the hierarchy which confuse the
docuмents of Va