I posted the transcript of Fr. Pfeiffer's conference back in Jan this year in the resistance sermon section, but it would be well to repeat it here, since it is so hard-hitting:

Transcript of
A Conference
given by
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, FSSPX
in Brazil, January 25th, 2013

What we are experiencing right now in Catholic Tradition I personally believe can be summarised by one phrase of Our Lady of Fatima.  She said that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world.  And we can say that Russia has spread her errors throughout the Society of Saint Pius X, and throughout Catholic Tradition.

One rule to understand about the Devil: the Devil tells us that we must be impatient, but the Devil is never impatient-the Devil is very patient.  I'm from Kentucky and we worship basketball, it's part of our religion.  If you hold a basketball and let it go it drops and then it bounces, but if you take it and throw it down with force, it bounces more.  That is the same as when we commit sudden, serious, mortal sins. It is a fall, but because it is a hard fall the danger, from the Devil's perspective, is we might bounce back.  So, if the Devil has a choice, he will not throw us down, he will take the ball and gently lower it to just a centimetre above the ground and then let go.  The same mortal sin, but no bounce.  My old Irish pastor, used to say, "You do not lose the Faith over night".  You lose it slowly, little by little by little, and one day you wake up and you're no longer Catholic, and you don't even know it.  One of my father's friends, who was raised Catholic with my father, stopped going to the Latin Mass thirty years ago because of problems in his chapel.  Now he says, "I am still a strong Traditional Catholic, I have not stopped being Traditional, I just don't go to the local Traditional SSPX Mass because of the problems with the priests, but I think the same."  The only problem is he now believes in birth control; he now believes in Mother Angelica; he now accepts going to the New Mass; he now believes that modern politics and "conservative" politics are the right way; he does not believe the same thing at all, but he thinks he does.  This is what is happening to the Society of Saint Pius X.

One of the great signs - an easy sign - is when, for example, you ask your husband if he still loves you.  If the husband says, "I love you with all my heart, I love you more than the stars and the moon and everything!" you may be happy, (even though girls are never happy).  But, if you say, "Do you love any girl more than me?" and the husband says, "I haven't changed", you go "Hah! what do you mean by that?"  That is the wrong answer.  So now we say to Bishop Fellay, "You are no longer against Modernist Rome."  He does not say "Yes! I am against Modernist Rome,"  he says, "I haven't changed."  People say, "What is wrong with Vatican II?"  And he replies, "Well, I take as my own the position the Archbishop always held."  These are the answers of politicians.

If you look in books you may find what Archbishop Lefebvre taught.  But God made our Church incarnational, like the Incarnation which means God in flesh.  For instance, if right now Saint Pius X comes down and sits in this chair, and Saint Jean Vianney sits in this one and one of we priests sit in this one, where do you go to Confession?  You have to go to us.  The other ones are more holy, but they can not absolve your sins. because only a priest in this world, with flesh, can absolve sins.  And so, likewise, Christ demands that his Faith be taught.  It must be taught by living voices.  The trouble now is, the SSPX official is no longer a living voice of Catholic truth.

And just as Father was telling us last night, because the Society is weakened and is no longer communicating clearly Catholic truth, it doesn't only affect us of the Society.  It also affects the other groups and they also become weak.  You see that in the Catholic Church and Protestantism.  When the Catholic Church collapsed in the nineteen-sixties the Protestants also became a mess because Protestants were united in their hatred of the Catholic Church.  When the Church became protestantised the Protestants just fell apart.  None of us can be good or bad by ourselves.  Not even a little boy.  If the boy is good he will make others good, if the boy is bad he will make others bad because we are political animals.  When we place our own particular good over the good of the whole society that is already a sin.  Imagine you are in a big apartment complex and it's on fire.  There's a baby in one apartment, an old lady in another apartment and your money is in your apartment.  You rush in, grab your money, and you save yourself and your money and rush back outside.  Then you look up at the building and you weep for those poor people.  That is what Bishop Fellay is trying to do now.  Even if it was "acceptable", (and it's not!) to get approved by Rome, for us to waste our time getting approved by Rome while the Church is on fire is a sin.

I used to give an example in sermons of a famous bus accident in Kentucky in May of 1988, just a few days after the "protocol".  There was a bus driving home from an amusement park at 11:30pm filled with about forty or fifty boys and girls on a big empty highway.  A drunk driver drove onto the road going the wrong way and he crashed head on into the bus.  The drunk driver (of course, and as usual), was not hurt.  The bus driver was killed immediately, but because it was a large bus it did not tip over, it just smashed into the small truck and skidded to the side of the road and stopped.  But in the accident the bus twisted, and neither set of doors could be opened.  Then the bus caught fire.  Over the next thirty minutes thirty children burnt to death.  A few children were saved by men who had stopped their cars in the middle of the highway.  In those days there were no cell phones so a lady drove on to a fire department to try and get them to come, but by the time they arrived it was too late.  So some men, using their fists, broke holes in the glass windows.  One man grabbed hold of one of the metal bars, and with his hands bleeding from the glass, and just using his own strength, managed to rip open a window and they were able to save some of the children.  Imagine a police officer had said to that man, "You have a ticket for parking on the inter-state.  You should have gone to the office to get permission to park on the inter-state, and, you're not a professional, you should not have tried to save those children.  I'm sorry but I have to take you to prison."  This is what the Pope did in 1988.  He told Archbishop Lefebvre, "You consecrated Bishops without my permission!  And that's terrible, because you don't have my permission."

So what's the solution?  You get permission.  Only the Pope can do that.  If he doesn't do that he goes to Hell, unless he repents.  We are not popes so we can't give that permission.  We have to save the children in the burning bus.  It is not a problem of Canon Law, it's not a problem of tickets, it is a problem of saving souls from fire.  And to talk about tickets and canonical process and lifting of excommunications is idiotic foolishness.  And this is what Bishop Fellay has been wasting his time with when he could have been watching some good movies instead, that would be better, or drinking good wine, that would be better, or sleeping, or doing nothing, that would be better.  But wasting your time talking to idiots about their approval, when they hate God, is foolishness.  And that is what he has been doing.  When there are souls to be saved throughout the world, he's wasting his time on these trips to Rome.  And once you start talking stupid talk, after a while stupid becomes smart.  We can not enter into that kind of dialogue.

So to arrive where we were in 2012, which was the most important year in the history of the Society of Saint Pius X, it did not happen because the Pope in his nice cassock, and a Bishop in a nice cassock, came to Bishop Fellay in 2012, and said, "Look, we have something for you!"  That's not how it happened.  No, this was prepared over many years.  There has been a movement and a direction to betray Catholic Tradition that has gone on for years without our noticing.  We know it's not us, the SSPX, because we are a disorganised mess.  If you have worked with the SSPX you know that we can't organise a pot-luck dinner after Mass.  I remember when I was a newly ordained priest, one of the most traumatic experiences of my life was a pot-luck dinner.  One lady brought the burgers, another lady brought the greens, another lady brought the bread, and they all wanted to kill each other - the whole place was going to explode.  I'd been a priest for about three months.  I had to see counsellors, I thought the whole parish was going to collapse - it was a complete disaster.  But, somehow, we survived, because we are a disaster.

What you see in the present organisation of the Society is something very organised.  It means someone else is behind it.  All the strong superiors, from the smallest to the biggest over the last fifteen years have been removed, removed, removed.  Not the superiors that disagree, just the superiors that are strong.  One of the easy examples that I know was one of my superiors for many years, Father Peter Scott in America.  Father Scott loved Bishop Fellay and had complete confidence in him, but he was able to stand on his own two feet and he was not a 'boot-licker'.  But, he always followed and he always obeyed.  He was removed.  Why?  Because, if Father Scott thought Bishop Fellay was wrong he would stand up against him.  It happened a couple of times.  Not about the Faith but about troubles between priests and parishes in which he defended his priests against the foolish decisions of Menzingen.  Menzingen backed down, but then he was removed.

Bishop Williamson was too much of an influence teaching seminarians for twenty-one years in America and he was too influential.  Starting in 1999, Bishop Fellay said he had to leave the American seminary.  In 2003, he was removed.  In 2002, Father Scott was removed.  In 2003, a new French superior with a new mentality was made the superior of the seminary, Father Yves le Roux.  Father Fullerton, a weak man, was made the superior of America.  He was a bit like John XXIII, a transitional Pope, and things began to change in America.  In 2011, Bishop Fellay wrote a first letter of expulsion to Bishop Williamson in, I believe, September.  It was published on the internet but now it has disappeared.  The day it was published was the day he was with us in the Philippines.  He was not happy, so we didn't have a happy day.  But, Bishop Fellay said in that letter, "Bishop Williamson, you do not admit it but you are accepted by English and American people as a leader of an Anglo-Saxon rebellion."  They were afraid of a rebellion in America because of the influence of Bishop Williamson over 20 years.  If Bishop Fellay had made the deal with Rome in 2003 there would have been a rebellion, but over the last nine years there has been a slow changing of everything.  This is a sign of organisation; of a plan and not a sudden temptation.

Father Le Roux changed what a seminarian is.  You should look at a video at www.stas.org, 'Seminary Project'.  It is roughly eight minutes long, about the building of the new seminary in Virginia.  In the video Father Le Roux speaks about what a priest is.  He mentions Vatican II zero times.  'The priest, the man of combat', zero times.  Even sacrifice, zero times.  Merely that the priest is the man who is a whole man; a spiritual man.  He even mentions at the beginning that other seminarians are not very spiritual, but the idea of the battle against Modernism is not there.  This Saint Pius X seminary video about the making of a seminarian, the name of Archbishop Lefebvre is mentioned zero times.  What it does not say speaks volumes.  If you were not a Traditional Catholic you would not know that this seminary in Virginia is a seminary for Traditional, anti-Modernist Catholics.  It could be a Fraternity of Saint Peter seminary, it could be another conservative seminary, but not a Catholic seminary.  The mentality is very different.

They have two new professors now.  One of them was one of my parishioners in the past and another one from near my home.  They have been ordained, the two of them, for about five years.  But they were formed under Father Le Roux.  And so a new generation is forming a new generation.  The connection with the old is going, going, gone.  Two different seminarians told me, over the last ten years, that Bishop Williamson used to form fighting priests but Father Le Roux forms holy priests.  Saint Paul must not have been very holy; he was only a man of combat.  Saint Ignatius must not have been holy; if it wasn't for battle he would never have followed God.  The only reason he wanted to follow Christ was because he found out the little saints and martyrs were tougher than he was.  They were better warriors than him.  And his desire was to be the greatest warrior of them all so he went to fight the greatest war.  But those days are over; or they think they are.

What has happened is there is a new liberal direction and a new liberal teaching in the Society.  Do not believe that the problem is we are in danger of signing a bit of paper with the Modernists, because that is not the problem.  If that were the only problem it would be very small.  The problem is we have taken the Modernist mind and the Modernist spirit and now it is everywhere throughout the Society.  That is why Ignacio [the translator] and his family have just been thrown out of his Parish by the local priest because he did the most wicked thing a Catholic can do - he allowed Father Hewko and I into his house to say Mass.  This is terrible, therefore he's thrown out.  And this is happening throughout the Society.

Now they are telling us not to look at what Bishop Fellay is doing today, but to look at all the beautiful things he has done over the last eighteen years.  When we look over those last eighteen years we discover it's not so beautiful, like, for example, what is now coming out in public : this Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques (Reflection Group Between Catholics), or GREC.  This group started in Paris, in 1997.  Four SSPX priests were involved.  Firstly, Father Lorans, to whom Bishop Fellay gave the permission.  Father Lorans was once the superior at the seminary at Econe and he now runs the Dici website.  Then there was Father Celier and Father Du Chalard.  Father Du Chalard was one of our priests in Rome and he is friends with many cardinals, and has been one of our principle contacts with Rome for more than twenty years.  He was thrown out by the 'Si Si No No' sisters because he was too liberal.  And lastly, the priest who wrote the book "Towards a Necessary Reconciliation", about, and promoted by, GREC: Father Lelong.  Father Lelong founded GREC alongside Father Lorans.  He said Father Du Chalard had been a continual support, though secretly.  What is the purpose of this group?  They want to reconcile the SSPX and Rome using the principles of Vatican II.  So in applying the principles of Vatican II to SSPX, the key phrase, admitted by GREC is the 'Light of Tradition'.

Father Chazal says, 'Light of Tradition' is a spray.  If you smell bad, you take 'Light of Tradition' spray and spray it under your armpits.  So we now have 'Light of Tradition' spray that can be applied to everything.  If you say all religions are ok, that is very bad.  So what are you going to do?  You pull out your 'Light of Tradition' spray and then it's ok.  That's how Father Chazal explains it.  So the 'Light of Tradition' spray was formulated in Paris, by this organisation, GREC.  The trouble with the spray is it's poisonous, but this is the trick nevertheless.

Also, two key words, the "hermeneutic of continuity".  Hermeneutic means interpretation.  One thing about Modernists, they always use big words because this makes them seem important.  You simply use a big word and everybody is impressed.  So the big word we're going to learn is "hermeneutic".  Hermeneutics is part of the study of Sacred Scripture.  All it means is interpretation.  So if I say, "I hate you," that means I hate you, but, if you put in hermeneutic, you can say, "Well, it depends on how you interpret it."  What then happens is, you can change the meaning of everything by hermeneutics.

There is a false debate; Communists always create false debates.  For instance, I come to you and I say, these pieces of chalk are very valuable.  We have the pink chalk and the yellow chalk.  This one costs one thousand dollars, this one only five hundred, you have to choose.  Do you want the pink one or the yellow one.  What should the answer be?  "Get out of my house before I kill you."  You don't want the pink one and you don't want the yellow one.  Once you enter the debate, no matter which one you choose, you lose.  That is how salesmen have done it for years.

So, now we have a false debate between the "hermeneutic of continuity" and the "hermeneutic of rupture".  So, Bishop Fellay believes in the hermeneutic of rupture.  Pope Benedict XVI believes in the hermeneutic of continuity.  They're both wrong.  There is no hermeneutic.  See what this means: "interpretation of rupture".  When Arius says Jesus is not God, and I tell you, "Well, that is an interpretation of rupture," does that mean I am against Arius?  No, it doesn't mean that at all.  Some people say that Arius had the same opinions as Jesus Christ, that's the hermeneutic of continuity, other people say that Arius had a different idea than Jesus Christ, and that's the hermeneutic of rupture.  What is hermeneutics?  It is the science of the different interpretations of scripture.  So, St Jerome says this, but St Basil says that.  Once you enter that kind of debate you have lost the Faith.  The answer is, Arius is a heretic.  There is no hermeneutic of rupture, he is an enemy of Jesus Christ, period!  No interpretation required.  When Bishop Fellay says, I believe in the hermeneutic of rupture, we are brought into Modernism.  It is a trap.  Now we say, "I personally believe that Vatican II is not the same as before."  Were you to ask Archbishop Lefebvre, "What do you believe, Archbishop?"  He'd say, "We'll take about that tomorrow, I'll tell you what Jesus Christ believes, I'll tell you what the Catholic Church believes - I'll tell you what is true.  We'll talk about my favourite sports team tomorrow."  No hermeneutics.  So the hermeneutic of rupture is a trap.  And we debate between rupture and continuity it is the same as debating whether you want the red vacuum cleaner or the green one.  You're an idiot who just got duped by a cheap salesman.  So, this is already a trap of Modernism.

We must teach only what Jesus Christ taught as objective truth and not as my own personal opinion.  Now, speaking to good priests in the SSPX who don't like the new direction, many of them say, "Well, you know, maybe there won't be a deal; maybe we'll be saved because there's no deal."  But that doesn't save us at all because if we don't hold the truth of Catholic Tradition against Modernism then why do we need a deal?  It's not necessary.  And we see time and time again so many examples over the years of Modernism in the SSPX.  Just a week and a half ago the superior of Post Falls told one of our faithful that Dignitatis Humanae is not that bad.  The parishioner pulled out the text and said, "It says here 'religious liberty is the right of man's nature', that's what the Council says."  And Bishop Fellay says that is "limited" in the famous interview!  If it is in your nature it's not limited.  So where's the limit?  Father Vassal says,  "Well, you know, he means you must follow your conscience."  And he began to look for other texts that weren't so bad.

And then the priests are saying, "You can not reject the whole Council, it's only 5% that's bad."  This is SSPX priests speaking!  For a Modernist priest to speak like this we understand.  Father Cyprian, who is a bastian of anti-Liberalism and the superior of the Benedictine monastery in Silver City, New Mexico, and has been Traditional Catholic since some time before he was born!  He never trained in any Modernist place.  But in a sermon two weeks ago he spoke of a bishop in Nicaragua coming back to the fullness of Tradition.  He said how good it is that this bishop was saying the Latin Mass, and that there's a new resurgence of people in the Catholic Church coming back to Tradition.  He spoke about our "separated brethren", the Protestants - using language only Novus Ordo Priests use.  He was not trained to use that language.

All the sermons are recorded at the church there in Colorado but they won't release that one.  Our people are trying to get the sermon, but the priests said you cannot release it.  Our Society priest, sitting there in the chair while Father was preaching, was cringing and rocking back and forth during the sermon.  But there was no condemnation, no retraction and no clarification.  This is the new Society.

What is happening?  Our people are slowly but surely being brought into a new way of thinking.  It's a completely new mentality.  It did not begin yesterday.  It is not just in one country.  It is not only in one bad priest - it is spread throughout the whole Society of Saint Pius X.  And the priests that don't like it know they must be very careful.  We were never careful when I was newly ordained.  If that had been the case it's likely I would never have been ordained.  We just went and we said Mass and we built churches and we did whatever we could to spread the Faith.  But now we must get permission.  In 2010, I was sent to the island of Samoa to preach a little retreat to about fifty Novus Ordo priests, and we had a small number of faithful, five or six, on the island.  Father Couture, the superior of Asia, told me we will not go to Samoa without the permission of the local bishop.  And even if the few faithful that are there want us to return, we won't return unless the bishop says yes.  That was the first time I ever heard something like that.  We go everywhere without permission, we weren't trained to deal with permission, we don't know what to do with permission.  We were trained to go where the people call and we already assumed the bishop wouldn't like it. Yet we go where the people call.  In 2010, I got the first order of something different.  And that idea is spreading.

So this is very bad.  We sometimes mention about the four marks of the Church.  Every Catholic must have these four marks inside of him to be Catholic.  The four marks are the signs, just like smoke, heat and light are signs of fire.  When we say the Church has four marks, it just means that wherever the Church is you'll see One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic just like you'll see smoke, heat and light where there is fire.

So the first is One; the second, Holy; the third, Catholic; and fourth, Apostolic.  They all go together but the most important of the marks is One.  One Faith, one sacrifice, one set of sacraments under the Pope, and most important, the one Faith.  The one Faith makes us holy.  They're built on each other.  Holy means set apart for God.  Then the One and the Holy must go everywhere, and that means Catholic. And then the One, Holy and Catholic, all three, must be Apostolic, which means two things, going back to the Apostles, but also going out to the world.

So when the Devil destroys the Catholic Faith he does it in stages.  First he destroys Apostolic and then he works his way back.  The last to go is the Faith.  Before we lose Faith, we first lose Apostolic, then we lose Catholic, then we lose Holy, and last of all we lose Faith.  Faith is the most important.  That's what the Devil is ultimately after, but he begins at Apostolic.  In the Church in general, Apostolic began to decline at the time of the Renaissance with the Protestants and especially with the Protestant-Catholic wars.  The attitude was, "Let's not fight any more."  Notice the difference when Boniface went to Germany.  One Saint and one million pagans.  He took them all on.  He wanted them all to be Catholic.  The missionaries went all over Germany until every German became Catholic.  They were never satisfied that they were mostly Catholic, they wanted to convert them all without exception.  But when the Protestant-Catholic wars began, many Catholics lost Apostolic.  This is the foundational principle of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.  "You have your religion, I have mine, I don't need to force my religion on you."

Now, in the SSPX, the same thing happens.  About ten to fifteen years ago we began to diminish our missions.  It began especially, I noticed, in 1994, the year that Bishop Fellay became the superior.  I would hear, "The SSPX under Father Schmidberger and Archbishop Lefebvre ran around too much and went to too many places."  In America our priests used to say five Masses every Sunday.  Archbishop Lefebvre said that was too much, we must say only three.  So when I was ordained we all used to say three Masses - in one place then the next place and the next place - but we still went around.  But Bishop Fellay said that because our priests were going to too many chapels they were getting burnt out and we were losing our priests.  That was the first change of focus; before, the priest went out and helped the people until he died, but now the priest must take care of himself first.  In the beginning it's an okay balance, but over time the new priests say, "I've got to have my vacation, I'm over worked, I can't run around like the old priests did."  And when the people ask the Father to come and say Mass for them they say, "no, no, no..."

So Apostolic begins to die; then Catholic.  This is division of religion and politics.  We're going to talk about spiritual things and not political things.  This became official in 2009, but it began many years before.

Then, Holy.  Holy means we must have something of God in every part of our lives.  This is replaced by the word 'balance' and 'normal'.  Catholics must be normal.  For instance, we old SSPX priests say, "You women, have fifty kids.  Babies, babies, babies and babies!"  Now they say, "Be balanced, you can space the chldren with a little bit of NFP.  Don't be extreme."  And they say, "You are a Catholic, but don't show your Faith in front of everyone like an idiot."  And then holiness disappears.

The last to go - Faith.

We did not arrive where we are today, overnight.  Of course, during this time there were many, many priests pushing all four marks; not everyone is corrupt.  There was still much good being done during this time.  But, the official movement of the Society is going away from the good, and it spreads and spreads until now it is official and we accept it.

We used to say in America in the old days to the ladies, "You must wear dresses every day - no jeans.  You don't dress like the world."  But now SSPX priests are saying, (many of them), that that is a bit extreme.  They say that we Americans are too strict on these things, that ladies should be normal and wear their jeans.

I was in Germany in 2004 when my German cousin was dying of brain cancer.  I went to visit her and while I was there I said Mass at the local Society of Saint Pius X chapel.  I was walking to say the Mass and I saw a German girl with the man-trousers and the short hair and I thought, 'Ugh, another lesbian,' and I kept walking.  She was walking behind me.  I went down the next street and she was still behind me.  I went into the chapel and she was still behind me!  I went into the sacristy - she was still behind me!  She was the sacristan!  For our church!  That would not have been allowed before.

Q&A:

Q: How can we explain that Bishop Tissier does not want an agreement but is still on their side?

A:  Bishop Tissier told Father Chazal, in August, he agrees with what we say, but he thinks we are wrong with speaking out publicly because it may cause a division in the Society.  He cannot imagine a division in the Society because his whole life is the Society.  He founded it.

Q: So the Society is more than the Faith?

A: That's the problem.  But he doesn't see that.  He's hoping a miracle will come and save it.  Also, the Bishop did say to Father Chazal, "We bishops and superiors, we are the captains, you are just a soldier, you wait for us to say when to charge."  Father Chazal said, "When the shepherd will not fight the dog is the next line of resistance and we will keep barking until you decide to come and join us."  I think Bishop Tissier has a disconnection between his mind and his heart.  He sees very clearly the problem but he can't make himself go against Bishop Fellay even though he does not like him.

And Father Ortiz told us that when he was in the seminary, about thirty years ago, there were liberal professors in Rome and the French seminarians were afraid to speak, but the South American seminarians, of which he was one, were furious.  So Bishop Tissier (who was Father Tissier at the time), came and visited the seminary because there were problems.  They told Father Tissier, "This professor is liberal, he is teaching Modernism, he must be thrown out."  Father Tissier said, "He wouldn't say something bad, you just obey him."  Nothing was done.  But, at the end of the year Archbishop Lefebvre came.  The same seminarians went to him and they told him, "Your professors are teaching Modernism."  He closed the seminary and moved everybody back to Econe.  He saw, he heard, he took action.  But Father Tissier had said, "Oh no, no, don't worry just do as they say."

Q: What explanation would you give for Bishop de Galerreta?

A: Bishop de Galerreta never seemed to be against the deal because it is against the Faith, he only thought that it was a bad prudential judgement.  So his opposition was never all that strong.  His focus was more, "I don't trust them, I think they're bad people," rather than on the Faith.  That's why a few months ago at the Villepreux conference in France he changed completely.  But I don't think it was a complete change, I think he was a bit that way already.  I think Bishop de Galarreta was the main underminer at the General Chapter because the main priests, Father de Cacqueray, Father Fort, Father Morgan and others, were completely against a deal with Rome.  Bishop de Galarreta became their friend against the liberals and instead of saying, "No deal with Rome," he said, "This part is very bad but it'll be ok if we have good conditions."  So they began to argue about the conditions and not about the deal.  We call it the hijacking of the resistance.  Maybe intentional, maybe not intentional, but that doesn't matter.

Q: What did Bishop Fellay do to bring about this change in the Society?

A: First of all the purpose - his goal - I believe, is to convert Rome from the inside.  But he has a problem; SSPX people don't want to go inside.  How does he change that?  By changing the superiors.  Those are the ones that elect the superior general, they're the ones that guide the apostolate.  He put the men with the same ideas in positions of power.  He has had eighteen years to do that.

Q: Why did you take so long to make the decision to speak out?

A: I have seen the signs of corruption in the Society for many years but I always thought it was a moral corruption.  For instance, the anti-Apostolic can just be laziness, but now I think it was not laziness, there was a plan.  But if it was laziness that is a normal weakness we have to fight.  So I used to think that the anti-Catholic and anti-Holy in the Society was just a weakening because of the attacks from the modern world and the result of normal corruption, not because the superiors were slowly trying to push this.  As Father Chazal says, in May of 2012, the mask came off, and I made my final decision to stand up no matter what upon reading the July 14th, 2012, declaration.  Before that I preached against the deal, but only so the people present would know.  But since July 14th, it's war.

Q: Do you think the rupture between Bishop Williamson and the other three Bishops could be a false, planned rupture.

A:  No, No.  One reason for that - you know Bishop Williamson, he is very innocent.  We hate to use the word, but like naive.  He believes everybody.  It's actually part of his greatness.  There is no way he would ever be involved in a "conspiracy".  And if he tried it wouldn't work, he'd be like Mr Bean!