I regret that my attempt to produce a thoroughly intelligible translation of Bishop de Gallaretta’s critique has finished in an irrecoverable crash.

Nevertheless, the exercise has convinced me that this Bishop will remain firmly against any compromise with modernist Rome.

Some of the comments made above appear to be somewhat dismissive of the critique, for example, the fact that it contains many quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre, and the fact that things have moved on since the text was first presented to the meeting at Albano. But surely this latter is a typically-modernist attitude. Nothing that is worth saying truly goes out of date, and insofar as the Bishop has got to the root of the matter at hand, what he has said remains valid.

It seems to me that the text was thoughtfully put together, and the quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre were intended as a powerful reminder to the clergy of the SSPX of the reason that they exist.

From what I have read in this text, I believe it is a safe bet that Bishop de Gallaretta (quiet man though he may be) is not a man for turning, and that he will remain opposed to any deal designed to amalgamate the SSPX with the Conciliar Church.

Check out here for a translation and summary in pdf file format:

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10068&st=0&#last

Bad translation!!!

Examples:


It is as if the time of Arianism had been told, now you agree with all that think the Arian bishops.


One may wonder if we did not want to Rome, thereby correcting the text of the Protocol.


They are likely to sign these docuмents to the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and priests of the Fraternity, which will then be obliged to make an official act of rallying to the conciliar Church.


Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had before-the sacred-initiated conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5 May 1988?



Following the proposal Roman, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" agreement first practice?



The problem is not the subjective intentions, but objective, clear, the observation that we have just made their desire:



Therefore what can be appears as a concession is actually a ploy to reach away from us as possible to the faithful.



How then do not go against the defense and public confession of faith, against the public need protection the faithful and the Church?



We can not do it either ignores the context, that is to say, events and constant teachings in the life of the Church today: repeated visits to Protestant churches and ѕуηαgσgυєs, beatification (soon to be canonized) by Jean Paul II, III Sitting, preaching time and inconvenience of religious freedom, and a long etcetera.






Please pass the asprin.

Quote from: Wessex

Well, Bp. Tissier was uncompromising in his Confirmations sermon in Idaho about the "heretical perversion of the new religion". And Bp. Williamson is being excluded because of his well-known position. The remaining bishop surely has to stick with what he has written, making the three a formidable opposition if they have a joint strategy to circuмvent Menzingen's tactics.

That's the point.

There's no indication that Bishop de Galarreta abandoned the formal and united position of the three bishop's letter from 7 April 2012 against an agreement with New-Rome.
On the contrary there's recent sources (aprox one week ago) who confirm that Bishop de Galarreta also today opposes any practical agreement with New-Rome.

So, let's see.


By the way, dear Wessex, do you as Englishman in the land of the brave British SSPX district have any hint or information about the question if Bishop Williamson will ignore the illegal expulsion from the General Chapter?

Perhaps the two can present Bishop Williamson's vote by proxy?