To be fair, Dan Rather appears to be praising the ex-Catholic priest Ed Flavahan also.

Dan Rather, freemason.

One of his early freemasonic temporal rewards
was the sudden elevation of his news media career for lying to the American public about the Kennedy assasination.

The American public was banned from viewing the incredible Zapruder film which captured the ghastly mechanics of the murder.

Zapruder film

Dan Rather was one of the "masonic elite" selected to view the film and report to the American public what he saw.  
Rather lied by saying the fatal shot had knocked President Kennedy forward from his seat.

Rather News broadcast:

Just the opposite was true. The final shot violently pushed President Kennedy back into his seat, meaning the shot was fired at his face, not his back.  

It was necessary for the ʝʊdɛօ-freemasons to cover-up this evidence which would immediately disprove that Oswald was the lone assassin, shooting from behind, at the book depository.

This is the incredible "big lie" the Warren Commission sold America on the murder of their beloved president.

In conclusion, Bp. Fellay never should have let himself to be interviewed
by freesmason Dan Rather.  It was a cheap publicity stunt once again demonstrating that Bp. Fellay is surrounded by amateur con man.

Yes, Father mentioned some of that too.

Archbishop Lefebvre never spoke to the media?  

Our Lord never spoke to the Scribes, Pharisees, Samaritans, Romans, etc?  

"So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." [Matthew 5:16]

The whole point of not talking to the media is that the media is "satans tool" and to open up to a high ranking freemason exposes either extreme stupidity or so much pride that he will do whatever it takes to "make history" as Father Pfeiffer says (the "make history" part)

Yes, the Archbishop opened up to the media but he never did so in order to suck up to his enemies. He was always strong. Very strong with his words and actions.

BF is not a baby with the media, actually, he's quite slick...............

I can't believe this is getting by.

Inappropriate or factually incorrect text is struck out...

Father Pfeiffer told us a few days ago about the high ranking Freemason, Dan Rather, who interviewed Bishop Fellay and the SSPX on his television program. He said if a HIGH RANKING FREEMASON IS PRAISING THE SSPX THEN SOMETHING'S WRONG!!!  Well, it costs $2.00 to watch it so I didn't want to waste my money but I did copy and paste their advertisement...here it is...:

HDNet’s “Dan Rather Reports” Examines the Church’s Return To Conservative Catholicism

December 07 2010 12:23 PM EST


 
Is the Pope supporting a movement to bring the Church back to pre-Vatican II practices? – TONIGHT, Tuesday, December 7 at 8:00 p.m. ET
 
DALLAS (December 7, 2010) – Tonight, “Dan Rather Reports” investigates some subtle changes – and some not so subtle – that may indicate a conservative shift in the Roman Catholic Church. Is Pope Benedict the XVI supporting these changes, or simply trying to heal rifts within the Church itself?

[-- Why does it have to be one or the other? The subtle message here is that
these changes are not the way to heal rifts within the Church, and B16 is
mistaken for attempting to do so. The subliminal lesson being perpetrated here
is that he ought to be getting MORE LIBERAL to "heal" rifts within the Church,
because everyone knows that progressivism makes progress toward a "bright,
big, beautiful tomorrow..."]
 

In the 1960s, under Pope John XXIII, and Pope Paul VI, the Second Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II made changes to the Roman Catholic liturgy including conducting Mass in the native vernacular, instead of Latin, and allowing priests to face the congregation. These changes made it look as if a new, more liberal view would shape the Church in the coming years.

[-- The Second Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican: not a big leap from "The
Council." It would properly be known, for now anyway, as the "twenty-first
Ecuмenical Council, or Vatican II." To capitalize "Second Ecuмenical Coucil of the Vatican" makes it look like that's the official title. But is it?]

[-- You see, Vatican II in fact did no such thing. It did not "make changes in the
liturgy," but merely provided the weak excuse to start making changes. The
changes came in the WAKE of the Council, and at every turn the wreckovationists
had to claim they had authority to "demolish the bastions of the Church" (words
of Benedict XVI, erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger) because it was "according to the
spirit of Vatican II." If I had a dollar for every time I heard that phrase, I'd be
rich. Vatican II did not teach to have Mass in the vernacular instead of Latin. It
does have text that weakly allows for that as a possiblitily, but it specifically
gives the primary use of Latin first position, and it does not give the vernacular
such a place. Once again it was "according to the spirit of Vatican II" that the
vernacular was introduced, even during the summer of 1964, after John XXIII
died of stomach cancer and JFK was shot. The big magic trick of satan was that
this was actually the "unclean spirit of Vatican II!" There is absolutely nothing
in the docuмents of Vat. II about the priest turning to face the congregation (for
the normal position during Mass). These changes were not made as PART of Vat.
II specifically, but came as a consequence to the "spirit of Vatican II" that
erupted therein. And it was these changes AS A RESULT OF and IN ACCORD
WITH THE UNCLEAN SPIRIT of Vat. II that were to shape the Church in the
coming years. Make no mistake about it!]

However, it seems as if lately, and somewhat quietly, the Church is slowly becoming more conservative under Pope Benedict XVI.

[Translation: it is highly disappointing to liberal progressives that any gradual,
natural and inexorable movement of the Church BACK to Tradition would be
"quiet," because then they can't complain that it's "noisy" or "strident" or
"pompous" or "triumphalist" or "shrill" or "outspoken" or "obnoxious" or "loud"
or "bombastic" or "overbearing" or "heavy-handed" or "abusive" or
"megaphonic" or whatever other adjectives they scare up in their dark, smoke-
filled back rooms.]
 

One of the bigger indicators of this shift is the Vatican bringing a group called “The Priestly Society of St. Pius X,” (or SSPX) back into the fold.

[-- No, the SSPX never has been "out of the fold!" It's Modernist Rome that has
abandoned the Sacred Traditions of the Church! It's Modernist Rome that needs
to be converted, and "brought back into the fold!"]

The group was excommunicated in the 1980's for being too conservative in their practices after Vatican II.

[-- No, that's impossible. No one can be "excommunicated for being too
conservative." That's not an offense against the Church. On the other hand, the
SSPX was not really excommunicated at all. It was all smoke and mirrors.
Therefore, the word should be replaced with something else, like "persecuted,"
or "attacked," or "made the object of illicit discrimination."]

Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the SSPX tells Dan Rather in a rare television interview his thoughts on Vatican II.

[-- Superior General is the proper term, that you should rather use, Rather.]
 

“And the result is there. The fruits are there. It’s a disaster. The Church now, in many countries is not far from collapse,” said Fellay.

[--Well said, Your Excellency.]
 

However, there are others who had hoped the changes of Vatican II would present a Church that was more liberal and less tied to ancient dogma.

[--No, that would be there are "liberals and heretics" who had hoped, etc.]

Former Catholic Priest Ed Flavahan is one of those who are disappointed with the Church’s shift.
 
“There are a lot of people who are angry at the Catholic Church and the hierarchy and its solemn pronouncements and they’re being driven from the Church,” Flavahan tells Rather. “I want to be with these people even if it means being called an outcast.”

[There will always be discontents who denounce solemn pronouncements. But
curiously, there haven't really been any truly solemn pronouncements since
October 11th, 1962, at the Opening Speech of Vatican II. So I have no idea why
this guy's upset about solemn pronouncements. Maybe for him 1950 is much too
recent for an ex-cathedra definition?]
 

However, some Church experts believe that the reinstatement of the leadership of SSPX is simply the Pope’s attempt to repair schisms to create a more united Church.

[-- No, there is no "schism" with the SSPX, and the Church is ONE already. The
Church always has been ONE, and always will be ONE. Unity is one of the 4 marks
of the Church. Without unity or oneness, the thing to which you refer cannot be
the Church in the first place, Mr. Rather.]
 

Should Catholics expect a return to the days before Vatican II? Find out tonight on HDNet.

Now, this is a hoot! Where were these guys warning and worrying and anticipating
the next innovation to come down the pike after Vatican II? Where have they
been instead of covering abuses like the Neo-Catechumenal Way, or Focolare,
or "charismatic liturgies" or "healing masses" or Assisi I, II and III? Why is it
that some return to Tradition that MIGHT be coming soon could be news???

Why do we have to rely on obscure sources or reliable small-scale sources to
get any coverage of these corrupting influences? If it wasn't for CFN and John
Vennari, or perhaps Traditio, where would we find the rap sheets if not for them?

I hope I don't have to answer that question...............  :soapbox:
Th

",,,Do you think Fr. Pfeiffer has the gift of reading souls?  Last I spoke to him he couldn't read mine..."

Oh, I think he probably did, just like we're reading yours loud and clear right now.

Point one: Bishop Williamson granted an interview to a group he had no affiliation with.

Point two: Freemason dupes like Mr. Rather are rolled in front of a camera when the Lodge needs to lend some street cred to a story.

Do the Math.

*