Here is my five minute contribution. This picks up where Obscurus left off. There are a couple of places I couldn't understand.

This man now is a cardinal, the one who sabotaged the Pope. I know the same person who did another sabotaged, well many. He just hijacked a decision of the Pope who had to be transmitted to the Prefect of the Liturgy. You see, you have to understand how Rome works. When the Pope decides something, it does not go directly to the persons; it goes through the Secretary of State. But, if you receive a letter from the Pope, it will have gone through the Secretary of State. If you write a letter to the Pope, it goes through the Secretary of State. There are some bypasses, but you must be well-placed to get them. In a sense, it is impossible to get straight to the Pope. And even for decisions of the Pope inside the Vatican, they go through the Secretary of State. And so, you have people in the Secretary of State who block the decisions of the Pope and don’t transmit that. I have, once again, several examples of that, so it is something I know.

This I tell you so that you may have a background of what is going to happen. So, I know that the Pope would like to do something with us. I know that he is very attached to the Council. Very. You read the audience in 2005, the point which impressed me the most was how inconceivable it was for the Pope to have a Catholic who would reject the Council. It was so strong that in the little letter which I wrote to thank him for the audience, I had to mention that I didn’t agree with him about the Council. <…> no, we don’t accept that.

So, we have discussions. In two years, we have doctrinal discussions in Rome. These discussions, they were interesting and very frustrating at least for us, for our people. We really had the impression that they did not listen to what we said. They had just to <…> and that’s it. And the end of the discussions were pretty hot because they told us, “you are Protestants,” and we answered them, “you are modernists.” That’s the way the discussions finished. As a matter of joke, I said, “Well, we came to one point of agreement with Rome and that is that there is no point where we agree.” Just to say; and so they know that.

And, Cardinal Levada is inviting me, this is in June, is inviting me for a meeting in September, on the 14th of September. And, he says, it’s for an evaluation of the discussions. And he adds, and also to evoke some perspective for the future. But, clearly, the main topic will be the discussions, and evaluation of the discussions. So, we arrived there.

About the discussions, they said, maybe it took 3 minutes, maybe 5, but very, very short. What did they say about the discussions? They said, the discussions have reached the end, the purpose was fulfilled which was for you to expose clearly your position, that’s it.

Is it good? Is it bad? Nothing. Just, you were able to expose how you think. That’s all. And then, then the proposal. Rome is going to give you canonical status and you sign this declaration. The name was “Preamble”.

And what is in this preamble? …

Thank you, dear mater dominici. God bless.

I 've had an idea that only a native english speaking people can try, to be quicker in translating :

1. go on google translate with the audio option (voice input):
http://translate.google.com/
I hope that on your screen, you'll see the same thing as me, that is a little microphone icon on the left, in the left rectangle. (check that "english" or "anglais" is selected on the top of this left rectangle. Do nothing with the right rectangle, because we don't need it.

2. Listen to one sentence of Bp Fellay on a other page of your computer and memorize it. Then click on "stop"

3. In front of a microphone plugded in your computer or integrated in it, repeat  this sentence, after having cliked on the little microphone of google translate inside of the left rectangle... You should see the english sentence that is writing itself when you speak. When you get silent, google audio automatically stop, but the sentence is written.

Quote from: Sede Catholic

...Read the last paragraph ...

Okay, so I read that paragraph, and got a bad case of déjà vu.  Are we sure this is a new talk?  Sounds like the same recycled talk he's been giving for the last 12 years.  One reason he is, as someone said, "an almighty bore" is that he's been giving the same 3 hour conference for the last 12 years.  It does get a bit boring after the 3rd or 4th time...  

Wake me up when he gets to any new parts.

Commentary:

1) The purpose of the talks is not to present you with new information.
2) The purpose is to continually keep the idea of a Roman agreement in your mind.
3) The BREC fears you will lose interest in an agreement.
4) That is why these tours about Roman updates, with nothing new to say, have persisted since BREC began.
5) They are a conditioning tool designed to create within you a desire for union with apostates.
6) This is admittedly my own unfounded theory.
7) But I see no other gain for Menzingen in perpetually sending District Superiors on speaking tours about Roman updates that reveal nothing new.
8) Of course, there is now little to no opportunity to ask questions at these conferences.
9) Which further supports my theory that they are mere conditioning tools.

PS: Has Bishop Fellay ever acknowledged the existence of BREC, or taken any means to destroy it?  

I listened to almost the entire shpeal last night.  It sounded like a kid who kept making excuses for having his hand in the cookie jar.  

We had a short question and answer section in our church bulletin yesterday, may have been a "Pastors Corner" excerpt, this also had the same tone of trying to justify an attempted deception.  Like the kid n the cookie jar, had he not gotten caught, he'd have eaten the cookie and smiled all the while.  Since he got caught the stuttering justifications begin.

I heard no explanation for the expulsion of H.E. Bishop Williamson.  I heard no justification for his rude and uncharitable reply to the very legitimate and charitable concerns of the other three SSPX bishops. I did not hear him condemn his popular video interview where he states that he was miss quoted regarding Religious Liberty (just a very minor misinterpretation / misunderstanding).  I did not hear him explain why years ago he said VII was a poisoned soup...the entire thing must be thrown out and now 95% of VII is acceptable. I didn't hear him explain how ABL had gotten the modernists and VII wrong for so many years, and how he has suddenly become so enlightened as to contradict the teachings of ABL.  I heard no condemnation of the beatification of Paul VI (ABL would have been shouting from the roof tops), this list could go on and on....

He once again put on his kind, gentle, and almost fatherly demeanor...I wouldn't have been surprised if he even had a tear in his eye as he spoke.  However, this no longer matches his actions nor the words he speaks when he thinks no one will hear (I.e. reply to 3 Bishops).

As they use to say in the old movies "The Jig is Up!"  You can see right through the Cheshire cat smile.  The only hope for the SSPX is to oust their current leadership, begin preaching once more, against the dangers of modernism and the modernists, and PRAY that the faithful will once again trust them!

I listened to almost the entire shpeal last night.  It sounded like a kid who kept making excuses for having his hand in the cookie jar.  

We had a short question and answer section in our church bulletin yesterday, may have been a "Pastors Corner" excerpt, this also had the same tone of trying to justify an attempted deception.  Like the kid n the cookie jar, had he not gotten caught, he'd have eaten the cookie and smiled all the while.  Since he got caught the stuttering justifications begin.

I heard no explanation for the expulsion of H.E. Bishop Williamson.  I heard no justification for his rude and uncharitable reply to the very legitimate and charitable concerns of the other three SSPX bishops. I did not hear him condemn his popular video interview where he states that he was miss quoted regarding Religious Liberty (just a very minor misinterpretation / misunderstanding).  I did not hear him explain why years ago he said VII was a poisoned soup...the entire thing must be thrown out and now 95% of VII is acceptable. I didn't hear him explain how ABL had gotten the modernists and VII wrong for so many years, and how he has suddenly become so enlightened as to contradict the teachings of ABL.  I heard no condemnation of the beatification of Paul VI (ABL would have been shouting from the roof tops), this list could go on and on....

He once again put on his kind, gentle, and almost fatherly demeanor...I wouldn't have been surprised if he even had a tear in his eye as he spoke.  However, this no longer matches his actions nor the words he speaks when he thinks no one will hear (I.e. reply to 3 Bishops).

As they use to say in the old movies "The Jig is Up!"  You can see right through the Cheshire cat smile.  The only hope for the SSPX is to oust their current leadership, begin preaching once more, against the dangers of modernism and the modernists, and PRAY that the faithful will once again trust them!

Just one point to be fair, Bp. Fellay was clearly against the beatification of Paul VI. He cited the example of Paul VI's mother being buried in a masonic tomb (a bit odd that a Pope's mother would be buried with a tomb full of masonic symbols) and also then Msgr. Montini's betrayal of Pope Pius XII with regards to the Communists. Not sure what talk you listened to. By listening to the audio one fails to perhaps grasp the nuances of the talk. Nevertheless, your other points were well made.

Well done to everyone who has transcribed so far. I am intending to put the entire text on our website when it is complete, so people can see for themselves, and refer to it all in one place. An article about it will also probably appear at some point.

Please don't anyone take this as a riticism, just an attempted helpful suggestion: it would be helpful for future reference if comments were kept to a minimum or made in the other thread, to make it easier for people to find the different segments of transcription without having to wade through all the comments.

I hope to post some more transcription here soon. God bless all of you.

TR

Thanks Obscurus for pointing that out about Paul VI.  I must have missed it.  God Bless!

You're welcome!

Thanks Obscurus for pointing that out about Paul VI.  I must have missed it.  God Bless!

I'ts in the last half hour, at minute 1:24:00

Well done to everyone who has transcribed so far. I am intending to put the entire text on our website when it is complete, so people can see for themselves, and refer to it all in one place. An article about it will also probably appear at some point.

Please don't anyone take this as a riticism, just an attempted helpful suggestion: it would be helpful for future reference if comments were kept to a minimum or made in the other thread, to make it easier for people to find the different segments of transcription without having to wade through all the comments.

I hope to post some more transcription here soon. God bless all of you.

TR

I agree - it would be better to keep this thread for posting transcripts and
use the other thread for posting comments and discussion.