Neil: The reason that I used the book as an example was that Frere Michel specifically made mention of a Swedish Intelligence agent who brought photos and docuмentation to Pope Pius XII. Available from www.fatima.org is the trilogy of Frere Michel (The Whole Truth About The Third Secret of Fatima. The third volume expends info on this matter.
     Now  the reason: +Fellay stated that it  was a French agent but it was rather a Swedish agent. Roncalli was not  "brought in" for the sake of merely laying  groundwork for Montini as another member posted. Roncalli (33rd degree from his time in Paris) apparently replaced another conclave member at the behest of B'nai Brith and his "usefulness" (goyim) was to call the VII with further plans therewith; yes, Roncalli "red-hatted" Montini and we all know what he as a freemasonic - agent  Destroyer accomplished.

                  Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!

 Quote from Neil:


Thank you, drivocek.  I recall hearing Malachi Martin explain that some woman
who was a well-known housekeeper in the Vatican was heard explaining to
someone else that the reason Roncalli was elected Pope even though he was
not well and not expected to live long, was so that he could make it possible
for Montini to be elected after all, even though he had been "exiled to Milan."  
I think it may be in one of his books, such as Windswept House, not sure.


 

This is just one of many contradictions in Rome that Bp. Fellay exposes.

He's been exposing such contradictions in Rome (in that same recycled talk) for years now.  Which begs the question, if Rome is so unreliable, how could you trust them to make any kind of agreement with them?   And if the Pope is so powerless against liberal Cardinals and bishops, how is the Pope who is allegedly so supportive of the SSPX supposed to resist these same bishops when they oppose the SSPX?   None of it makes any sense.

Quote from: Geremia

This is just one of many contradictions in Rome that Bp. Fellay exposes.

He's been exposing such contradictions in Rome (in that same recycled talk) for years now.  Which begs the question, if Rome is so unreliable, how could you trust them to make any kind of agreement with them?   And if the Pope is so powerless against liberal Cardinals and bishops, how is the Pope who is allegedly so supportive of the SSPX supposed to resist these same bishops when they oppose the SSPX?   None of it makes any sense.

Exactly! Read then Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts to the bishops of Chile right after the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations. The Pope has NOT changed his thinking regarding the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, the Second Vatican Council and the notion of Tradition. On that alone I am amazed that Bishop Fellay would try to "work" with these Romans. Are they modernists? Yes or No? If they are, then how can you agree on anything?

In the conference, Bishop Fellay never once says that the Pope is a modernist. His fellow bishop, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, had some rather strong words about this Pope. Simply read "Faith Imperiled by Reason." So we are left to believe that the Pope is really a friend of Tradition even though under Bp. Fellay's own admission he is still attached to the Council? Talk about a contradiction!

Also, the whole talk is full of conjecture or unsubstantiated incidents which Bishop Fellay says we should trust are true because he says so. I found the conference, "interesting" (lol) on some points but by and large a political talk used simply to justify his misguided actions. It is very, very different from the substantive talks that the other bishops have given.

Regarding the modernists in Rome, as someone said, it is a "dialogue of the deaf."

I fixed a few things in this, from an earlier post...

There is another thread with more transcription segments for those interested.


Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX
OLMC Conference
Dec. 28th 2012
Feast of the Holy Innocents

Beginning minute 1:07:00

…
1:07:00
It means their seminary was a tragedy, and which Mass did they have at their seminary? The new mass.  [smile audible] So you see, [smacks lips] uuhh, what is going to happen in the future now?  I don’t know.  I say, “Be ready.”  Can be.. can be nyep again.  We know that. Uhh, excommunication.  Will it really happen or not?  I think so long as the Pope is alive, I hardly believe it, but.. I really don’t know.  If they manage to convince him that we are really against the Council, it could happen.  It think it could happen.  

And, I may say well, in any case, that’s the way they treat us, in any case, now, already  now:  they treat us – as excommunicated.  That’s the situation.  So it doesn’t change anything for us, so I say:  “Don’t fear.”  We know it, we know what it [big chuckle] means.  And uh [smacks lips] I’d say, that’s not what is moving us.  What is moving us is the salvation of the souls.  We know that going the way that the Church goes now, thousands and millions of souls get lost.  That’s what we don’t want!  That’s why we want the Church to come back to its tradition.  And we know that one day it will happen – how, when, this is really not in our hands.  We have to do our job, our duty.  The rest is in the hands of God.  

1:09:00
Will it last long?  Will it be short?  I have seven ideas.  But they are pure opinion and perspective.  What I see, is that those that are really STICKING to the Council are those who made it, and those who implement[ed] it.  That means:  the OLDER generation – those who are in power now.  But I see is that they are not followed.  The younger generation, they don’t follow that way.  A very interesting.  I can [can’t?] understand that, because they don’t have this uhh [smacks lips] uhh, how do you say? uhh, effective relation.  The Council, for the younger generation, is not their baby.  The Council for them, it’s something that happened in the last MILLENIUM.  So WAY IN THE PAST – what they see, what they experience is a disaster situation of the Church, a ruin.  And they’re not happy with that!  They’re frustrated, and so they tried to look for something, and when they see and they hear about Tradition, they are very interested – and I see these, already now.  I can really tell you, we have priests, in the modern, who really are serious, really serious, and who want, and who question the Council.  I got men, several messages of that type.  

Even more amazing, I saw somewhere a reflection, it was a [recording skips] Eng-ish uhh, pastor who said, “That’s amazing.  But about a half of the new seminarians they have a relation with the old Mass.  And French priest, [skips] I said to him, “Well, you know, that’s about the same in France.”  Well, in France, if you look at the situation now, this year, for example, ten percent of the newly ordained French [priests] are of the Society.  The Society is already representing today, if you look at the new ordination, 10% of all the [ordinations] of France.  If you add to this, those who are ordained by, if you say, Ecclesia Dei and so on, you come to more than ¼, twenty-five percent.  That means that the bishops are losing control on, at already now, a quarter of the Church in France [big smile audible].  And their figgers (figures) are dramatic.  The average age in France for the [priests] is above 70.  More than half of the [priests] in France are above 75.  You can calculate as you want.  In 5 years, that will mean they are above 80.  Because you have no younger coming.  That means we are in front of a COL-LAPSE! – of the Church in France.  It’s so serious, that the [bishops] have already prepared a shrinking of the dioceses for 2,015 by 1/3 ….. 1/3 of France wwwhhhhtt – wiped out of the map!  That’s the situation.

1:13:00
They are sterile!  And I may say you find the same figgers (figures) with a little bit of difference of time everywhere.  Dioceses of Rome: how many ordinations for the diocese of Rome, [priests] from the place – how many, in one year?  ONE.  One only priest in the diocese of Rome!  

Take Island [Ireland].  They have less than ten seminarians for the whole Island new seminarians.  We have more than …

This is the situation of the Church.  Istying. (It’s dying.)  And so, you have, that’s perfectly understandable:  the younger generation, they’re not happy with that!  Of course they are not.  What is interesting, we start to have now bishops, bishops who think that we are right.  They don’t appo – open the mouth.  Because [big giggle] it’s too danger for them [dangerous for them], they know.  But even if they open the mouth, wwwhhhhtt! They be never, they be [de]capitated.  Do you know it goes so far, one of these [bishops] directly ask[ed] me, he say [said], I want to say the Tridentine Mass every day, but if I do so, I will not be able to stain [stay in] my diocese.  So what should I do?  Stain my diocese, trying to do some good there, or, leave my diocese and say the Tridentine Mass?*i  Well, I answered him, “Well, do both!  That means, say the Mass every day, and stay in your diocese and try to do the good there.  Big fight, well, anyway, uuhh.  

We have now, a number of priests, of bishops, it’s new, but it’s real, it’s true!  Once again, they may not be courageous enough to speak out*ii but it’s true.  Because the situation is still very, very difficult.*iii   This is increasing.  It’s very interesting.*iv  They are not the majority, no?  But if you compare 5 years ago, it’s an ENORMOUS PROGRESS!  And I find them a little bit every-where [pronounced as two words].  When Father Schtilling (sp?) uhh, gave a conference in Rome last autumn, four bishops asked him to preach their retreat for their priests, in their [dioceses].  Seven of these bishops learned to say the Tridentine Mass.  Some from Central America, some from Africa, some from Asia [smile audible].  It’s coming, it’s little by little.  It is coming.  It’s a big fight, and we are in this fight and we must not abandon this fight.  Of course, we must not burn ourselves.*v  One must be very, very prudent.  No doubt about that.  But we have to foster this movement.  You see?  This Church is the Catholic Church, it’s OUR Church!  It’s sick, full of sickness, yes?*vi   So, be prudent.*vii   We are not going to abandon the Church – no!  If someone is sick in your family, you don’t say, “Get lost!”  It’s your father!  He’s sick!  You take care of him!  You don’t let him, say I don’t want anything to do with you – no!*viii  

And the same with the Church!  It’s OUR Church!  It’s sick, we pray for it, we do what we can.  We try not to be burned, once again [smile is audible].  So we take our.. our.. our.. precautions.  We must – there’s no other way?*ix  Now, when will the time come?  This is very difficult to answer.  I frankly, personally, I don’t think that these [this is] possible until the head is in our favor.  Because the fight is too, too heavy.  And the head, that means the Pope, must be absolutely convinced of the necessity of Tradition.  The fight might continue in the Church, but as long as we don’t have that, I don’t see really any concrete, serious possibility to go ahead, because it’s too dangerous, too dangerous.  We have many enemies, many enemies.  But look and that’s very interesting. Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society?  The ENEMIES of the Church.  The Jews, the Masons, the [Modernists]!  The most opposed that the Society would be recognized as a Catholic:  the ENEMIES of the Church!  Interesting, isn’t it?  More than that, what was the point?  

1:19:00
What did they say to Rome?  They said, “You must oblige these people to accept Vatican II.  That’s also VERY interesting, isn’t it?  People whom [sic] from OUTSIDE the Church, who were clearly during centuries, were enemies of the Church, say to Rome, if you want  to accept these people, you MUST oblige them to accept the Council.  Isn’t that interesting?  Oh, it is!  I think it’s FANTASTIC!  Because it shows that Vatican II is THEIR THING!  Not the Church’s – THEY see, the ENEMIES of the Church see THEIR benefit in the Council.  Very interesting!  And so, I may say that’s the kind of argument we’re going to use with Rome.  Trying to make them reflect.. trying to make them reflect.  

I say, [smacks lips] the situation is not desperate, no.  It’s not worse than before.  Still the same.  There’s some hope.  I don’t think for right for now, but for us, we just continue.  This line, which has been so clearly given by Archbishop Lefebvre, which is so clear, this faithfulness to the past.*x  Is so, so balanced, and right;  we see all these fruits.  It’s undeniable, let’s continue, until better times.  Now how long will it last?  I don’t know!!  Some pretend that I said, that I don’t know if in four year, but I don’t know in how many years.  (There will be an agreement)*xi  – I have absolutely no idear!  The only thing I say is, first,,,,,,*xii agreement is not the right word.  But “recognition, normalization.”  We have a right:  we are Catholics and we have a right to that label.  But that does not mean that we are going to change our self to get it! [smile audible]*xiii  No,,,,,, we know that these [this] tradition is the future of the Church.  And so we must work that it comes back.  Do what we can.  We see that these [this] influence of the tradition ees [is] gaining.  Also isn’t this interesting? We are, we are making our point, little by little;  an example, look at this year, they tried to celebrate the fifty [years] of the Council.  Amazing to see how they feel obliged to justify themselves against our attacks.  They didn’t do that before.   Now they feel obliged to justify.  I give you another example which is little thing but is, can tell something.[smacks lips]  You know that just before he became a pope, Benedict XVI gave a Communion to a Protestant, to a Jose Schutz, it was at the funeral for John Paul II.  Cardinal Ratzinger went and gave Communion to Jose Schutz Taize (?).  Now, he said, a little bit later on, he said [smile audible] to his uuhh, to his people a little close to him, what were his thoughts [meaning to say he divulged the intentions he had held as he had given this Communion], and you know what, was he thinking about when he was giving this Communion to this Jose Schutz?  He said to them, to his close people [smile audible] I thought, “What’s the Society going to say?”*xiv   So you see, we are in his mind, his conscience, his BAD conscience.  HUHehunh. {mischievous chuckle)  It’s very interesting.  Very interesting to see that!  Because it shows, that say we, so to say we are there, we are GAINING in influence there.  That does not mean that everything is fine.  You probably heard that the very last days, now they have decided to make Paul VI a blessed.  To work for the beatification of Paul VI.  That’s UNBELIEVABLE!  Well again we PROTEST against that.*xv  

It’s wwwhhhh (air) well, the words are failing, it’s so incredible.  I give you just two facts, two facts:  One, the tomb of the mother of Paul VI, this is verified, so it’s not hearsay.*xvi   I did send someone to verify what I tell you now, and we took photos.  The tomb of the mother of Paul VI is a MAS-on-ic [Masonic] tomb.  With all the MAS-on-ic symbols.  It’s a fact.  How can a Pope allow his mother to have a MAS-on-ic tomb?  Should help people to reflect.  

Another one, even more serious.  We say, “even more serious.” And under Pius XII, you know you had Communist Russia, was persecuting the Catholics, and suddenly, someone said to the Pope, “You have a traitor in your house, in the Vatican, who is dealing with Moscow against you.”  Pius XII did not want to believe it.  But the person, who was the Lutheran bishop of Helsinki, gave the proof, provided the proof to Pius XII.  His proof were brought to the Pope by I may say, a secret agent, he was a French military, and this is all docuмented, it is not hearsay.*xvii   And so the Pope got the proof, that the traitor was the future Paul VI*xviii   When he knew that, he kicked him out of the Vatican and he made him the bishop of Milan.  So there, we’ve got Paul VI after John XXIII.*xix   And now they want to make him a “blessed.”*xx   Really?  You think, they, they have lost, I don’t know, all of  their mind.  It’s incredible, incredible.  My impression, that they try, they try to canonize,  they have tried to beatify all these popes that have brought in all these novelties – why?*xxi   Because they know they are [at] the end of their thing.  And they want to make like a mon-YOU-men [a monument] that will stay in the ages by CANONIZING all these things.*xxii   Now that’s my impression;  maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my impression once again.  Why insisting in making all of that, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, all Blessed:  WHY THAT?  [Good question!]  Why that?  If you start like that you can make saint everybody.  [Good point.]  

1:27:38
It’s really, they change the meaning of holiness.  John Paul II explained that, he said, “I want to make so many saints that, to show that the vocation to holiness is universal, that means that everybody is called to be a saint.”  Can be understood correctly.  But if you start to make everybody a saint, you canonize everybody, there’s something wrong somewhere.  

Now, just to show you that things are not well, that is to say, there is some hope somewhere;  I am not optimistic of this situation.*xxiii   If you want another example when we finish with this, an image of what kind of time do we have, or are we in.  At a certain moment, towards the end of winter, you see on the trees new buds, they just come out.  It’s a little thing there.  When you see that, you know, spring will come.  But you start to say, spring is there, people will tell you, hey, come on.  It’s winter!  It’s freezing!  It’s snowing!  It’s icy!  It’s windy!  Don’t say it’s spring!  It’s not true!  It’s winter!  And we say, “Both are right.  It’s still winter.”  And then I say, if you look at the situation in the Church, it’s still winter.  But we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming.  

And now we have a very, very, delicate moment.  These buds, they have a certain time they have to come out.  If they come out too quickly, they might be frozen, and the new flowers will be demolished.*xxiv   That’s why we have to be very, very prudent, before having these buds come out. [chuckle audible]  But I may say, that’s precisely where we are now.  That’s very delicate time between winter and spring.  There is hope for the Church, no doubt, but don’t be too optimistic, neither.  And we must keep this very prudent balance, very prudent balance;  trying to make things go forward, the same time not pushing ourselves in it, too far away;  or burning ourselves or killing ourselves.*xxv   So people who fear, I understand them, but we’re not going there.  No, no, we’re not.  We don’t want to demolish what we have done for 30-40 years.  That would be crazy, so we want to be, and we are certainly prudent.  No need to throw ourselves into impossible situation.  

But uhh, [smacks lips] we’re still in the fight, that’s all.  And continue to pray, to pray the Blessed Virgin Mary;  pray the Rosary!  It remains our, one of our main weapons.*xxvi   We must continue to defend the Faith.  Not change.  We have nothing to change.*xxvii   The faith is above time, what was true is true, and will be true.  We don’t need to change anything there, And, [smacks lips] well, one day the Lord will put again order in His Church.  We must not forget that. It’s His Church, and he remains the boss.  Our Lord is the boss. He’s in control.  This sometimes we forget.  There is nothing happening in, on the earth that would be out of control.*xxviii    Our Lord dared to say there is not one air [hair] that is falling from our head, without His permission.  Not one air.  So there is nothing happening on the earth, nothing, nothing evil, which could happen without the permission of God.  God is the master.  You may wonder, well why does He allow all these things?  Well, He knows.  [chuckles] He knows better than we why He does that.  But what we must remember, is that He didn’t put us in that situation, and God, whenever, the last temptation or trial, to happen, He provides the grace we need to face that situation, to win, to go through it and not to fail.  Remember that.  We are in difficult situation, yes, it’s true.  Every day is hard.  The world goes down;  it’s unbelievable what is happening there.  Nevertheless, God allows that first, and while allowing that, He keeps us wanting what we need to behave as Catholics today, to make our salvation today.  Don’t fear!  On the contrary, count on Him!  But put the price (?), pray.   Do your duty of state.  Be faithful to do your things.  But Our Lord promised that He will, He will give us the faith we need to be faithful in the great things.  He said it.  

And of course, go to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  It is clear that she has been given to us, especially for this time.  She’s our heavenly mother.  There is a little phrase which is impressive in Fatima:  “God has put in her hands the peace of nations.”*xxix  She’s really the queen:  the queen of heaven and earth, even the peace of nations is in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Not to speak about the peace, uuh, how do you say, the spiritual peace, the peace with God, the fight against the sin.  And so really stay close to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And this time I promise I finish, we will consecrate, we want to consecrate our Society to St. Joseph.  Why?  Because St. Joseph, he’s the patron of the Church.  He’s the protector of the Church.  And remember in Fatima, that’s also something very interesting [smile audible].  On the 13th of October, the Blessed Virgin Mary announced the miracle of the sun, and she said she would come and bless the earth with her Son, AND with St. Joseph,*xxx  with the Child Jesus, blessing the earth, on, when you had the miracle of the sun.  So you have the Blessed Virgin Mary, you have the Immaculate Heart of Mary?  Yes, that’s why I say the first part, the essential of the Message of Fatima, that you also have St. Joseph.  That’s he’s the patron, the protector of the Church, and that [in] this time that is so hard, we want to consecrate the Society, and all of you, all of us, to St. Joseph.  So to this we happen on the 19th of March, which is the Feast of St. Joseph, so I invite all of you to prepare, to prepare that date, to prepare that consecration.  We will, of course provide the ne-CES-sa-ry [necessary ~ NOT "accessory"] docuмent, for that, uuhh, for that great, great E-vent [event],

And so, well, in conclusion, the fight continues.  I may say nothing new, just fight continues, as ever before.  And so let’s finish by entrusting ourselves to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and I will give you the blessing [smile audible]*xxxi   Sal-ve Re-gi-na (Simple tone Gregorian Chant)…*xxxii
Sit donet Domini benedictum…
Adjutorium nostrum in nomini Domini
Benedixio Dei omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper.  Amen.
 



i  This is rich.  +Fellay should tell him the truth:  “Follow my example, and stop saying the true Mass, because that way you can be obedient to your superior.”

ii  Example:  Bishop Tissier, who is not courageous enough to speak out.  Is that what +Fellay is thinking?

iii  Yeah, he’s thinking about +de Mallerais, all right, for whom the situation is very, very difficult. Check.

iv  Absolutely.  Very interesting that YOU ARE MAKING IT INCREASE, because it is YOU who is making it very, very difficult for +de Mallerais, you who speak with forked tongue!

v  How not to abandon the fight:  keep expelling your best priests, who speak out against the errors of Vatican II, etc., and by all means do not burn yourselves – by showing the world that you are not afraid to punish even your own brother bishops who are opposed to your operation ѕυιcιdє!  Because giving the impression that you are not accommodating to the errors of the world would be burning yourselves.. NOT!

vi  He is giving us a list of reasons to NOT make any ‘deal’ with apostate Rome, which is full of sickness.

vii  Am I the only one waiting for a definition of their word, prudent?  Fr. Pfeiffer’s definition so far makes the best sense:  When you hear them say prudence, remember they’re talking about cowardice!

viii  Let me get this straight:  but when it’s your own brother bishop who you believe is “sick,” you throw him out on his ear, correct? – unless he conforms to your unreasonable demands of “Silence! Obedience!”

ix  Perhaps one may recall a recent papal dissemination regarding a particular form of “precautions?”

x  When I hear him say “clear…faithfulness to the past,” there is something that does not sound quite believable, somehow, it’s in the tone, pitch of voice:  saying words he does not believe, is my impression.

xi  The pace of his words is painfully slow, as if he’s afraid of making a mistake he will regret for two more years or whatever, but when he says, “There will be an agreement,” it is literally 4 times faster than normal.

xii  6 commas in a row indicates a PREGNANT pause because 6 is an imperfect number.

xiii  Is that why you’re kicking out all the priests and bishops who insist on keeping a firm grasp on the traditions that they have received from Apostolic Tradition, namely +ABL ~ which, curiously, is the same abbreviation that Latin grammar uses for the ablative declension, which may entail a passing on from antiquity.

xiv  He most likely was worried about what Bishop Richard Williamson was going to say, not +Fellay!

xv  If you protest against that, then why is your “protest” only heard here, when you are preaching to the choir, and, if +W puts any such thing in print you come crying bloody murder that he’s “disobedient?”

xvi  But what if someone reads this on the Internet, doesn't that make it a rumor?

xvii  But what if someone reads this on the Internet, doesn't that make it a rumor?

xviii  Sloppy scholarship:  if  Pius XII had been told this man would become a future pope, he would have taken much more serious measures than merely sending him to Milan, for crying out loud!

xix  But wait:  we also have S.G. +Fellay after S.G. Schmidberger!!  Isn’t that very interesting, too???

xx  Well, you won’t have to worry about that problem for yourself, because once you make your ‘deal’ and the Romans have had their way with you ~ ubi pervincerebunt vos, they will cast you off like you did +W.

xxi  What a hypocrite! This is precisely the same thing that the speaker has been doing to the Society – bringing in novelties! – and abandoning the principles of the Founder, which at the level of the S.G. is the same kind of imprudent action as it would be for the See of Peter to make an erroneous beatification.

xxii  Listen to the pot calling the kettle black!  What is +Fellay doing these days, if not trying to establish his own little Menzingen fiefdom in the history books, while he kicks out good priests right and left, and even his own, SENIOR bishop, +W, without a shred of real evidence, but only his pet, blanket accusations of “disobedience” when he has no jurisdiction whatsoever, and nothing objective to criticize, and that is docuмented.  Who is it, who is the worst of the lot?  Well, we would suppose it is those who have the higher office, the Pope and cardinals, but that does not mean the Society S.G. can do what he wants while criticizing the hierarchy above us all for the same kind of errors he himself perpetrates on the Church!

xxiii  Once again, +F is giving a list of reasons why the Society should NOT pursue any ‘deal’ with Rome, nor should it be taking steps to go soft on the errors of the unclean spirit of Vatican II.  But he pursues a ‘deal’ nevertheless, as though he has some kind of demented DEATH WISH for himself and all of us.

xxiv  He has a certain precision with his pronunciation of “demolished” that makes me convinced he has been practicing that word in private quite a bit lately, perhaps in regards to talking about Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson.  It’s so that he can describe convincingly to native English speakers what he has been doing.

xxv  I detect that same tone quality with “killing ourselves” that I do when he speaks the word “demolished.”

xxvi  But are we going to hear about the collective intention for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?  Why not?  Could it be that it’s because Fellay has fallen away from the real fight, even while he pretends to be “still in the fight?”  Could it be that he has become one of the False Friends of Fatima, who pay lip service to Our Lady, but no longer uses his office to promote the fulfillment of her most simple request?  Pray the Rosary, yes, but what about the Consecration?  What about even mentioning penance – oh, wait, right:  penance means putting more money in the Menzingen-collection.

xxvii  Now I’m really sorry but this is a damned LIE.  If there’s ‘nothing to change,’ then why did you expel +W?  He has certainly not changed anything.  Or Fr. Chazal or Fr. Cardozo or any of the others?  Who is doing the changing – WHILE YOU STAND HERE AND SAY THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE???

xxviii  That tone again, in that  “demolished” that “killing ourselves” now “out of control.”

xxix  And God has put IN YOUR HANDS, the power to call the world’s Catholics to offer their prayers, Rosaries, sacrifices for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and you could open your otherwise big mouth to utter the words… but ..  NNNOOOOOOOO!

xxx  ERROR.  Our Lady did NOT say that SHE would bless the earth.  She said that St. Joseph and her Son would bless the earth.  The Fatima children were even better at ecclesiology than +Fellay!  They explained to many tourists and questioning faithful that Our Lady would not give a blessing, but that it is the place of her Son and her husband and the priests to give the world blessings:  women do not give blessing to the world like priests do, or like the Pope and Bishops can do FOR RUSSIA!

xxxi  As he deliberately (how could it be otherwise) neglects to make any mention of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, made by the Pope and all the bishops of the world – he is a bishop, after all, would he even bother to join in?  For he has no jurisdiction to lose if he does not.  Oh, maybe if he makes the ‘deal’ FIRST, and then the Pope can threaten to rescind the ‘deal’ if +Fellay doesn’t join in the Collegial Consecration.  Yeah, that’s the ticket!  

xxxii  1:37 – A very slow tempo for the Gregorian Chant Salve Regina.  I guess music isn’t his first attribute either…





To help the CI reader see the indecies I have bolded them.  They were
not showing up otherwise, as the superscript function is not read by this
system.  Also, I have bolded all the phrases here that say "isn't it
interesting" or "that's fantastic" or "they are interested" or such, which
are obvious attempts to artificially inject enthusiasm into an otherwise
mundane and dry speech of little interest.  There are no less than fifteen
such attempts here in this segment of the conference, which is less than
1/4 of the whole.  Therefore there could easily be 3 or 4 times this many in
the entire content.  That would mean 50 vain attempts to make a dull and
dreary speech seem somehow "interesting."

It's rather alarming to me that so many people are oblivious to the smarmy
tactics and slovenly delivery habits that +Fellay uses.  If he were a
conservative activist fighting the good fight like this, the Liberals would be
all over his case, crying "FOUL!" but since he's promoting Liberalism,
basically, they give him a free pass.  It's up to us to pick up the slack.  



 :geezer: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!   :cheers:  :king:  <---------baby new year
   ^ Father Time

Uploaded by a modernist.

Yes, it is too bad an ex-seminarian of Bp. Williamson became so anti-Bp. Williamson, it seems. Oremus pro eum.

This information, I think, is very important for the mainstream Conciliar Catholics (who are conservative) to know. I appreciate such verifiable information as decisions regarding whether one should really be in the SSPX camp or wait are made on proofs rather than hearsay media reports from both sides.[color=darkblue][/color]

That's why it's one of our first major requirements that we will have our own jurisdiction of the faithful. And, amazingly, this point has been granted. Which means that our apostolate would be independent from the Bishops. That's why, in the conditions which have posed, er, during the chapter, you find this point in the less important - it's one of the major! - but as we already got it, we did not emphasise it, because we already have it, you see? That's not mean that it is less important. No! It's very important! Major! If we don't have it, no way, to, to go in...

Here we have, for the second time now from one of those present at the General Chapter, the suggestion that the 2012 General Chapter statement must be interpreted rather than simply read as written. Why is it that the (30?) top men of the Society can't produce a one-page statement which simply says what they mean for it to convey.

I'll say first here that this talk in NO WAY covers all which needs to be explained. There are NUMEROUS questions left unanswered for such an important time in SSPX history. Also, the very idea that a "no strings" agreement is a good idea is still contrary to the 2006 General Chapter declaration and the good sense of Archbishop Lefebvre.

However, given the picture Bp Fellay is attempting to paint in this talk, we reach a crucial point in this paragraph... a letter from the Pope himself.

It's the first time that the Pope does answer me, [0:55:00] anyway, and in this letter which is dated from the 30th June, we have these following points.

First he says: "I did agree that we change the text." Then he said: "There are three points which you must accept, so that you will be recognised. The first is that it is the Magisterium which is the judge of what is Traditional or not." And, well that's true, that's point of Faith, so. But if we say yes they will use it against us, of course, so it's dangerous. Second point: "You must accept that the Council is integrant[sic] part of Tradition." That the Council Vatican II is traditional! Imagine! [0:56:00] During forty years themselves have said the contrary. Now they say it's traditional. And we say "Beg your pardon?" We say, "Look at the reality!" And the third point, we must accept that the New Mass is valid and licit. But that point I told them, "Well, we rarely use the word licit, we just simply say about the New Mass that it is evil."

What's disturbing to me here is what's missing. He has three chances here to say that one of these points is a deal-breaker, and yet he doesn't say it. He leads you to believe that such is the case with comments like, "we just simply say about the New Mass that it is evil," but he fails on three points to simply say, "We can't agree to that." Why? It seems like such an obvious thing to say.