Thank you, dear the recusant for all this work !

But now, we must comment this conference and make serious answers, with good arguments, otherwise, someone told me (and he is right) that it is dangerous to publish Bp Fellay's talks without showing clearly all the traps, the false things etc... So we must answer, methodically, paragraph after paragraph : it is important.

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.

...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.

Quote from: Bp Fellay

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.

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!"

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition – a position which many in the society have vocally disputed – Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

„I would hope so,“ he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

„The pope says that... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,“ the bishop said. „The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?“

We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.
The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.
The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.
That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.

Quote from: Bp Fellay

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.

Here's a bit of commentary on at least part of it, FWIW:

Bishop Fellay attempts to explain himself to the Canadian Faithful
December 2012
Transcript provided by members of Cathinfo.com
Transcript Source:  http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22232&min=0&num=5
Audio Source:        

-----------

Dear Fathers, dear faithful,

We will try to give you a summary of what we had to go through this last year, year and a half. It’s a very Interesting time – challenging. We had to go through a major trial in the Society and so there are many things to be learned from that time. I may say so, and that is very Interesting from my position I had to experience more or less every year – sometimes every two years – one place in the Society is subject to the attacks of the devil. I use these precise words - it is not just a metaphor, it is a reality. You know the Holy Scriptures says the devil is turning around - is circulating looking to devour someone and indeed the good Lord allows that our work is or will be tested by the devil. It is not just a normal or usual trial – problems we have everywhere, problems - that is normal, that is life, whenever we have people we will have some problems – it is normal but when it is a normal problem we have a proportion between the cause and the effect and the reaction.

So we have a problem and then we have the people who react to this problem and then there is a kind of proportion. I may say this is what we would call a normal problem. When suddenly there is a total discrepancy between the real thing and the reaction, you see that the passions, that there is an explosion… it’s like a volcano that goes in the air, then you know, you know that this proportion is caused by the devil. That is his way of acting and so, as I say, it’s almost every year we have to experience one place in the Society which has to go under a major trial but just one place – one totally localized – sometimes it is a seminary – sometimes it is just one place and the difference of what happened this time is that this kind of trial was extended to almost the whole Society and that is very, very rare.

In all the history, we had two or three of those – so very few, but once again you see the same elements that is there is a problem, a real problem, and then the reaction that is totally out of control – no comparison and these are the passions which are blind. It’s violent and it starts to go in all fuses, in all directions… it’s no longer the virtues which are governed well, it is the passions and sins and many kinds of trouble and a lot of confusion. I may say the element of that time was confusion and it is Interesting to reflect on this. Why was there confusion? The problems with this confusion that some people have then lost the trust in the authority.  [He got that right; now the question: why did people lose trust in authority?  What authority, BTW?  "the authority"??   :scratchchin:]  I may say that is a major problem because when you lose the trust with the authority then you are left to yourself. Then you are alone to judge and you can no longer rely on anybody. That is the great, great problem of distrust and that is what happened. Not everybody of course but a certain part of the Society went into that kind of situation and once again if you go back to the real reality there is no ground. There is no ground so many many things that were spread around in the internet during that time were just simply false. False or even worse the contrary to what really happened.  [Such as?  Please list the specific falsehoods.]If I look and try to see where, or did this confusion come from, we have several elements which did not help. The first I may say probably the most deeper and the cause of all the others is that we are experiencing since years, a contradiction in Rome. [So the confusion this year came from contradiction in Rome?  But we’ve been getting this contradiction in Rome for decades; why all of a sudden in AD 2012 would that cause terrible confusion within the ranks of the SSPX and its followers?]   I will try to develop that point because I think it is a major one.  Since 2009, [he’s been telling us about the contradictions in Rome for a lot longer than just since 2009.]  I am facing directly contradiction that is instances authorities in Rome contradict themselves about us. The thing was so strong, that in June, I requested a meeting with the Secretary of State, with Cardinal Bertone because of that. Well he did not give it but he asked me to see Cardinal Levada and I told him I want to see you because you people, you are contradicting yourselves about us. Some of you say that we are excommunicated, that we are out of the Church others say no there is no problem we are totally in order. It is a whole mixture there and we no longer know how to react with you or what to do with you because of this.  [ridiculous; they’ve been giving us those contradictions for decades; why all of a sudden does he need to meet with them to clear it up?]

I will just give you two examples. [Which he has given numerous times before..  ]   One it was in 2009, it was just before Easter. In the beginning of March, even beginning in February already, the Secretariat of State issued a statement saying the Society does not exist and if the Society wants to be recognized by the Church it is necessary to accept totally everything the Council and the teachings of all the Popes since John XXIII until the present. So no recognition for the Society until they accept everything - all the novelties.

...[he continues to tell that same old story...].  Again, I give you an example, just that you may know that I don’t speak in the air but I have really these experiences.

[another story he’s told many times before; however, I will leave this one in, as it helps illustrate how insane it is to put your organization under such men:]  There is an abbey in Germany, it is the only Trappist Abbey and the Father Abbot asked the Pope not only to go back to the Old Mass, because now it is allowed, you can do that but to go back to the old rule before the Council. And the Pope granted it and even said that he hoped that it’s an example that would be followed by many. Now six months later, this Abbot has not received any answer from Rome and he is calling a friend in Rome and he says what is happening with me. This friend who is very, very close to the Pope told him, “Well, write again to the Pope and this time send this letter to me and I will bring it to the Holy Father,” which happened. I know the story from that very person so it is not just hearsay, directly this person who was very close to the Pope told me that story, so he went to see the Pope with this letter and he asked the Pope, “What is going on with this abbey in Germany?… and the Pope said, “But it is six months since I have granted the permission!” So what, they made an inquiry and in fact it was the person in the Secretariat of State who should have transmitted the decision of the Pope but just put it in the drawer.  

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.   [But it is the Pope who +F pretends is such a friend of Tradition and wants this "regularization".  The Secretary of State is (almost?) always a Freemason these days.  So you want to accept a deal **excuse me** – “regularization” from the Pope who has no control over his Cardinals and bishops, and with whom it is impossible to communicate directly?]   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. [There are so many things to criticize here.  He emphasizes that he really knows this; well fine, I don’t think that is the big disputed point.  Nevertheless:

1.  it doesn’t mean the Pope is Traditional or even a friend of Tradition.  All it means is, on some occasions when the Pope actually might want to do something good for a change, he is sometimes blocked by the bad Cardinals etc. around him.  

2. ...bad Cardinals whom he himself appointed.  Cardinals whom he could remove from their positions if he wanted to.

3. IF the Pope is so powerless against the shenanigans of his own appointed Cardinals and bishops, who are mostly against the SSPX, how is he (or especially his even more liberal successor) going to defend the SSPX after “regularization”?]

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 defend the house 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.” [But it’s not a joke, when billions of souls are at stake, and you want to put yourself under people like this?]  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?

More or less every point which we would disagree, we had to accept. [Then why did they even need to discuss it at Albano, etc.. ?  Why not just tell Rome, “sorry; call us when you convert.”  See * below]   There was something in our direction, or maybe two things: one was to say there is a legitimate discussion on certain points which make difficulty of the Council, so there is an opening on discussing difficult points. And another which we say, I may say, that's the most tricky one, the most tricky. And really tricky. Because it says: on the points which are difficult, which make difficulty of the Council, we follow the following principle. These difficult or confusing points must be understood or interpreted in coherence with all the teaching of the Church throughout the ages. So you must understand them as the Church has always taught. And we reject any kind of explanation which is opposed to what the Church has always taught. You know. That is what we have always said. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre has said, always. We say, what is clearly traditional in the Council: well, we accept, we have no way to reject that. What is doubtful, we understand it the way the Church has always taught it. And what is opposed we reject. So when you read that you say: hup, that's what we said!   [Never mind that +F himself said several times during this Pontificate that the Conciliarists (and he included the current Pope) mean something different by “Tradition”, and hence, we can no longer say “we accept Vatican II in the light of Tradition.” ]

Well, there was a little, little phrase that was added to it. And the little phrase said: as we find it, so we have to interpret, to understand the things as the Church has always done and so on, as it is done in the new Catechism of the Church.  [How interesting; why does this bring to mind a certain EC where a certain bishop said ”The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a 'Motu Proprio' which would accept the SSPX 'back into the Church' once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 'Catechism of the Catholic Church', which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.”  And I seem to recall that bishop being rebuked by another bishop for that EC.]  Now there's a little problem there, because the new Catechism is precisely accepting all the novelties of the Council, and that's what we oppose. So in other words they pretend now to do things as we do, and they do the contrary. Big problem.

And so, so from the start this text we could not accept. [once again I refer you to* below] And that's what I told Rome: we can't accept. I told it even two times. The first time, I tried to remain broad because my aim was to demolish the frame which they were trying to impose to us. This frame is called the Hermeneutic of the Continuity. That means that we have to interpret, or to understand, they pretend that the Council is in the line of Tradition, and that's the only way, we have to the Council in the light, not only the light, but to say that the Council is traditional. And we say no, that's not true, we say, that we should that we should understand that we should understand anything that comes from Rome in the light of Tradition, it's the only Catholic way, but precisely this Council, with this Council, we can't do that because the texts are opposed to Tradition, they're contrary; [At last!  He says it.  Let’s keep that in mind and on record.  So that begs the question:  why did you say last May:  “I would hope so,“ when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.   “The pope says that... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,“ the bishop said.  

And why did he send this statement to the Vatican?:

“We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.  The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.  That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.”]

...what they say in the Council has been condemned before. Especially Religious Liberty, but also Ecuмenism for example, very clearly the contrary.   [again, why did you say:  “Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited.”?]

And so, we say: no it doesn't work. Doesn't work. But, I didn't want to go into the details, I just wanted to, so to say, to *ppprrr* to explode the frame. Because they said if I go into the details, they will change the details but they will try to remain, to remind, to keep the frame. So I say no, it doesn't work. They were not happy with it, and they called me and they asked me if I could not be more precise.   [  When even the liberal Conciliarists, who have mastered ambiguous NewSpeak for the past 50 years, have to ask someone to be more precise…   Wow.  If only +F would be obedient to Rome on this point, and be precise in his speech from now on!] [0:25:09] I said OK, I will do it that, I will do that. So I sent a second answer. It was not that I would correct the first, no. It was exactly the same answer, but more precise, according to their text.

So, I sent to Rome a double no. Things seemed clear, no? But the big, big problem facing at that time was the following. Even before the 14th September, I got messages from people working in Rome, and which are friendly with us. People who have even been burned, their fingers have been burnt because they were too close to us. And they work in Rome and they are our friends. And these people told me: "The Pope is going to recognise the Society. And he's going to do that the same way he did with the excommunications. That is, without anything from your side." Pope does it: done. And I got several of these messages from several different persons, who, let's say, authenticity I cannot put in doubt. For example, one of those was a person working in Ecclesia Dei, those who are dealing with us. And this very person, after we got the text, told us: "That's not what the Pope wants!"

So you see, I got all these kind of messages which were not fitting together. [So why all the propaganda this spring, to prepare everyone for the deal?]   I got an official thing, where I clearly have to say no. And I got other messages, which are not official of course, but which say "No, that's not what the Pope wants! The Pope is much more inclined towards us, you!" And the people tell me these things; they're not just someone in the Vatican. They're VERY close to the Pope. Very close. I mean, people who see him every day, or every two days, and there are very few people who see him every day. And these people, they know the Pope, they know what he thinks, and they give me this message. So what am I going to do now? I have an official message where I have to say no. I have people who tell me: "But that's not what the Pope wants!"

You see, that was a major problem. So this is confusing. [And yet you want to accept a deal with these people?]  But the second problem I was in, it was impossible for me to say these things in the public. Because if I would say that, I would make things even worse. And, and Rome would say: "That's not true!" And even now, I expect Rome to say that, because I tell these things now. And if you think: "What is Bishop Fellay telling us?" I would remind you something which happened to me just a few years ago. It was with Cardinal Castrillón. Cardinal Castrillón told me the following: "What I am going to tell you now, if you repeat it, I will be forced to deny it."   [And you want to accept a deal from these people? ]

Understand? I tell you something, if you repeat it, I will say no, that's not true. And he finished by saying: "The Pope and myself, we are in your favour."

But, if he tells us that he's going to say the contrary, what can I do with it? Nothing!   [Exactly.]

And just to remind you, that's exactly what happened with Archbishop Lefebvre during his audience with Paul VI. Paul VI said to Archbishop Lefebvre: "You oblige your seminarians to make an oath against me!" And when Archbishop Lefebvre said [0:30:00] that in the public, Rome made a statement saying: "That's not true. The Pope never said that to Archbishop Lefebvre!" You see how complicated it is? So it's messy, and you can't even say it. And if you try to say it, you make it even more messy. [And yet you were willing to put the future and legacy of Apb. Lefebvre's Society into this mess?]

...to be continued, if I have time....

*

Quote

Based on an article published by Radio Cristiandad

11th November, 2011

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011...¿era-necesario/

When one becomes aware of the true content of the Doctrinal Preamble that Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger received from representatives of Neo-Modernist Rome on 14th September, one wonders:

Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to understand two thousand years of Catholic Tradition in the new light of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar teaching of Liberal popes?

Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept as doctrinal reference the Schonborn/Ratzinger catechism; a Compendium of Second Vatican Council doctrine?

Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept the new Code of Canon Law having greater value than the old Code?

Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept the Novus Ordo as legitimate?

Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to a demand to take a Conciliarist Profession of Faith that replaces the Oath Against Modernism?

Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to a demand to take an Oath of Allegiance to Neo-Modernist authorities that occupy and insult Eternal Rome?

If the answer is obvious and and overwhelming 'NO !', then one wonders:

Why did Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger not immediately reject the Preamble on 14th September?

Why hide and then continue to attempt to hide the content of the Preamble?

Why do they want to delay dealing with such a simple matter?

While awaiting the answer to reveal itself in the full light of day Catholics should remember that sources in Neo-Modernist Rome informed Femille Chrètienne that the Vatican judges that the Doctrinal Preamble performs its objective by creating and fueling a Kantian/Hegelian dialectic within SSPX.

Some suggested responses +F could have given Cardinal Levada:

Quote from: [s

Archbishop Lefebvre[/s]]We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger Pope Benedict sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. ... “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.

Quote from: [s

Archbishop Lefebvre[/s]]...it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.

...
Hey look, CI was even referenced here:

jhayes says:
1 January 2013 at 9:15 pm

 I haven’t compared this against the audio so, if you quote from this transcript, I would first go to the time point in the tape and satisfy yourself that the transcription is accurate.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: CWA

..Hey look, CI was even referenced here:

jhayes says:
 I haven’t compared this against the audio so, if you quote from this transcript, I would first go to the time point in the tape and satisfy yourself that the transcription is accurate.

That's right:  we've got nothing to do at CI but try to falsify the recording.   (Huh?) Never mind that +F's accent and ESL grammar are next to unintelligible at times.  Hey, how about if you find an error come on in and let everyone know what it is?  Too much to ask?  

Let me put it this way:  By the time you get around to "comparing this
against the audio," it's going to be the dozenth time or more, all told.
So you just come on in and let everyone else know where we've made
an obvious mistake, okay?  

In case it isn't evident, my offer was directed at jhayes who posted
that on the other website, not at CWA who was only reporting the post
made on the other website.  

We don't have to put words into his mouth.  His own words incriminate him quite adequately all on their own merit.

It still amazes me that he is somehow able to keep this blindfold of so-
called "humility" over the eyes of so many of his followers who really ought
to know better.  

It's just amazing how he perpetuates his FALSE IMAGE of "good guy."

They are so blinded and prejudiced in +Fellay's favor, that when you try
to inform them by pointing out inconsistencies and self-contradictions,
they say:  "You must be anti-Fellay."  

[Isn’t that beautiful?   I say this, not to be mocking, but just that it sets up right from the beginning the idea that he is SO trying to do God’s will.  It’s all very psychological.]

[The only possible response to this:  ]

[very clever!  ]

Fr. Girouard sermon July 1, 2012

Oh, there was a very nice letter of the pope on the priesthood - very traditional letter of the pope on the priesthood; and June 10 the Pope sent a message to the Eucharistic Congress of Ireland. I read it, (so you cannot say I am not open to them).   I read the docuмent.   Very nice, very nice letter about the (Holy Eucharist?).  So, what does that mean?  That means they have good writers that can write a nice letter that sounds Catholic.  But my dear friends, they have done the same since the time of Paul VI!  Try to remember:  they always came up, about once a year, with either a traditional docuмent about the priesthood, about the necessity of confession, always came up, and then we thought, "Oh they are changing; they are going back to tradition!" - it’s the same old kind of trying to make us – bait –it’s a bait – we are like fishes that they try to hook on the bait.  And so therefore we would say those docuмents they have absolutely no value in as long as they continue in their actions to promote error and the new mass.  The new mass is an abomination.  So they can write to me a new letter about the priesthood and the holy Eucharist and the sacrifice of the mass - Every day they can send me a letter.  As long as they keep that bastard mass, as +AL called it – a bastard mass - a protestant mass, the mass of Luther he called it – in as long as they keep this then their words mean nothing.  If I’m telling you that I love you, and every time I see you I slap you on the face, I don’t know if you will believe me for long.

[Unbelievable.  For the SG of the SSPX to talk like this!  Why in the world is the SSPX in an “irregular” situation in the first place?  It’s so hard to even comment on so much of this, because....where do I begin?  It’s like we need to go over the whole history of the last 40+ years to explain it to him.  ]

[ ]