This is good to see. We have been waiting for this. Thank you , God!

A SEGMENT (partial) of the OPEN LETTER...

This portion was most impressive to me and I can't find any transcript,
so I typed this part out.. taken from YouTube version (clock minutes) of source, InThisSignYouShallConquer.com site:  



3:56
Before, it was always no practical agreement until there's a doctrinal agreement.
Now, it's practical agreement without first the doctrinal agreement.
Dare we say, go along to get along ...

A small error in the principles leads to disaterous conclusionss...

Archbishop Lefebvre was our holy Founder.
4:27
He not only had the grace of state of the Superior General,
but also the grace of state as the founder of a religious
organization, to which
he sought to impart: !) his spirit, 2) his principles, and 3) his
experience.
These were the fruit of many years of leadership in a
wide variety of pastures.
He was a theologian of high repute.  
4:52
See the testimony and praise
of Canon Berto, the Archbishop's episcopal theologian during
Vatican II.

He was a bishop, and later archbishop with several bishops
subject to him.  
He was the papal representative for all of French-speaking
Africa.  He was the Superior General of the largest missionary
religious order in the Church.  He was a frequent visitor to the
Popes in Rome.  He was on the Preparatory Commission for
the Second Vatican Council.  He was a key member of the
Cetus Internationales Patrum during the Council.  
He made many interventions during the Council, seen in
 the book, I Accuse the Counci!, by Archbishop Lefebvre.
5:36
He was not afraid to challenge and rebuke both the Council and
the Popes of the Council, afterwards.
He was the man of the Church chosen by God to launch the
SSPX, despite tremendous
pressure from inside and outside the Church.
His role of saving the Church and priesthood was
propehsied by the Virgin Mary nearly 350 years ago in Ecuador.
From such a man there is much to learn.

Fr. Ludovic Barrielle,
6:11
so highly revered by the Archbishop, commented in 1982:
I am writing this to serve as a lesson to everyone:
The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its
Founder, it will be lost.
6:22
Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow
themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and
his principles will show no hesitation in eventually
taking away from the Society the
traditional teaching of the Church
and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
6:47
Would it not be accurate to say that Archbishop Lefebvre's
spirit, principles and experience are summarized in the
following response, as well as warning made to his sons?
7:01
When asked about re-opening dialogue with Rome in 1988,
after he [had] admitted that signing the May Protocol was a
big mistake, he replied:  

"We do not have the same outlook on Reconciliation.  
Cardinal Ratzinger 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 the dialogue of death.  I can't speak much of the future.
Mine is behind me.
But, if I live a little while,
supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue
then, I will put conditions.
I shall not accept being in the position where I was put
during the dialogue.
No more!

I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level:

8:00
Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes
who preceeded you?

Do you agree with Cuanta Cura of [Pope] Pius IX?
Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII?
Pascendi of (Saint) 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 (St. Pius X)?
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 don't accept the correction of the Council in
the light of the doctrines of these popes, your predecessors, no
dialogue is possible. It is useless.

Thus the positions will be clear."
(Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 223)

9:19

Note well: see more related quotes opposing an agreement
at the end of this letter.  They far outnumber the few expressing
slight hope for some agreement before 1988.  Our dear
Founder clearly saw three surrenders by making a merely
practical agreement with Modernist Rome, regardless of the
number of conditions, which are:

First, the surrender to Rome's ultimate power of veto on the
major decisions of the Society.

Two, surrender of the power of veto over any future elected
Superior General, and,

Three, the surrender of the power of veto over the
names of candidates proposed as future bishops.

With these influential powers handed over to the enemies
of Jesus Christ, they will string us along, said the
Archbishop.  They will try to catch us in their traps so long as
they have not let go of these false ideas.
And further, that is why what can look like a concession is in reality
merely a manouver.  

And more, the Archbishop said, we must absolutely convince
our faithful that it is no more than a manouver;  that it is
dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops,
of Modernist Rome.

It is the greatest danger threatening our people.

If we have struggled for 20 years to avoid the Conciliar
errors, it was not in order to now, put ourselves in the hands
of those professing these errors.

"I said to him (Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict
XVI),  that even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us
some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the
1962 liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our
seminaries in the manner we are doing right now, we cannot
work together.  It is impossible, impossible, because we are
working in diametrically opposing directions.  You are working
to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church,
and we are working to Christianize them.

"We cannot get along together.

"Rome has lost the faith, my dear friends.  Rome is in
apostasy.  I am not speaking empty words.  That is the truth.
Rome is in apostasy.  One can no longer have any confidence
in these people.  They have left the Church; they have left
the Church; they have left the Church.  It is certain, certain,
certain."

But the objection can be heard:  That's  exaggerated, Father!  
There's no agreement yet!  There won't be one under
this pontificate!  All is back to normal!  

Such are the words, but why so many actions to the contrary?
12:20


[I've already posted further in this section somewhere on CI but I can't find it now...]