Yes, Father speaks english; why his language came up as a defense is interesting. It would have been nice if the entire relevant correspondence was reported-- not just select pieces. This is typical spin control: " just give them what is absolutely necessary." It would be very educational to receive the transcript of the actual talk to the brothers , so the correctness of the initial report
could be measured, and we could avoid claims of hearsay and rumor. After all, what could Father possibly say to them that could not be widely known? For this we do thank Sean!
The matter of Fr. Pfluger's linguistic skills was raised because I guessed at discomfort with English as a possible explanation as to why a more precise rebuttal was not forthcoming.
If you re-read his response to me in the OP, his English is broken/choppy (e.g., "These notes doesn't reflect in no manner...," and furthermore, because he asked me "Do you understand German," which I took to imply a discomfort with English, in light of the choppy passage just cited.).
Finally, as between the two posts you have been given the entire picture, I presume your comment about "spin control" no longer stands (at least with respect to the present thread).
Regarding obtaining a transcript of the Conferences:
Yes, that would be nice, but what makes you think one exists?
It is quite a leap to presume one exists, and an even bigger leap to presume guilt and lies for failure to surrender a potentially non-existent transcript.
Whatever Fr. Pfluger's reasons may be for not offering a more precise rebuttal, they rest with him, and are beyond the scope of my intent in starting this thread (which, as explained in the OP, was to repair the injustice in reporting the notes before verifying the ontent, which was subsequently denied).
If you want to shoot the messenger, go ahead.
But the central fact is that you have an explicit denial in the person of Fr. Pfluger, versus the anonymous allegation of someone who alleges they were at the conferences, and accurately reported what was said there.
It is even a presumption to believe they were a brother, since there is no name to prove it!
Who has the greater credibility: One who is willing to stand behind their denial, or one who won't even back their allegation (and therefore one about whose credibility you can know nothing....except to once again presume it is good)?
I find it irritating to be put in the position of seemingly defending Fr. Pfluger, when in reality I am defending some pretty elementary Catholic principles regarding presumption, justice, rash judgment, etc, of which he is the beneficiary, and letting the chips fall where they may.
When I reflect on the writings and sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre (and I have repeatedly read everything he ever wrote in English), I notice strong denunciations of modernism and modernist Rome, but presumption
is conspicuous by its complete absence.
Which is to say that, as opposed as he was to modernism and modernists, he only spoke of facts, or qualified his words to indicate when he was speculating. But he never spoke as though something was a fact when it was not a certainty.
And this, because in addition to being the anti-modernist champion, he maintained a practice of heroic virtue amidst the battle, and did not let his comments violate moral principles.
That is the model I am trying (however imperfectly) to follow.
PS: This is my final post on the matter.