I think I have about one case in the East. That person has recieved letters to remove, er, to close his website. So if you are worrried and you have not recieved letters before, you are fine too (general audience laughter). Because its its cannon law. Don't think I enjoy doing this kind of thing. I don't. I will not let people play to games. On one hand attack us, on the other hand play angels on the communion rails. (General applause again) I told that one person to whom I decided to deny communion that it is inconstansy in their thinking to have a website where you explain that Bishop Fellay has a new religion and still come to our church. This is a church of Bishop Fellay. So if the words have a meaning, either Bishop Fellay has a new Religion and then get out. Please don't stay in the new religion if  we are not Catholic anymore if we are not defending just go out of here. So on one hand saying if Bishop Fellay has started a new religion and on the other come and want from the priest of bishop Fellay to recieve the sacrament. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Quote

Wow- listening to this is really evident that Fr. Rostand has majority support at Post Falls.

Not necessarily.

Since part 2 of the ICC conference was introduced on this thread by Catechist99, let me try to offer some more clarification about what happened there in my personal exchange with Fr. Rostand during the Q&A period.  It may not all be clear on the recording:

I prefaced my major question to Fr. R by reading a quote from ABL, only one in a whole genre of similar quotes from the Archbishop, especially towards the end of his days on earth.  From a retreat he gave at Econe in 1987 I read:

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends.  Rome is in apostasy.  These are not words in the air.  It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy…The have left the Church..This is sure, sure, sure!”

“Is this the position of the SSPX today,” I asked?  Because, as I testified from our experience with sspx over the last 10 years, I had never heard one priest in the Society say anything like this ever.

Fr. Rostand replied with a qualified “yes.”  But, (and by this time most of us know the drill, and are acquainted with Menzingen-inspired spin doctoring), the Archbishop’ words must be “interpreted” in the light of the present situation, and in the “context,” etc, etc, etc.  (Need I bore you all further?)

Then Father launched what could only have been a pre-planned, pre-anticipated pre-emptive strike:

He asked me in a tone of off-the-cuff insouciance, (much, perhaps, like Jesus at the well, who asked the woman to go fetch her husband and return)

“First,” he said, “I don’t know where you go (to church.)”

“I go here (ICC),” I blurted out.

Then Father sprang what he thought was the trap:

“Yes, but you don’t go only here.”  (Or like, Correct, you do not have a husband.  You’ve had five of them…)

I think the playing out of the script anticipated that I should  dissolve in a pool of embarrassment.  That was not the case.

“You know me,” I asked?

“Oh, yes I do,” Father replied triumphantly.  (Remember, seconds earlier Father seemed to profess ignorance of me, or at least where I went to church.)

“I know where you write on the internet,” Father continued.  Father shuffled a paper on his podium which must have been a copy of one of my internet posts.

“You are a public man, you know,” added Father.

(Anybody who cares a nickel about our bi-church attendance patterns will know that we have been attending the local FSSP chapel on Sundays.  They will know, furthermore, that this was allowed by our sspx prior months ago.  He said it was OK for us to do this.)

Up til then, I’m sure Father Rostand thought he was in the driver’s seat, until I brought up the matter of Fr. Chazal’s removal by Fr. Rostand from the chapel one (morning?) last week. (The best defence is a good offence, you know)Fr. Chazal had gone in to pray his Breviary.  He sat towards the back.  Apparently, Fr. Rostand physically confronted Fr. Chazal.
 
 
I said,“You kicked Fr. Chazal off the premises and told him never to darken the door of this establishment again” (or words to that effect)

Fr. Rostand lost his smug demeanor momentarily.  I think maybe “kicked out” was a description of the event offensive to Father’s Continental gentility.

“I didn’t (kick him out),” Father protested, “I (merely) told him that he was not welcome in any of the sspx chapels in the U.S.” (or words like that)
 
Furthermore, he assured the sspx faithful that he had not called the police, a rumor, he said, which was started by Fr. Chazal.  ICC clones must have breathed a sigh of relief upon hearing this.  Any doubts or misgivings were quickly dispelled.  Father’s disclaimer had to have instantly restored their confidence in his basic kindness and decency.