Are there any photos of the opening of the seminary?

Marsha

There was a Christmas News Letter mailed out.  It had color photos and info.  I didn't recieve it until January, but it was listed as "Christmas".  Perhaps someone could scan it and post.  I no longer have mine.  Sorry

I can scan the newsletter in a few hours if someone doesn't by then.

That does not surprise me.  I'm sure it will be chaotic for a year or two.  Nothing new ever comes off w/o a hitch.

I read the December newsletter on the inthissign... website but there were no pictures.

Marsha

Sorry folks, I seem to have misplaced my copy.  I'll post it if I find it, but someone else might want to in the mean time.  

That does not surprise me.  I'm sure it will be chaotic for a year or two.  Nothing new ever comes off w/o a hitch.

I read the December newsletter on the inthissign... website but there were no pictures.

Marsha

Here is the Newsletter, for the record (missing one cute mugshot):



Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Many worried souls were encouraged and given great hope, to hear Bishop Fellay reassure us that the Society hasn’t changed and all is well in Denmark (Menzingen).
NOTHING HAS CHANGED?

On Oct. 13 in his Sunday Sermon in Kansas City he said the Following:  “Some people unfortunately shaken by the Devil, they say the Society has changed. They call it even the Neo-Society.  But that’s not us by no way. We didn’t change, we do not change, we have not changed anything of our position on the Council, on the Mass, on all these reforms.  And precisely these last years in our talks with Rome we dealt with these problems with them.  At no point, really at no point we presented any kind of compromise! It is false propaganda, science fiction to pretend that at any moment we would have for any kind of God knows what kind of privilege or advantage, lowered down our position.”(13:25-14:37 minute)

The Bishop thus assured us firstly that nothing has changed in the SSPX position on the Council, the New Mass, the subsequent Reforms and secondly that the texts presented to Rome on April 15, 2012 were correct and without any compromise. Therefore according to Bishop Fellay:

1.  When he said Vatican II “Enlightens and deepens the former doctrine of the Church . . . not yet conceptually formulated” (Doctrinal Declaration April 15, 2012) it did not contradict Archbishop Lefebvre when he said: “the more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new Philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference 1990) . Bishop Fellay said that Vatican II “enlightens the Faith” whereas the Archbishop taught that Vatican II “is a wholesale perversion of the Mind. Nothing has changed?

2.  When he said the New Mass is “legitimately promulgated” (Doctrinal Declaration, April 15, 2012) it did not contradict the teaching of the Archbishop who said that “the New Mass is a Bastard (illegitimate) Mass.” (Sermon at Lille, 1976) Nothing has changed?

3.  When he said that the New Mass is “legitimately promulgated” it didn’t contradict himself either, when he said on Oct. 12, 2013 in a conference in Kansas City that “we never accepted the New Mass as legitimate.” Nothing has changed?

4.  When Bishop Fellay said: “we dare to say that even in the Council Vatican II we still find something Catholic” (Sermon Oct. 13, 2013 Kansas City) and “we accept 95% of the Council” (2001) it didn’t contradict the Archbishop when he said “the greatest service we can render to the Church is to reject the reformed and liberal Church. . . I am not of that Religion. I do not accept that new Religion. It is a liberal and Modernist Religion . . . two religions confront each other; . . . it is impossible to avoid a choice.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986 Open Letter to Confused Catholics Ch. 18). Bishop Fellay said we accept 95% of the Council as Catholic whereas the Archbishop taught “it is a liberal and Modernist Religion.” Nothing has changed?

The opinions of Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre in these matters are as similar as black is to white and as similar as Truth is to Lies. We must choose one or the other teaching. We cannot accept both.

On June 1, 2008 in a sermon in Paris Bishop Fellay said concerning Pope Benedict XVI: “Now we have a perfectly liberal pope my dear brethren. . . and he is called Traditional! And this is true, this is true, he is perfectly liberal perfectly contradictory. He has some good sides ,the sides that we hail, such as what he has done for the Traditional Liturgy.”

On Oct. 13, 2013 Kansas City concerning Pope Francis in a similar vein he said: “We have in front of us a genuine Modernist, a modernist who is capable and who knows his Faith, and is capable of saying it and maybe even of Loving it! But at the same time is saying the contrary, the contrary. How much time will be needed for people in the Church, in the Authority to stand up and say “by no means!” If we continue this way I really hope and pray that with this will happen--that means an enormous division in the Church. As we have two popes alive already, it is not difficult to understand and to think that the people who are just a little bit conservative-- they will turn towards the other one, towards Benedict. We will have a mess. That’s what he (Pope



Francis) wants. He invites the youth, he said it several times. He wants youth to do mess to be Messy (42:07-35 minute mark). . . the pope wants everything to be changed. . .”

This last passage of Bishop Fellay is most scandalous.  It should not be tolerated by anyone Catholic. In the healthier days of our Church, he would be suspended from preaching, teaching, any position of authority, be declared suspect of heresy and brought before the Holy Office of the Inquisition to answer for such spurious teaching as well as fomenting ѕєdιтισn.

1.  A modernist is ambiguous and uses “truth” to spread his lies (c.f. Pascendi St. Pius X) therefore it is impossible for a Modernist to be one “who knows his Faith, and is capable of saying it.” This is most grave for a shepherd to speak thus since it will lead the sheep to search for the “truth” in Pope Francis (and the 95% “truth” in Vatican II) leading to loss of Faith in Souls.

2.  There are not now nor could there ever be 2 popes in the Church. This is Heresy—and heresy fomenting rebellion besides.  It could even be called a “practical Sedevacantist” attitude to use Bishop Fellay’s’ own words.  Cardinal Ratzinger is no more Pope than Jimmy Carter is president.  It is absurd to call him a pope. He resigned.  It is a scandal that he keeps his name, keeps his ring, and his papal cassock.

3.  Bishop Fellay said, “I really hope and pray that this will happen--that means an enormous division in the Church. . . those a little bit conservative. . . will turn towards Benedict.”!!! This is subversion, a most grave scandal. If Bishop Fellay’s coup is successful then, according to his own words we will have the desired effect of a “perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory Pope” (Benedict) replacing the “Genuine Modernist” pope who “says the contrary, the contrary.” He says that he hopes and prays for the good old days of Pope Benedict?

4.  Note the statement, “How much time will be needed for people in the Church, in the Authority to stand up and say “by no means!”  Notice that Bishop Fellay spoke of the authorities standing up.  He did not tell the Faithful to stand up and say “by no means.”  At the end of the same sermon, the Bishop said:  “when you are the end of your time of your life Our Lord will ask ‘did you obey, did you follow the commandments?’ ”  These subtle shift in words have the appearance of the language of a snake.  Is this a Freudian slip?  Note that Obedience is placed before or ahead of Commandments?  Does this reveal the true thought of Bishop Fellay that only authorities can stand up, that lowly subjects must only obey, do their duty, and not ever go above their station?  If this were true, Daniel the boy should have prayed for better, holier Judges over the people.  He should have prayed for the repose of the soul of poor Susanna.  David, the shepherd boy should never have had the audacity to act like a soldier to fight a giant Goliath.  That wasn’t his job.  Esther should never have overstepped her bounds just to save the Jєωs.  She should have waited for better times etc., etc., etc.  St. Paul resisted St. Peter “to the face because he was to be blamed.”

Bishop Fellay said further that Pope Francis wants a “revolution in the Church he wants to change everything.” The True Catholic of Tradition should ask:  What has changed since Francis became pope?  What is new in Francis?  The answer is essentially nothing. Pope Francis is not starting a Revolution! He is only continuing the Revolution of Vatican II.  He does not want to change anything away from the direction of Vatican II.  He is only implementing the Council more and more.  The Revolution was and still is Vatican II “the French Revolution in the Church” as it was called by Archbishop Lefebvre.  To claim that Pope Francis wants a Revolution is false, deceptive and foolish. He is only continuing the on-going Revolution of that “Wicked Council.”  What Catholic can be pleased with Pope Benedict (the false leader behind the scenes), the Pope that gave us his spiritual Son, Pope Francis whom he still supports?  These “two Popes” are like Annas and Caiphas.  Did Our Blessed Lord tell His followers that things would be better if Annas were still the High priest?  No.  Rather, he said in front of the wicked Annas, “if I have done wrong show me the evil, otherwise why didst thou strike me.”  Pope Benedict struck Catholics of True Tradition when he gave the world his wicked decree called “Summorum Pontificuм” in which he said that the New Mass is the “Ordinary Mass” of the Church and the Old True Mass is allowed only as “extraordinary,” “ad experimentum” for three years starting Sept. 14, 2007 on the condition that those who attend the true Mass accept both the New Mass and Vatican II.  When Bishop Felllay asked Catholics to sing the Te Deum in honor of such a blasphemy, he called down the wrath of God upon the SSPX and not any blessing.

Bishop Fellay said in his Oct. 13 Sermon, “If he (Pope Francis) continues as he does now, maybe we will be obliged to say ‘he cannot be pope!’  I say ‘maybe’ I don’t know.  What I say is don’t precipitate such judgments. (23:24-24:01). . . don’t take unto yourselves to solve these problems which are much too high for you and for me.  God doesn’t request from us to solve these problems.  I can really tell you that when you will appear in front of God at the end of your time of your life, God is not going to ask you ‘was Francis pope or not?’ He is going to ask ‘did you obey, did you follow the commandments?” (51:08 et. seq.)

If we shouldn’t “precipitate such judgments” and “these problems are much too high for you and for me,” then it is a scandal for a bishop to precipitate such judgments by praying for a rebellion and division in the Church against Pope Francis, “who knows his Faith” in favor of “pope” Benedict the “perfectly liberal.”  It is also a scandal to tell the sheep that we may one day have to say that Francis is not pope.  These kinds of statements create confusion in souls, indicate confusion in the shepherd who pronounces them and lead to greater confusion in the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre would have nothing to do with such contrary, contradictory confusions, and neither should any of his sons. Last year anyone who questioned Bishop Fellay was declared a “practical Sedevacantist.”  Now those same souls declare.  “You see Bishop Fellay is still traditional, he even says that Francis may



not be pope.”  We reject such foolishness outright.  Pope Francis is Pope.  We do not pray or hope for any coup against our Holy Father Pope Francis.  We especially reject any coup that involves replacing a Caiphas with an Annas or a Hitler with a Stalin.

We pray for Pope Francis in each of our Masses.  We pray specifically for his conversion away from his wicked Modernism back to the Catholic Faith of Eternal Rome.  We pray that he obey Our Lady and Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart.  Until then, in obedience to his Ancestors and his God we fight him and reject his Modernism for it is the only way to be true and faithful sons of him as pope.  It is the time for the gladium (sword) not for a false Spes (hope) or false peace. Our Divine Master said, “I have not come for peace but the Sword” (Mt. 10:24).  He said these words to His Apostles, His faithful followers reminding them as well as us that we are in a perpetual fight “against the powers of this darkness in high places,” as said St. Paul.




Bishop Fellay also spoke in the same sermon about the agreement with Rome. Note carefully what he said twenty minutes into that Sermon:  “And so to say or to pretend that we want an agreement with Rome at any Cost and the Modernists.  We don’t want any agreement with the Modernists, we never wanted.  How do you want us to be in agreement with people who don’t even believe that there is a God.  Who don’t believe that Our Lord is in the Holy Host.  How do you want us to have an agreement with these people?  No!  It is not with these people, it is with what remains of the Church.  If we maintain that there is a Catholic Church, we have to maintain that this Church is visible.  It’s part of the Doctrine of the Faith and this Church which is visible has a head and the head is the Pope.  That’s why we pray for him in the Canon of the Mass.  That does not mean that we agree with him.” (20:49-21:52).

1.  He declared plainly:  “We never wanted an agreement with Rome at any cost and the Modernists” (such as pope Francis “a genuine modernist?”) — “at any cost.”  Note the two little catch phrases.  The first:  no agreement “at any cost.”  In other words, if the price is right we want agreement, but if the price is too low, no agreement.  This is deceptive language.  It gives the impression that he did not want an agreement, but in fact it means the opposite.  The second little trick:  no agreement (at any cost) with Rome and the Modernists.  Note the conjunction “and.”  This means that Rome may be one thing and the Modernists another.  Hence, he said that he wanted no agreement with the modernists while giving only the impression that he did not want any agreement with Rome.  These are cheap politician tactics.  A bishop of the Church has no right to use such tactics.  What is more, no informed Catholic should be foolish enough to fall for such tricks.  

2.  He declared “We (do) want an agreement with what remains of the Church” — with Pope Francis the Visible head of the Church.  “It is part of the Doctrine of the Faith.”  In other words Bishop Fellay said we want an agreement with Pope Francis as head of the Visible Church because the Doctrine of the Faith demands that we want to be accepted by him as Catholic.  This is language worthy of the most unscrupulous lawyer. Archbishop Lefebvre never spoke in this way.  Our Divine Master told us “let your yes be yes and your no no.”  Further, our Faith does not hinge on recognition by modernist authorities.  We are not Catholics in order to be “recognized.”  We are Catholics to spread the True Faith into the entire Universe.

3.  This Agreement “does not mean that we agree with him.”  Then what does 'agreement' mean?

Hence, according to the Sermon of Oct. 13, we can summarize the thought of the Superior of the SSPX as follows:  The doctrines found in the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 are correct and without any compromise.  They are the identical teaching of the SSPX since the beginning.  We never wanted an agreement with the Modernists “at any cost” — such as Pope Francis “a genuine Modernist” — but we do want an agreement with Pope Francis — as Pope of the visible Church, not as genuine Modernist (unless he continues as he is and thus “cannot be Pope”).  We must want an agreement with him as pope of the visible Church — which means that we want to be recognized as Catholic.  The agreement, of course must be taken in the context of meaning that we agree to have an agreement with him as pope but not that we agree with him in this agreement.  However, Bishop Fellay “really hope(s) and pray(s) that an enormous division will occur in the Church” so that we can dethrone Pope Francis from his papal throne, replacing him with Cardinal Ratzinger returning as pope Benedict XVII.  Then, we can make an even better agreement with Ex-Re-Pope Benedict as pope of the visible church than could be hoped for with Pope Francis.

If these teachings, all contained in the “encouraging” sermon of Oct. 13, 2013, in Kansas City seem contradictory and confusing — it’s only because they are. Confusion is not from God.

Catholics must know their Faith.  Every Catholic should know that a pope cannot be dethroned.  There cannot ever be two Popes.  No Pope who has resigned can remain a Pope.  No one who is “perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory” can be preferred to a “genuine modernist.”  No Catholic can ever approve of a coup against a Pope, no matter how bad he may be.  No Catholic can make a “Doctrinal Declaration” that is admitted to be ambiguous!  Anyone who says that a “Doctrinal Declaration” which approves of New Mass as “legitimately promulgated,” and that says that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens the doctrine of the Church,” is “not in any way a compromise,” must be publicly rebuked and his teaching rejected, because such a one is a danger to the Faith of Catholic sheep.  Shepherds must warn their flock against such a one.  Shepherds must be vigilant, with sword in hand against such dangerous teaching.  St. Paul tells us the Truth is a sword.  It is our principle weapon against the Father of Lies.  The Father of Lies spreads his deception more and more in our times than at any time in the past.  Take up the sharp sword of clear Doctrine, the sword wielded so well and bravely by our holy founder, Archbishop Lefebvre.



Who in their right Catholic mind could be “encouraged” by the doctrine of Bishop Fellay, a prince of the Church of Christ, a prince who is supposed to be the Son of the clear, unequivocal Archbishop Lefebvre?  Even a brief analysis of his recent non-retractions, confused non-clarifications, etc., is sufficient to show any honest soul of good will that the teaching of Bishop Fellay is in no way the teaching of the True SSPX.  It is the teaching of a Neo-SSPX.  And only a Neo-SSPX priest could remain sinfully silent in the face of such false doctrines.  The Old SSPX priests condemned in clear terms any equivocations about Our most Holy Faith.  There are now 50 priests ousted or cut off from this Neo-SSPX in only 18 months since this visible crisis began in May 2012.  More are being ousted monthly.  Neo-SSPX Vocations are down. SSPX income is down. SSPX mass attendance is globally down.  The liberal slide towards a deeper modernism continues in the Neo-SSPX.  Another sign that something is rotten in the state of Denmark is that anyone could be “encouraged” by the latest scandalous confusion coming from the mouth of one who should be “THE” mouthpiece of clear unequivocal Truth.  We pray now for the conversion of Bishop Fellay.  May he return to the Faith of his Consecration which was for the preservation of the True Catholic Faith of all times.  Let us repeat the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in the Aug. 29, 1976 Sermon in Lille, Flanders during the “hot Summer of 76.”  “We cannot lend our hands to the destruction of the Church!”. . . nor to the destruction of the Society founded to combat the destruction of the Church.”

Seven Seminarians entered the doors of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in October.  Three entered in Batangas Philippines and four are in Brazil awaiting their visas to come to Kentucky.  Two more await preparation for the priesthood in India.  The fourteen that have entered include some for the Brotherhood as well.  Others are interested in coming.  God is blessing our little Resistance, that fights for the Faith in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and like his Society it is International from the beginning.  We have some Novena Christmas cards available from www.inthis sign youshall conquer.com [without the spaces!].  Some are being included in this mailing. Mail them in and the priests of SSPX Marian Corps will remember your intentions in the Christmas Novena of Masses at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.  We have insufficient space for the Filipinos, the Brazilians, the other South Americans and the Indian young men who wish to join our Irish, Filipino and Americans already here in our humble Kentucky Seminary located only a few miles from the America’s first Seminary of the Wild West founded in 1811 in a small Log Cabin near Bardstown, Kentucky.  More than 100 old pioneer priest missionaries lie buried close to our little Seminary.  We call upon their wisdom and prayers from the grave and your support to help us remodel and expand the existing structures.  After only one year now, we already have more than 55 mass Centers in Asia, USA, Canada, Ireland, England, Scotland, Germany, not including another 15 to 20 centers in Mexico and South America.  Centers of the continuing battle for Truth against Modernism and modernistic tendencies wherever they are found.

Bishop Williamson has been kept busy visiting our centers, administering the Sacraments to Sheep in need of Confirmation in the Faith of all time.  May the good God bless him for his help and you for yours without which we could not continue the fight, the only worth fighting for, the fight for the Social and total reign of Our most wonderful King, the King of all Kings,

in Christ Our King
......[signed]........
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer



P.S.  Fr. Valan has sent us some Catechism in Pictures from India.  We have these beautiful Catechisms for whoever wishes for a $20 donation per book.  It is a beautiful full color Catechism.  We will send a portion of the donations back to India to support our apostolate there under the direction of Fr. Valan, one the SSPX priests ousted this past year.

P.P.S.  Included in this Mailing is a Christmas Novena Card which you may return if you wish.  Also the first edition of Our Seminary Quarterly (ish) “Gladium.” It is called the Gladium in memory of the Seminary newsletter of the Cristeros in Mexico during the Cristero War.

P.P.S.  At the time of writing, I am in the Philippines visiting our missions as well as our now four seminarians in the beautiful house donated for our use in Batangas, only an hour away from Manila.  We have already given $5,000 of your donations to the poor affected by the earthquake in Bohol and supertyphoon Hainan in central Visayas.  Our chapel in Bohol must be rebuilt.  Thank you for your generous gifts in helping our Filipino faithful. Fr. Chazal is doing magnificent work in these vast lands of Asia, following the injunction of the Gospel to travel with “neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes” (Lk. 10:4) — but traveling indeed with feet shod with sandals carrying the Gospel of Peace with the Sword of Truth wherever he goes.  We now have more than 50 little centers of Tradition affiliated with our SSPX Marian Corps of Priests, Apostles of Jesus and Mary.  More of you call us each month.  Pray the Lord to send many laborers into the harvest.





__________________________________________

If you print out nothing else to pass around, consider at least printing out the bolded portion below, or all of the 3. below, so it has context attached:  



According to Bishop Fellay, in his October 13th 2013 speech in Kansas:

3. This Agreement “does not mean that we agree with him.”  Then what does 'agreement' mean?

Hence, according to the Sermon of Oct. 13, we can summarize the thought of the Superior of the SSPX as follows:  The doctrines found in the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 are correct and without any compromise.  They are the identical teaching of the SSPX since the beginning.  We never wanted an agreement with the Modernists “at any cost” — such as Pope Francis “a genuine Modernist” — but we do want an agreement with Pope Francis — as Pope of the visible Church, not as genuine Modernist (unless he continues as he is and thus “cannot be Pope”).  We must want an agreement with him as pope of the visible Church — which means that we want to be recognized as Catholic.  The agreement, of course must be taken in the context of meaning that we agree to have an agreement with him as pope but not that we agree with him in this agreement.  However, Bishop Fellay “really hope(s) and pray(s) that an enormous division will occur in the Church” so that we can dethrone Pope Francis from his papal throne, replacing him with Cardinal Ratzinger returning as pope Benedict XVII.  Then, we can make an even better agreement with Ex-Re-Pope Benedict as pope of the visible church than could be hoped for with Pope Francis.

If these teachings, all contained in the “encouraging” sermon of Oct. 13, 2013, in Kansas City seem contradictory and confusing — it’s only because they are. Confusion is not from God.

Catholics must know their Faith.  Every Catholic should know that a pope cannot be dethroned.  There cannot ever be two Popes.  No Pope who has resigned can remain a Pope.  No one who is “perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory” can be preferred to a “genuine modernist.”  No Catholic can ever approve of a coup against a Pope, no matter how bad he may be.  No Catholic can make a “Doctrinal Declaration” that is admitted to be ambiguous!  Anyone who says that a “Doctrinal Declaration” which approves of New Mass as “legitimately promulgated,” and that says that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens the doctrine of the Church,” is “not in any way a compromise,” must be publicly rebuked and his teaching rejected, because such a one is a danger to the Faith of Catholic sheep.  Shepherds must warn their flock against such a one.  Shepherds must be vigilant, with sword in hand against such dangerous teaching.  St. Paul tells us the Truth is a sword.  It is our principle weapon against the Father of Lies.  The Father of Lies spreads his deception more and more in our times than at any time in the past.  Take up the sharp sword of clear Doctrine, the sword wielded so well and bravely by our holy founder, Archbishop Lefebvre.






.

While the "Open Letter " was sent out with the Newsletter it is NOT the Newsletter.   The Newsletter was full color.   It had colored photos of the priests and seminarians on a trip to the first seminary in the U.S.  Also pix of seminarians renovating one of the rooms.  It also had a color photo of the Archbishop with some quotes.   It also listed the seminary's daily schedule.

The Letter to friends and benefactors is not the newsletter.  I'm surprised that the newsletter is not on their website.

Quote from: Fr Pfeiffer

Pope Benedict struck Catholics of True Tradition when he gave the world his wicked decree called “Summorum Pontificuм” in which he said that the New Mass is the “Ordinary Mass” of the Church and the Old True Mass is allowed only as “extraordinary,” “ad experimentum” for three years starting Sept. 14, 2007 on the condition that those who attend the true Mass accept both the New Mass and Vatican II.  When Bishop Felllay asked Catholics to sing the Te Deum in honor of such a blasphemy, he called down the wrath of God upon the SSPX and not any blessing.

Yikes. No thankfulness for small steps then, eh? Quite different from Father Williamson's reaction to the far more restrictive indult, when he proclaimed:

Quote

let us write to our diocesan Bishop and let us write to Rome letters full of gratitude for this Decree and of respect for their sublime office. Addresses in Rome and good advice for such letters are enclosed beneath Fr. Schmidberger's comments. Also let us urge priests and laity, who have till now used the Novus Ordo Missae, to ask for use of the Decree, without referring too closely to the conditions attached. Let us also remember that from now on in, that it is hard to admit one was wrong. We must make it as easy as possible for the misleaders and the misled to re-join Tradition. Without a trace of bitterness or arrogance, we must convey that it was for us a gift of God to have found Tradition, and it is natural for Catholics to return to it

- just more "demonic advice", I guess.

 :dancing-banana:
ABL is often selectively quoted by the SSPX.  His early words are given precedence over his later statements.  The reality is that as the crisis of V2 progressed, he changed his stance to be in agreement with Tradition.  Cannot Bp. W. and Fr. Pfeiffer be granted the same privilege, or must they prove themselves personally infallible?  If asked TODAY, Bp. W. thinks differently.  And Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp. W. do not agree on all points, else Bp. W. would be residing in Kentucky.