Well, it was so predictable that Kansas City would use the opportunity of our current pastor's vacation to send an accordista to rally the troops, that some of us considered recording the sermon today (knowing it would be a barn-burner), but unfortunately, I am not aware of anyone actually having followed through with a recording.

If such a recording does come to surface, I will let you know, but until then, I supply these bullet points:

1) Fr. Rutledge states he is not undercutting the authority of our pastor (Fr. Steven Webber) by delivering such a sermon, because he was specifically sent by Fr. Rostand to deliver it;

2) The SSPX has not changed in the last 4 years (He even defied, rhetorically, anyone to cite a single change);

3) There is no such thing as the resistance, because there is nothing to resist.  Therefore, he will call us dissidents;

4) The secrecy in which the resistance has been working is the method of the devil;

5) The resistance are akin to Judas; they are treasonous; they are hypocrites to bite the hand that feeds them, then present themselves at the communion rail;

6) He recommends the Kansas City conference of Fr. Thiemann to dispel all the resistance arguments and give you the facts;

7) Bishop Williamson is a liberal for his thought that authority is so crippled by the minds of modern men, that hierarchy should be abandoned;

8) Bishop Williamson is a liberal for saying both sides of an argument should be considered before concluding as to which is the truth, because we all know the voice of truth when we hear it;

9) All the arguments of the resistance are based on misinformation;

10) It is ridiculous to oppose talking to Rome about a deal; even Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1970s evinced his desire to be united to Rome;

11) Archbishop Lefebvre was criticized for his desire to be united to Rome by the sedevacantists back then;

12) All the groups that have left the SSPX have disintegrated, and the same can be expected for the resistance;

13) Nothing in the seminary formation has changed; we still have the same courses;

14) I preach the same sermons I preached 4 years ago;

Dear reader, there was much more than this, but I am working from memory; since several other parishioners from St. Paul frequent this website, you may feel free to interject/correct/or add as needed.

These are my brief responses:

1) If it is true, as Fr. Rutledge says, that he was sent to deliver this sermon by Fr. Rostand, then it heavily implies that Kansas City feels the people of St. Paul need to hear something they are not getting from their regular pastor.

This may also explain why we got a milder anti-resistance sermon the last time Fr. Webber went on vacation as well.

Funny thing is, our regular pastor is no resistance supporter, but openly denounces Vatican II on a regular basis.  

Apparently even this much is taboo in the neo-SSPX (and perfectly aligns with Fr. Girouard's recent bombshell revelation of Fr. Wegner's hiring of a Dutch PR campaign to remake the public image of the SSPX; more on that later).

Kansas City is misplaying this hand: They are going to end up making a resistance priest out of Fr. Webber, despite Fr. Webber's aversion to the resistance!

2) A book could be written citing all the changes to the SSPX in the last 4 years, contrary to the baseless assertion of Fr. Rutledge (which counts on the ignorance of the laity in order to have them swallow this whopper; remember: stay off the internet!  And apparently most have).  

On the chance Fr. Rutledge's baseless assertion could gain traction because of the sheeple's refusal to inform themselves, I will begin building a Compendium of Changes in the SSPX since 2000; look for it on this website in a couple weeks.

Meanwhile, here are a few changes from the SSPX that even the most willfully blind will have trouble side-stepping:

A) The 2012 General Chapter Statement contradicts that of 2006, by allowing for a practical agreement without first settling the doctrinal issues;

B) The contradiction of Archbishop Lefebvre's post-1988 consecration position with regard to relations with Rome, highlighted in the oft-cited 1988 Fideliter interview, that there be no agreement with Rome before Rome's conversion to tradition;

C) The continual contradictions of Bishop Fellay himself:

In 2003 (see Letter #63), Campos was suicidal for coming to an agreement with Rome;

In 2012 (see March 2012 Cor Unum) he tried to sell a deal to the priests by telling them the situation in Rome had changed to such a degree, it required a new position/response from the SSPX;

Then after seeing himself snubbed by Rome, and a deal out of reach for the moment with Francis coming to the papacy, he tells us (see Letter #85) that nothing in Rome has changed at all, and we must continue the fight.  

Anyone familiar with Talleyrand?  He had an uncanny ability to see which way momentum and events were heading, and make sure he ended up on the winning side.

3) Since the examples in #2 above serve as a refutation of this claim as well, I will let it pass, except to observe that Archbishop Lefebvre was also called a dissident by Rome, for refusal to submit to modernism and modernist superiors.  

4) I found this the most hypocritical statement of the entire sermon, in light of all the secret dealings and negotiations between Rome/Menzingen.  As an afterthought, I will have to add that to the list of changes in the SSPX: Whereas Bishop Fellay effectively told concerned laity to go bug-off because it was none of our business, Archbishop Lefebvre was always very open about his dealings with Rome, and said the faithful had a strict right to know that their priests were not modernists.  

5) On the one hand, this comment seems to have been designed to shame resistance communicants away from receiving Communion.

On the other hand, they see the traitors as the ones who will not go along with their marketing revolution designed to get a deal.  

In 16th century England, they would have sided with Henry VIII, and made the same accusation against St. Thomas.

But the interesting thing as that Fr. Rutledge's definition of treason seems to be determined by a person's fidelity to authority, not principles.

He seems not to realize (being charitable) this itself is how revolution is facilitated, and he is one facilitating it.

Those of us who have rightly kept our gaze fixed at the level of principle (like Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1988 Fideliter interview!) have become immovable, and like the old SSPX, are a thorn in the side of Menzingen.

No, Fr. Rutledge.  If you want to look at traitors, ask yourself who has betrayed the 1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

6) Another hypocrisy, because the Fr. Thiemann conference basically explained why a deal with Rome would be good; apparently, the mindless troops of Menzingen could not keep up with the latest spin coming from Switzerland, because Fr. Thiemann's April 15 conference was contradicted by Bishop Fellay's April 17 Letter #85, in which he says nothing in Rome has changed, and we must hold the course!

The troubling issue here is that this mindlessness implies a desire to back the general regardless of what he says.

Obedience is superior to truth, and is also apparently independent of it.

It matters not whether Menzingen contradicts itself 50 times: We will back the latest position regardless of truth or consequences.

"We have always been at war with Eurasia!"

7) I personally disagree with Bishop Williamson's strategy of the loose confederation.  But Fr. Rutledge has misunderstood the strategy, if in it he sees an implicit acceptance of democracy, egalitarianism, or equality, or some other liberal principle.

8) Who can hear this, and not suspect the desire to keep the laity stupid and uninformed?  Don't go read the arguments of the resistance, because it is the devil!  Yet, whatever happened to "thee truth will set you free?"  If it is true, as Fr. Rutledge says, that the people know the truth when they hear it, then why is he so scared that they should be exposed to resistance arguments?  Menzingen should triumph easily, should it not?

9) Yet not a single resistance argument was cited for rebuttal.  One suspects the intent to discredit without entering into debate.  Why?  Because debate would bring the very issues to surface that Kansas City wants to dismiss a priori as misinformation.  

Meanwhile, the sheeple will make a show of loyalty by outdoing each other in their ignorance on the issues.  

Mission accomplished.

10) This is dishonesty.  Archbishop Lefebvre negotiated with Rome for decades.  Yes.  But after the 1988 consecrations, he no longer needed approval from Rome in order to perpetuate tradition, and therefore changed his approach with regard to them.

That position, laid out in the 1988 Fideliter interview said no agreement without conversion the of Rome.

Talks were useless (his words).

So to give examples of Archbishop Lefebvre's willingness to talk and negotiate with Rome from the 1970s as proof that there is nothing wrong with Bishop Fellay doing the same in 2000-2013 is deceptive.

11) The tired implication being that thee resistance are closet sedevacantists today?

Or was it just an example which tried to say that there will always be some malcontents opposed to a deal, just as they were opposed to Archbishop Lefebvre talking to Rome back in the 1970s?

If the latter, then I defer to my answer above in #10.

12) More deception!

The groups that left the SSPX and later disintegrated did so not because they left the SSPX, but because they went to Rome!

And now you would have us stay quiet and back a course (laid out in the March 20112 Cor Unum) that would lead us to the same disintegration?

And if we refuse to disintegrate ourselves, we are rebels motivated by misinformation and the devil?

13) Really?

You may still have the same courses and books.

Tell me: Do you still have the same spiritual conferences and sermons?

When I was in the seminary, I heard sermon after sermon, and conference after conference against modernism, Vatican II, the sellout of Campos, etc.

You are telling me you still have all that?

It would seem to contradict the PR firm Bishop Fellay and Fr. Wegner hired to re-brand the SSPX, the primary characteristic of which is the removal of combativeness and opposition to Rome/Vatican II/Modernism in order to gain worldly approval (and the good will of Rome?)

Additionally, the faithful have noticed this lack of combativeness in the priests ordained since Bishop Williamson's transfer.

Sermons on the virtues, but rarely anything against Vatican II.

Fr. Girouard's revelation that Menzingen hired a PR firm which advised him to quit preaching against Rome/Vatican II, and that this course has been executed (as admitted by Fr. Wegner to Fr. Girouard), seems to contradict your statement that the formation is the same as it has ever been.

If so, it could only be so despite the branding campaign paid for by Menzingen, which does not seem likely.

14) Related to my answer above:

What kind of sermons did you preach then and now?

Did you indite Rome, condemn modernism, and preach against Vatican II regularly 4 years ago?

The answer to #13 above makes that seem unlikely, and so you can honestly say that you have not had to change at all n the last 4 years.

Problem is, your whole formation was designed to make sure you were not like the Bishop Williamson priests, who railed against such things.

PS to Cathinfo readers:

Fr Webber will still be on vacation next week, so be prepared for more!

Sean, didn't you leave the SSPX?

Nope.

Don't you remember the whole red light/yellow light thing?

I attend resistance masses when they are in town, otherwise SSPX.

Nb: I would remove the final 3 words to my response to item #5 if I could, but the timeframe for editing has expired.

Hi Harry-

Thought you might show up here today.

Question:

Was I in the wrong place 4 years ago?  Because I haven't changed any positions since then.

How do you explain that?

Great synopsis of the sermon, Sean.  

I will add only a few points:

- Only the SG has all the facts; only he has the complete picture.  The only reliable   facts are those issued from the SG.  We, the "dissidents" have succuмbed to a well orchestrated campaign of rumor and innuendo initiated by the "dissident" Bishop and his few allied "dissident" priests.

 He employed St. Thomas Aquinas' famous statement: "Against a FACT, there is no argument".  (Meaning  against +Fellay's officially released statements there can be no arguments.)

He repeated the erroneous statement that the SSPX unity is derived from the authority of the Superior General.  Obedience to that authority is required.

Those who are in the "dissident" faction are there because of a personal attachment to their favorite "dissident" Bishop and/or "dissident" priest(s).

 We are in schism because the "schismatic, dissident" SSPX clergy have skillfully led us into schism.

All of the above can be traced back to the Devil who is a master of sowing confusion, discord, and deception in the form of "misinformation".

SSPX "dissidents" do NOT have all the necessary "FACTS".  Because of the malicious misinformation they have sown in "secret" meetings, they are guilty of "destroying the unity of the SSPX, which is tantamount to "treason", a capitol offense in civil law.  He also accused all SSPX "dissidents of being gnostics and unwitting accomplices to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.  (I must admit that I interiorly chuckled at that allegation.)

I was not rebuked, in spite of his "good" efforts toward that end.

Hey ya'll listen up: Our ever-so-wise and ever-so-charitable Sup Gen spent a lot of money on this re-branding of the SSPX so they must know what they're doing...Apparently the ArchBp didn't have a clue...Thank goodness for Bp Fellay and Maxie Krah-the point man for the crypto Jєω money that we needed to pay for our re-branding and our new seminary....They're mainstreaming us..making us respectable...Come on, show a little gratitude people.

I heard today at Mass that Fr. Rostand will say Mass at our Chapel in two weeks. I wonder what his sermon will be about.

They neo-SSPX are a cult group.  Calling Bishop Williamson a liberal is preposterous.  Only a cult-addled brain would come up with something like that.