August 22, 2012

Dear Fr. Wegner,

I hope this letter finds you well on this feast day of Our Lady, and I
wish to thank you for your sermons at Transfiguration regarding the
ongoing “Rome and the SSPX” question these last few weeks - be assured
that your pastoral solicitude has not gone unnoticed!

The recent transfer of Transfiguration’s now-former prior, Fr. Damien
Fox, appears to be a public reprimand for his actions of June 24th in
St. Catherine's: addressing common concerns of many faithful in a
forthright, solicitous, and timely manner while avoiding speculation
and remaining charitable to all persons involved.  This also explains
why I have "cc'd" a number of faithful proximate to this situation,
given the public nature of the transfer, its immediate effects on the
faithful, and their own concerns.

Is Fr. Fox’s transfer related, directly or indirectly, to his sermon
and conference of June 24th, 2012 at Holy Face of Jesus Church in St.
Catherine's? (I have attached transcripts and links to videos for
reference.)

I ask and speculate to this effect for two reasons: 1) he was sent,
within a few days of giving this sermon and conference, to the priory
in St. Cesaire, QC for three weeks; 2) upon his return to
Transfiguration he was personally accompanied by the District Superior
and rarely, if ever, preached or spoke publicly in any capacity
thenceforth at Transfiguration until his departure.

If Fr. Fox’s words are related to his departure, are there errors in
his words which warrant transfer and/or silencing? If so, what would
these errors be?  Perhaps a corrective docuмent to this effect from
the District would be salutary? A good number of souls have already
heard these words and may now be cleaving to errors: if there are
errors and thus we are to resist them, what in them must be refuted
and in what would this refutation consist?

Perhaps the error itself was a matter of prudence only: “right words
at the wrong time”, to speak glibly.  But given the situation and its
immediacy for daily living as Catholics, Fr. Fox himself attested that
the message itself is in fact of the utmost importance for faithful to
heed.  So if they were only imprudent words but not containing error,
a formal corrective docuмent may be in order for the good of souls, so
that faithful may not imitate imprudent acts.

These are not morally neutral words from Fr. Fox: it seems their
message should be heeded and followed, or refuted whilst isolating
their errors: is there a “via media” heretofore uncovered?

If these words are wholly unrelated to his swift departure, is there
another issue of the external forum at issue?  We faithful are
admittedly not privy to every factor involved (nor do we need to be)
but it can be said fairly that the appearance of suddenly reprimanding
Fr. Fox without explained cause is unsettling, and that a certain
accountability and transparency with the faithful will go a long way
towards the fruitful care of souls in these turbulent times.  Note
that this query specifically prescinds any issue of the internal forum
or matters extrinsic to the care of souls.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and may Our Lady
continue to protect you in her Immaculate Heart.  Christe eleison.

Pax,
Andrew Rivera

 1) he was sent,
within a few days of giving this sermon and conference, to the priory
in St. Cesaire, QC for three weeks; 2) upon his return to
Transfiguration he was personally accompanied by the District Superior
and rarely, if ever, preached or spoke publicly in any capacity
thenceforth at Transfiguration until his departure.

This is just like the Novus Ordo's "reprogramming" priests who love the TLM!!

These truly are Communist tactics!  

Can someone talk to and encourage Fr. Fox to ensure he has not gone into a "reprogrammed" state of mind?

Dear Fr. Wegner,

I hope this letter finds you well on this feast day of Our Lady, and I
wish to thank you for your sermons at Transfiguration regarding the
ongoing “Rome and the SSPX” question these last few weeks - be assured
that your pastoral solicitude has not gone unnoticed!

The recent transfer of Transfiguration’s now-former prior, Fr. Damien
Fox, appears to be a public reprimand for his actions of June 24th in
St. Catherine's: addressing common concerns of many faithful in a
forthright, solicitous, and timely manner while avoiding speculation
and remaining charitable to all persons involved.  This also explains
why I have "cc'd" a number of faithful proximate to this situation,
given the public nature of the transfer, its immediate effects on the
faithful, and their own concerns.

Is Fr. Fox’s transfer related, directly or indirectly, to his sermon
and conference of June 24th, 2012 at Holy Face of Jesus Church in St.
Catherine's? (I have attached transcripts and links to videos for
reference.)

I ask and speculate to this effect for two reasons: 1) he was sent,
within a few days of giving this sermon and conference, to the priory
in St. Cesaire, QC for three weeks; 2) upon his return to
Transfiguration he was personally accompanied by the District Superior
and rarely, if ever, preached or spoke publicly in any capacity
thenceforth at Transfiguration until his departure.

If Fr. Fox’s words are related to his departure, are there errors in
his words which warrant transfer and/or silencing? If so, what would
these errors be?  Perhaps a corrective docuмent to this effect from
the District would be salutary? A good number of souls have already
heard these words and may now be cleaving to errors: if there are
errors and thus we are to resist them, what in them must be refuted
and in what would this refutation consist?

Perhaps the error itself was a matter of prudence only: “right words
at the wrong time”, to speak glibly.  But given the situation and its
immediacy for daily living as Catholics, Fr. Fox himself attested that
the message itself is in fact of the utmost importance for faithful to
heed.  So if they were only imprudent words but not containing error,
a formal corrective docuмent may be in order for the good of souls, so
that faithful may not imitate imprudent acts.

These are not morally neutral words from Fr. Fox: it seems their
message should be heeded and followed, or refuted whilst isolating
their errors: is there a “via media” heretofore uncovered?

If these words are wholly unrelated to his swift departure, is there
another issue of the external forum at issue?  We faithful are
admittedly not privy to every factor involved (nor do we need to be)
but it can be said fairly that the appearance of suddenly reprimanding
Fr. Fox without explained cause is unsettling, and that a certain
accountability and transparency with the faithful will go a long way
towards the fruitful care of souls in these turbulent times.  Note
that this query specifically prescinds any issue of the internal forum
or matters extrinsic to the care of souls.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and may Our Lady
continue to protect you in her Immaculate Heart.  Christe eleison.

Pax,
Andrew Rivera

At the end of Rivera's letter there are two links.

Attached file: June24_2012_Transcript.pdf (14 downloads, 45 KB)

Attached file: June24_2012_Transcript.rtf (2 downloads, 81 KB)

(The second link is for a Word file docuмent (rich text file), which is easier to copy
than the PDF file from the first link.) I followed the first link and found the
following material in regards to +Fellay's sell-out agenda (I have omitted the
words in Fr. Fox's sermon that were not specifically regarding the present situation
in the Society, for example, he tells stories to exemplify how "saints beget saints,"
which he refers to later in the conference talk, below):



...
So dear faithful, for those who have the Internet, you probably heard the fact that our Superior General has said there may be a split in the Society of St. Pius X. So, you’d better start waking up and work out now if there is a split, which way you will go. You better wake up. I woke up a week ago. our Superior General has said there may be a split in the Society of St. Pius X. So, you’d better start waking up and work out now if there is a split, which way you will go. You better wake up. I woke up a week ago.
...
...
So dear faithful, from the depth of my heart, I can tell you, as the priest who will one day have to answer to God for what he said June 24 at the 10AM Mass to traditional Catholics who go to the SSPX church in St. Catherine’s. I have this to say to you. I am convinced that it is not the will of God for the Society to have a merely practical agreement with Rome at the moment. I believe I will be sinning if I said otherwise to you or if I stayed silent on this truth, or this strong opinion, at least we will say that. This is so serious, this is so serious, I would like to, after Mass, to speak for another 30 minutes, 35 minutes, to those who would like to hear the reasons of why I’ve come to this conclusion. I’ve preached for too long already. After Mass, if you would like to hear those reasons, then please stay after Mass.
...

CONFERENCE



Here's a transcript. The end of this got pretty difficult to understand, so I put in some time marks if you'd like to have a listen and see if you can make out more than I could.

Thank you everyone for staying. So, things are very serious. I think I would be doing an injustice to you if I did not share with you the fact that the SSPX is in the biggest crisis in its history. The truth is the truth. Well first, allow me to read a little story from the Aesop’s Fables. You’ve probably read it by now, but I will read it again.


THE SCORPION AND THE FROG

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back. Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?" "Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you won’t try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly. "Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!" Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!" "This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!" "Alright then...how do I know you won’t just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.
"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current. Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs. "You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?" The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drowning frog's back. "I could not help myself. It is my nature." Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

“Self destruction, it’s my nature,” said the scorpion.


I hope Our Lord doesn’t mind me giving a conference here in the church, but the audio system is very good and you already have to deal with an Australian accent. So of course, in that story, I believe that the scorpion is the neo-modernist Rome. It has married itself to the liberal errors of the world – liberty, equality, fraternity. And, if it continues the way it is going, it will self destruct. That’s the nature of liberalism.

The frog, I think, and it’s an opinion, could represent the Society of St. Pius X.

So, if it was a week or two weeks ago, I’m not sure, but I woke up, because I realized that the essence of the question here is not about accepting regularization. That’s not the essence of the question. The essence of the question is this: is it prudent or is it God’s will that we put ourselves under the neo-modernist Rome. That’s the essence of this question.

And, I’ve discussed that with a couple of confreres. And, one in particular, I emailed. He’s considered in the Society as a very decent theologian. He didn’t give permission for me to use his name; I never asked if I could use his name. But, one of the questions I asked him, “is this the essence of the question.” And he said, “yes.” Now, when I say he’s a very decent theologian, that is also the opinions of my superiors at the highest levels. In other words, I’ve come to the realization that all this discussions about an agreement and regularization, I believe, and I think I could be mistaken, I think I don’t have the authority – I don’t have the grace of state – to speak for the whole Society.

But, at the same time, I am a priest of the Society. I have done three years of theology at the seminary. I have done the two years of philosophy. I consider myself a son of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. And, I’m a man. And that means I have to be able to use my intellect and will. God gave me an intellect and a will to make up my own mind about certain <>. He does not want any of us to be sheeple who follow blindly. So, in other words, like any temptation, it feels very good. We see that chocolate cake just sitting there on the table, Mom’s not around, we love chocolate cake. So, we take these three pieces of chocolate cake which just looks so delicious. It appears so wonderful, so beautiful. And then we add pounds to our weight and we get <>. But that chocolate cake appears so wonderful, so delightful.

So, this proposal, I believe, is a temptation from the devil. Regulation would be nice, but the essence of the question is, is it the will of God, is it prudent for the little Society of St. Pius X to place itself under the authority of neo-modernist Rome? I repeat again, I could be wrong, but the funny thing is that three of the four bishops of the Society do not want this practical agreement. More and more priests of the Society want nothing of a mere practical agreement. At least 50% of the Society priests in France do not want it. Most of the priests in the Asian district do not want it. The Australian priests, I think they’re still sleeping.

You know, I hate to say it, but the truth is the truth. I don’t have the gift of infallibility. I don’t have the gift of indefectibility. We have preached in our churches for 40 years at least that the Pope is not infallible in everything he does and says. We have preached that and we preached that, and we’re just merely giving you the teaching of the church. Well, let me remind you that the Pope, who is not infallible in everything he does and says, is also the highest authority on this planet when it comes to these matters. So, if he is not infallible and indefectible in these things, neither is any member of the Society of St. Pius X. The truth is the truth.

So then we come to this question, and we should often ask ourselves, “What is the will of God?” A young lady falls in love with Mr. Handsome. He’s 25. He’s a plumber, good job, he’s responsible, I guess he’s fairly handsome. <> Is it the will of God that she accepts if he proposes to her?

A married man, four children, has this thought, “I might move closer to the school at New Hamburg.” Is that the will of God? We ask ourselves this question, or we should, often. We find in scripture these words, “This is the will of God, your sanctification.” The will of God is really important.

So, God is completely single; there are no parts involved. So, God’s will is one of His intellect. But for us, poor creatures, we’re so small we have to consider God’s will under two aspects. This is what theologians do. And those two aspects are called the signified will of God and, secondly, God’s will of good pleasure.

So, this is just what you’ll find in any decent book on Divine Providence. For example, the book of Cardinal <> and any decent spiritual book. What is the will of God? So, the signified will of God – how does God signify his will to us – he signifies his will to us by giving us the Ten Commandments, the commandments of the church. For a Society priest, we have the rules about the Society.

I remember I was going to Florida every weekend for about three years, I was in Kansas City. It was what my Superior asked me to do. And that was about a 3 to 3 ½ hour direct flight, if I could get a direct flight. It seemed to me crazy. And the people of Florida would say, “Father, why don’t you just move down here to Florida?” Like Fr. Pulvermacher, he was a Franciscan priest who lived there in Florida. And I said, “no, actually it is the will of God for a Society priest, it’s part of our rule that we live in community, and I can not depart from that.” That is a rule which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre put in the constitutions he gave us – that we need to live in community and that’s what we do. So, God signifies his will to us by giving us the Commandments, by giving us the commandments of the Church, by giving us the rules of being in a congregation, by giving us the various counsels we find in Scripture, and so on.

So the other way of knowing God’s will, (knowing it’s?) one in the same, is called God’s will of good pleasure. So [for] example, it’s God’s good pleasure today it’s quite a warm day. It might be God’s good pleasure if we’re 48 years of age and we’re going bald. It might be God’s will of good pleasure that we’re born into a family which is in the middle class. And so on. It might be God’s good pleasure that we’re born with reasonable intelligence. Myself, I’m just born very handsome, that’s just the way it is. That’s just a joke alright.

So, we shouldn’t wake up in the morning and say, “ah, this is terrible, it’s so cold, it’s so hot.” We shouldn’t complain in the hospital if we’re suffering from an ailment of some sort. It’s God’s good pleasure if we’re sick.

So, let’s go back to those two points by first considering the signified will of God. So, what should happen, what should happen is our Superior tells us to do something and that is known to be the will of God. So, for example, our parents come up with the conclusion that we need to be homeschooled. We should accept that. Our parents come up with the conclusion that they need to to Alberta. We should accept that. I’m not saying that it’s necessarily infallible, but it’s signified to us. So for example, I was told some months ago, “would you come to Toronto?” No offense to you, but I didn’t ask to come to Toronto, my superior said, “Go to Toronto.” I admit, I did ask for a transfer. It was God’s good pleasure that I needed a break from the school that I was principal of in Kansas City.

So, the Crisis in the Church comes down to a crisis in authority. In the time of our grandparents, they could just look to their authorities in the church and they knew that it was the signified will of God. They knew the bishops were speaking the truth from the pulpits. It’s in our hearts as Catholics to want to do what the Pope says. It’s in our hearts. We look to obey the Supreme Pontiff. We want to. It’s, for example, the priest puts the cassock and the white collar on and it’s in our hearts that we like the cassock and the white collar. It’s our right as Catholics. We live for that.

But, the unfortunate thing is for the last forty years we have not be able to see in the authorities in Rome the signified will of God. For example, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was told by Rome not to go ahead and do the episcopal consecrations in 1988. The Pope basically told him that. Well he knew that he had a duty before God to go ahead and to consecrate the four bishops of the Society. So the Pope was saying one thing to him, but he knew that was not the signified will of God.

It’s a sad thing for Catholic priests to have to say. But, you come to the Society chapels because you recognize, or have recognized at least, the voice of the Good Shepherd. And those churches which have “Catholic” written outside of them may not necessarily have the voice of the Good Shepherd being spoken to their priests and bishops. You’ve basically said, whether you realize or not, “I don’t see the signified will of God there.” So just because the Pope would apparently like this agreement, I don’t believe we should take much heed of it.

To put it more bluntly, the same Pope who wanted Assisi III and attended Assisi III, wants us to be regulated. When you put it like that, the red light is just flashing. And I want the red light in your mind to be just flashing at the moment.

Why do I speak like this? Because the red light is just flashing for me. Then we can also consider what’s called God’s will of good pleasure.

Let’s go back to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The members of the Society consider him to be a saint raised up in the twentieth century to continue the Catholic Church. As a spiritual son of the Archbishop, I want to read all his books; I want to preach everything in his books. He’s the saint of the twentieth century. He’ll probably go down in history, we believe one day, as one of the great saints that God has ever raised up.

Once again, as I said this morning, saints beget saints. When his mother died in about 1946, the spiritual director of his mother wrote a life about her because she was considered a saint then. The Society has since reprinted it. Saints beget saints.

So, we have preached and preached and preached to you that the episcopal consecrations in 1988 was something extraordinary and the Archbishop justified his actions on two events that had happened. The first event was in 1986, Assisi I. And then soon after, he received a docuмent back from Rome. In the duty of doubts he had written a letter to Rome and it was about the doubts of what was being preached and taught in Vatican II and then a number of years later he got a reply back. Rome can be a bit slow.

So in these two events, he recognized God’s good pleasure in Assisi I and then his reply to his duty came back and he said that’s a sign from God that I need to go ahead with the episcopal consecrations at 9AM – Operation Survival.

I as a priest, I’ve preached that for 13 years. And six years in the seminary before that, maybe longer. Before I went to seminary … almost for 20 years I’ve understood the meaning of these and have preached that.

Well then Assisi III just happened eight months ago. Unbelievable. Such an event was being condemned by all Popes before the Vatican II Popes. So, how could I stand here in the pulpit in the future and justify to my conscience that Assisi III is a sign from God to go ahead and be like a frog and put itself under what I consider to be the scorpion. How can I justify that to my conscience?

In metaphysics we learn about this thing called the principle of non-contradiction. And we had eight months ago the beatification of John Paul II.

While the negotiations are going on and these talks are going on, it becomes public knowledge that the neo-modernist Rome is going to have the Good Shepherd Society compromise on their stand or their fidelity to Tradition. To me, that was God’s good pleasure, it was God kindly manifesting to us, “do not trust these people, they are scorpions.”

There is another truth, it’s called vox populi, the voice of the people. It sounds democratic. What that means is, if good people are wanting something, then maybe it’s a good thing. And if good people have red lights flashing, maybe they’re right. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre understood this. Before the episcopal consecrations in 1988… (And remember we’re talking about someone who was an Archbishop, he’d been a missionary all his life, spent most of his life in Africa, he was the apostolic delegate for all French-speaking Africa. He was a man of the Church. At one time, I believe he was responsible for somewhere between 30 and 45 dioceses as apostolic delegate. And he would say to the Pope, I think that this diocese in which there are a lot of conversions should now be submitting too. And he would say to the Pope, “Holy Father, here’s three candidates that I suggest you
choose one of them for archbishop of this diocese. These are their attributes and my recommendation is this particular priest.” In the seminary he was known as “The Angel”. The list just goes on; read his life by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.)

With all this world of experience, he was so humble, so humble, before the episcopal consecrations, he went and consulted with these young priests, he consulted with them. This venerable old archbishop. And then he went to the sisters who had remained faithful to Tradition and asked them what they thought. And they said to him, these old sisters, “go ahead and do these Episcopal consecrations, we can not place ourselves under Rome. If you die on us and we’ve got no bishops what will we do?” It was the vox populi, voice of the people, vox populi bonum, voice of the good people.

So, I would ask the question, why is it that around the world now, a lot of Traditional Catholics are very, very upset? Why is it each day the priests in the Society more and more they are getting more upset by all this?

Well maybe it has something to do with these things:

25 Oct 2007 – The Pope went to the interreligious meeting in Naples
2008 April – he visits the ѕуηαgσgυє in New York
2008 – he went to (Sydney?) cultural liturgy, a pagan ritual
May 2009 – visited the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem
2009 – Jєωιѕн ritual at the Wailing Wall, which is something Jєωs only do
January 2010 – feast at the ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome
May 2011 – the Beatification of John Paul II
And then Assisi.

The fact is, the people who come to our chapels who read and study are going, “No, no, we cannot have anything to do with this.” I can list some other horrible fruits that I see. Myself, personal opinion, could be wrong, but I see the mark of the devil in all of this.

The sanction of our Society priests has never been like this before. It is manifestly divided, as you know, but as to sanctions, they are not from God, God doesn’t work like that.

There’s another thing here that I’d like to share with you but I have a story first. I heard this story first at a retreat by one of our priests. I believe the topic of the conference was, basically, we shouldn’t commit sin because it is offense against our father. There’s always reasons not to commit sin, but we shouldn’t commit sin because it is an offense against our father.

So this particular priest who was one giving the retreat, he spoke about this island, it was like a French colony, I forget where it was exactly. It was a prison colony. And, in this prison, you had murders, robbers, rapists, just some of the worst criminals. Worst criminals. They had been sent to this prison island. But, just off to one side, there was a prisoner no one spoke to. The prisoners themselves considered him an outcast. You know why? Because, he had killed his father.

(42:40) So we priests, we’re honored by people calling us father. But, we ourselves have received our priesthood from the Society bishops, or from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. <> those who would know <> said, “we’ll consider the Society separate, we’ll consider three bishops separately from the Society of St. Pius X.” For me, that’s enough. I want nothing to do, personally, with this group of men who are proposing to a priest that we abandon 75% of the Society bishops who have fathered us to the priesthood.

How could I <> our faithful to (rely?) on the future, if we can abandon those bishops who fathered us in the priesthood? How could I stand here and tell you (the priests will be here for tomorrow?)?

(44:20) Like I said, I woke up a week or two weeks ago and I’m angry. And I’m ready for fighting. Because Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for each and every one of you. I enjoin the Society of St. Pius X to continue the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

For myself, to please God, I do not make any compromises. To please God. The Faith is at stake. And that is why, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais preached against the agreement at the Winona ordinations. Because he saw it as his duty as the bishop.

These discussions with Rome have shown the very foundations of the Society of St. Pius X. (???) So things are serious.

(45:45) The advantage of doing a conference here…??? (these comments didn’t pertain to the conference)

(46:00) I want you to wake up. I woke up a week or two weeks ago. And so, I ask you with all your heart and soul to pray for the priests and the four Society bishops who will be attending this meeting of the Superiors of the Society in July. Please pray for them.

And please, yourselves, become informed and let’s try to keep up with our current events and all of this and let’s not allow the devil to undermine the good work that the little Society of St. Pius X has [] already been allowed to accomplish during these last forty years by the grace of God.

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.




It seems to me, Matthew, you're right, Fr. Wenger is not going to respond to this
open letter. And that alone is a great reason for us to be talking about it.

LET IT BECOME WIDELY DISSEMINATED THAT FR. WENGER
IS REFUSING TO RESPOND TO THIS POLITE, WELL-REASONED
AND WELL-INTENTIONED LETTER.

FOR IT WILL BE A GOOD THING FOR EVERYONE IF, WHEREVER
FR. WENGER GOES FOR THE NEXT YEAR, SOMEONE SAYS TO
HIM: OH, BY THE WAY, FR. WENGER, HAVE YOU ANSWERED
THE VERY SIMPLE AND POLITE QUESTIONS THAT ANDREW
RIVERA ASKED YOU IN HIS PUBLIC LETTER OF August 22, 2012?

Begining to wonder if we have acenario akin to Invasion of Body Snatchers....as if Menzigen has pods lined up under the Church or somewhere.....perhaps, Bishop Fellay has been replaced or on a ship somewhere......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers_(1978_film)

That's funny.  And it just happens to be what I told a friend of mine months ago:  "Maybe they're Pod People?!"   :surprised:

We need to investigate that.   :detective: