Intersting, from the PDF you attached ...
It's called plausible deniability.  SSPX agreed with the book, thus permitting it to be published without insisting upon corrections, but wanted to distance themselves from any blowback that might result.

Bergoglio uses this tactic often.  He repeatedly allowed Scalfari to publish the attribution of grossly heretical statements to him.  Bergoglio never repudiated these statements nor denied them, but with Scalfari being the mouthpiece, he could maintain a separation from them and plausible deniability.

Here's a good analysis about the Bergoglio/Scalfari partnership:  https://onepeterfive.com/scalfari-friend-of-francis-claims-pope-believes-jesus-was-not-a-god-at-all/

Preserve and backup all this info. Action must be taken to have these, and all such controversial topics openly discussed (not just on the internet among the few who consider these things), so that the truth may be found, the faith preserved, and anyone in error convinced of it and the consequences of it.

Was it Anne Cathrine Emmerich who prophesied people not trusting anyone, even their neighbor in the church at some point? Looks like we could be getting close to those times.

I have watched a ton of videos lately on "Answers in Genesis" about Creation, evolution, young earth, DNA, man's history, etc. and although it's a protestant group, they made points that a Catholic can take as-is and use! For example, the fact that there was no death before Original Sin. If the fossil record is truly the millions of years before Man's monkey ancestor was "upgraded" (given an immortal, rational soul) by the direct intervention of God, then there was PLENTY of ...death BEFORE Original Sin. Which is heresy.

Long story short, Fr. Robinson (et al) are much more unforgivable than priests teaching *the same exact material* in 1940 or 1950. Because we simply didn't have the truth staring us in the face back then. We didn't know what went on in a cell. We didn't know anything about DNA or genetics compared with today. AND Catholics in the 1950's were truly taken off guard, they thought that the scientists TRULY had proven evolution. So they just salvaged their religion, saying "Well, I know God exists, so He must have used evolution..."

But such a position would be ridiculous today. We know better.

* We know what Darwin and all his peers thought a cell was in his day (basically a homogeneous, gelatinous blob)
* Darwin expected transitional fossils (stages between species, proving evolution) to be found -- they never were
* We had the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980, which caused "millions of years" of activity to happen in just weeks or months. We basically had God demonstrate to us just how quickly certain geological features can be created.
* We know the statistical probability of how long it would take for a single protein to be created by random chance. Basically: impossible.
* Natural selection (original wolf-like dog --> Poodle) is NOT the same as creating new information and a new species. You can get a poodle from the original Dog kind, but you breed OUT tons of information to get the degenerate result: a poodle. You can't go from poodle --> original Dog.  A new species involves new features, new programming, new INFORMATION. One of the atheists weakpoints: show me any observable mechanism whereby nature ADDS new information to the DNA of an animal. I'll wait. All they have is "mutation" but mutations are *always* harmful. You don't get wings on a lizard all the sudden.
* And speaking of wings, there's the Irreducable Complexity argument. Certain "features" or parts of an animal all have to be created AT ONCE, ON DAY ONE or they don't work AND the animal doesn't survive to reproduce. Check and mate, evolution. Like the false "Jello cell" model, we might think, at first glance, that "wings" are something simple. But they're anything but simple. They involves whole SYSTEMS. You're talking hundreds of moving parts, including the entire creature's bone structure and density.

For example, that one beetle that mixes chemicals to create an explosion to defend itself. Go watch a video or read an article about that little wonder. If the whole system didn't work on DAY ONE, the beetles would explode, destroy themselves, etc. and NO MORE BEETLES. They wouldn't survive to the next generation to proceed with iterative (step-by-step) development by blind chance. They wouldn't get that chance. Exploded, dead beetles don't reproduce. Irreducable Complexity.

We close by again recalling Mr. Chaussee's summary of Fr. Celier's 1987 essay (reposted by Ladislaus above), now for sale for sale by Angelus Press to English-language readers:

"1987 - Grégoire Celier, The Ecuмenical Dimension of Liturgical Reform. Editions FIDELITER, Le Pointet, Escurolles. © G. CELIER.

It is the work of a scholar who has accuмulated more than 300 quotations, most of which are contrary to traditional doctrine, but none of which are corrected by a reminder of the truth. Thus, in the foreground, a quotation from Archbishop Annibale Bugnini (but of course!):

"Liturgical reform is a great conquest of the Catholic Church, with important ecuмenical repercussions; not only has it aroused the admiration of other Churches and Christian communities, but it also represents a kind of model for them. » (1974).

But Celier forgets to say that in 1975, we discovered with amazement that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason! In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 10, Bishop Lefebvre wrote: "When we learn in Rome that he who was the soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we can think that he is not the only one. The veil that covers the greatest mystification of clerics and the faithful has probably begun to be torn. "A revealing omission, twenty years ago already.

This book could be signed by a progressive conciliarist or by a Protestant. The warning contains no criticisms of neo-Modernist ecuмenism and there is no reference to the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI, (1928) condemning this modern ecuмenism. Obviously, the author has forgotten the Apostle's precept: "I implore you... insist in time and against time, correct, correct, threaten, exhort, always with patience and instruction. " (II Timothy 4:1-2).

So how could this pernicious book be allowed to be published when it was a lying by omission?"

What about Fr Emmanuel du Challard ? Hasn't this Archbishop Lefebvre ordained priest been the longest standing go between between the Modernists and the SSPX?
Isn't he the Superior General of the Novus Ordo approved Consoling Sisters of the Sacred Heart that accepts both spiritual and monetary assistance from the SSPX and has alluded all Vatican restrictions on the TLM including the latest Rescription? This order of nuns operates in Europe and India. In the latter country it monopolizes the priestly and monetary resources of the
SSPX and has thus ground the Apostolate in that country to a halt.