lundi 1 octobre 2012


Vidéo en anglais :
Conférence à traduire en français s'il vous plaît, en vue de la publication d'un article puis d'un DVD sous-titré gratuit ou très peu cher, au prix des fournitures. Nous recherchons des bonnes volontés. Même si vous n'êtes pas spécialiste, ce n'est pas grave, vous pouvez quand même traduire ce texte. Cela nous aide. Nous vérifierons tout après. Si vous êtes volontaire, inscrivez-vous en cliquant dans une ou des cases du questionnaire à droite de la page et envoyez nous un mail pour nous le dire (Cf. onglet contact). D'avance, nous vous remercions pour votre aide précieuse.

I’m glad to pick up that some of you are enjoying Bishop de Galarreta.  It’s a very good piece.  People say that he doesn’t declare himself in public much, which is perfectly true, but you can see how he thinks, and so he’s not going to go along with a sell-out of the Society. 


Do you think the fact that the two religious orders have been banned from Econe will spur him on to speak, since he’s got the authority over the religious orders?


He is very careful of saying things in public.  I don’t think that will stir him to say something in public, but he won’t be pleased by that at all.  He’ll be reacting without reacting in public, I would say.        


Let’s go on with what Bishop de Galarreta does say - “Three principles that we would implicitly be accepting if we made a deal.  The second principle is that one may interpret the whole of Vatican II in line with Tradition.”  That’s Benedict XVI – the whole of the Council can be interpreted in such a way that it’s in continuity with Tradition and not a break with Tradition.


“We could be helping them to find, if necessary, the good interpretation.  That’s what they mean by the hermeneutic of continuity - the hermeneutic of rupture, namely.  Interpreting the Council and Tradition in such a way that there’s clearly a break between the two must be rejected for the Romans because neither Vatican II nor the post-conciliar Magisterium can have been wrong.  After the discussions and the document that Rome has just put forward, it’s only too clear that they would accept us only on the basis of the hermeneutic of continuity and rejecting the hermeneutic of rupture.  It’s impossible,” says Bishop de Galarreta.


Archbishop Lefebvre – “The replies to the objections which were sent to us by Rome through intermediaries were all inclining to show us that there was no change but a continuation of Tradition.  Such statements are worse than those of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.  It’s truly official lying.”  That’s calling things by their name.  “As long as in Rome they will remain attached to Conciliar ideas – religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality – we will be on the wrong road.  It’s serious because it’s not just principles.  It extends to practical effects.  That is what justifies the visit of the Pope to Cuba.  The Pope is visiting or receiving Communist leaders who are torturers or assassins and who have the blood of Christians on their hands.  He receives them as though they were just as worthy as honest people.”


Bishop de Galarreta - “The third false principle which the Society would have to go along with if there was a practical agreement – the truth of the Faith evolves, dogmas evolve, dogmatic formulas evolve, and the definitions of the Faith are simply substantial approaches to the mysteries of the Faith.  The core remains while the rest evolves according to time, culture, historical circumstances, experience and the life of the people of God.  Consequently, Tradition is living; Tradition is Vatican II; the condemnations of Liberalism and Modernism are out of date.”  That is Bishop de Galarreta summarising what we would have to swallow, what we would have to go along with if we went in with Rome.


Archbishop Lefebvre – “That’s why they wanted Vatican II to be a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council because they do not believe in infallibility.  They do not want any once-and-for-all Truth.  The Truth must live, as they say, and it must evolve.  It may change eventually with time, with history, with science, etc, whereas infallibility fixes once and for all a formula and a truth which can no longer change.  They can’t believe in that.  It is we who are with infallibility and not with the Conciliar Church.  The Conciliar Church is against infallibility.  That is absolutely certain.  Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility.  The Pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation.  Let people understand this – we are not against the Pope insofar as he represents all the values of the Apostolic See, which are unchanging, the See of Peter.  We are against a pope who is a Modernist, who does not believe in his own infallibility and who practises ecumenism.  Obviously we are against the Conciliar Church, which is virtually schismatic, even if they do not accept that.  In practice, it is a Church which is virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.  They pretend to excommunicate us because we want to remain Catholic.  We wish to remain with the Catholic Pope and with the Catholic Church.  That’s the difference.”


Another quote of the Archbishop – “Precisely, we do not have the same truth.  For them truth evolves, truth changes with time, and so does Tradition.  Tradition is today’s Vatican II for them.  For us, Tradition is what the Church taught from the Apostles down to our days.  For them, no, Tradition is Vatican II, which sums up in itself everything that was preceedingly said.  Historic circumstances are such that now we must believe in what Vatican II has done.  What happened before no longer exists.  It all belongs to the past.  That’s why the Cardinal does not hesitate to say, ‘Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus.’  One wonders how a cardinal of the Holy Church can possibly say that the Second Vatican Council is an anti­-Syllabus when that was a very official act of Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Quanta Cura.  It is unimaginable. 


“I said one day to Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘Your Eminence, we’ve got to choose either religious liberty such as it was taught in the Council or the Syllabus of Pius IX.  They are contradictory and we have to choose one or the other.’  The Cardinal replied to me, ‘Oh, Your Excellency, we’re no longer in the age of the Syllabus.  ‘Ah,’ I said, ‘Then Truth changes with time.  In that case what you tell me today, Your Eminence, tomorrow will be no longer true.’”


The Archbishop comments – “There’s no way of getting along with these people.  They are in a continual evolution.  It’s becoming impossible to speak.”


That’s very profound – meaning when you’ve got somebody opposite you for whom the Truth is constantly evolving, what point is it in trying to persuade him of something today when you know perfectly well that tomorrow he’ll think something completely different?  How can you talk when you know that the person you face, his ideas are moving all the time?  His ideas may move from one minute to the next.  So what does it matter if one minute he agrees or disagrees with you, when the next moment he may disagree or agree with you?  Dialogue with these mish-mush people is impossible, and the Conciliarists are mish-mush people.  That’s what they have in their minds.


Archbishop Lefebvre - “He repeated to me, ‘There is only one Church and it’s the Church of Vatican II.  Vatican II represents Tradition.’  Unfortunately the Church of Vatican II is opposed to Tradition.  It’s not the same thing.  The Cardinal says ‘Vatican II represents Tradition’ but the Church of Vatican II is opposed to Tradition.  It’s not the same thing.”


These people have got modern philosophy where there’s no contradiction, so 2+2=4 is just as good or as bad as 2+2=5.  There’s no contradiction.  All error is enclosed in all truth and all truth is enclosed in error - that’s the hermeneutic of continuity.  It’s the German philosopher, Hegel.  There’s no longer any law of contradiction.  Truth no longer excludes error.  There’s no such thing as a truth that excludes error.  All truth includes all error.  All dryness includes all wetness.  To say that all dryness includes all wetness is profound!  Normally our minds are shut in by the idea that dryness excludes wetness, but how much more outgoing, how much more creative to see how dryness implies wetness, and by implying wetness it includes wetness, and so we’re no longer divided between dryness and wetness!  Both of them include one another!  We’ve got all reality in one!  We’re into a new brave world where no longer one thing excludes another!  These people are nuts, and they’re inside the Church, and the SSPX now wants to join them. 


The Archbishop – “Certainly the question of liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it’s not the most important.  The most important is the question of the Faith.  For us the question is settled.  We have the Faith of all time – the Faith of the Council of Trent, the catechism of St Pius X and all the councils and all the popes before Vatican II.


“For years they’ve striven in Rome to show that whatever was in the Council was perfectly in conformity with Tradition.  Now they are uncovering their game.  Cardinal Ratzinger had never previously spoken with such clarity – ‘There is no Tradition.  There is no deposit of the Faith to be transmitted.  Tradition in the Church is what the Pope says today.  You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops say today.’  For them that’s what Tradition is – the famous living Tradition and the only reason for our condemnation.”


A living Tradition means that it is new today and it will be gone tomorrow.


“They’re no longer now trying to prove that what they say is in conformity with Pius IX or with the Council of Trent.  No, that’s over.  That’s out of date, as Cardinal Ratzinger says.  It’s clear, and they might have said so sooner.  There was no point in making us talk, in making us discuss.  Now it’s the tyranny of authority because there are no more rules.”  He said it in 1989.  “We can no longer refer to the past.  In one sense things become today more clear.  They are proving us more and more right.  We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy from ours, a different way of seeing things, who are influenced by all the modern subjectivist philosophers.  For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma, and everything is evolving.”  That is a completely Masonic idea.  “It’s truly the destruction of the Faith, but fortunately we are continuing to lean on Tradition.”


Another quote of the Archbishop – “The Pope wants to create unity outside of the Faith.  It’s a communion.  A communion with whom?  With what?  In what?  That’s not a unity.  Unity can only be brought about in the unity of the Faith.  That’s what the Church has always taught.  That’s why there were missionaries, to convert people to the Catholic faith.  Now there’s no longer need to convert.  The Church is no longer a hierarchical society.  It’s a communion.”  Everybody’s in communion more or less with everybody else.  No bishops and priests - everybody’s on the same level.  “Everything is falsified.  It’s the destruction of the very idea of the Church, of Catholicism.  It’s very serious, and that explains why so many Catholics are quitting the Faith.


Bishop de Galarreta picks up again – “The true combat is doctrinal.  In all revolutions, after the fury and the terror” - like in the French Revolution - “there is a time of rebalancing in a new situation, a period of institutionalisation.  On the other hand, it is foreseeable that if there is a return it would be gradual.  We know in advance that there will be more or less confused phases alongside something a bit better in practice and perhaps in the intentions alongside a little more order.  With regard to the worst, the situation will become more serious with regard to the clarity of things.  Error will be more deceitful and seductive, less obvious, more subtle - in brief, much more dangerous, capable of deceiving even the elect.”  This is very wise. 


“Error is more ambiguous and dangerous the closer it resembles the Truth, like, for instance, false coinage.  Therefore we know in advance that our fight and our position are going to be less and less understood, more and more difficult to explain, to justify and to maintain.  That’s how things are necessarily going to evolve.  Therefore we need an appropriate response on our side, so to speak, which is the greater the confusion the more accurate and careful needs to be our reply. 


“The three reasons given above” - Truth is relative, Vatican II can be interpreted in line with Tradition, and Faith and dogmas evolve - “Those three reasons show that we are in the phase of a false restoration, a false return.”  That’s Benedict XVI – he seems Traditional.  He presents appearances of being Traditional, but really he’s a more subtle Modernist than we’ve had before, and more dangerous.  “The attitude of the Pope and the Roman Curia is much more confused, contradictory and seductive.  It has only the appearance of Tradition.”  That appearance of Tradition and that seduction is what seems to have fooled Bishop Fellay. 


“We need to distinguish the good aspects of the present pontificate, whether they’re accidental or just slight, from the teaching and the doctrinal direction of his pontificate.  Now our fight is essential doctrinal.  It’s on the grounds of doctrine.  It’s on the battlefield of doctrine that there’s going to be the victory of defeat of the Faith, and with the Faith of all the good things of the Church.”


Now Bishop de Galarreta quotes Cardinal Pie, who was a great cardinal in the 19th century, and Pius X said that Cardinal Pie was his guru.  Cardinal Pie – “Would one not say that some men only want a little order in the facts in order to succeed in reviving the disorder in the minds?”  So you establish a little bit more order in the streets in order to establish disorder in the minds, because if there’s order in the streets, instead of the guillotine in the streets then people say things are much better, but if the principles are just as bad things are not really better.  If the principles are still bad, order in the streets is more deceptive than the guillotine.  The guillotine is the horror out in the open.  Order in the streets, where there’s no garbage, the streets are tidy and clean and neat - oh, this is law and order, oh, everything’s hunky dory in this country.  If it’s Protestant, if it’s Liberal - it’s a superficial order in exchange for a deep disorder.  It’s better to have filthy streets and clean minds than clean streets and filthy minds or confused minds.  “Would we not say that some men only want a little order in the facts in order to be able to revive the disorder in the minds, and that they only ask heaven for a certain material security in order to be able to pick up again without too much danger the old fabric of their lies which was interrupted for a moment by fear?”


So the people were confused before the French Revolution.  Under fear of the guillotine they panicked and they wanted to get back some order, but the order was to only to be able to go back to their loose lives before the guillotine.  Crazy people.  They’ve not understood in the last account - it’s in the battlefield of doctrine that are won or lost the battles which decide the future.  That’s it.  You can establish as much order in the dustbins, in the police, in the satellites in the sky, you can establish as much order as you like, but if you’ve still got chaos in the minds, the future is going to be chaos.  What goes on in the minds is what people think, what they believe in, the propositions they believe in, the realities of what they believe is reality, and that’s the Faith or it isn’t the Faith.  If it isn’t the Faith it’s false, and if you’ve got falsehood in the minds you’re going to have falsehood in the future.  It’s going to spill out on the streets.  To sort out society you’ve got to have Catholic Truth in the minds.  You’ve got to have Catholic doctrine in people’s hearts and minds.  That’s it.


Cardinal Pie - “A whole section of society could no longer hold on to this attitude by which we are still condemned to describe it.  They have the pen in hand to teach always the same principles, but they have a rifle in their arms to exterminate the consequences of these principles.  On the evening they gladly step down into the street to shoot the actions provoked by the doctrines and by the examples that they were teaching in the morning.”  The Cardinal is pointing out the contradiction of liberals.  Their principles are liberal but they like law and order, but liberal principles are liberty.  Liberty is liberty from law and order.  You can’t enjoy law and order and be a liberal, because if you’re a liberal what you want is liberty.  Then people practise liberty, they do what they like, society turns into chaos, and then the liberals come scooting back to the high ground and try to talk about law and order.  Look, if your basic principles are liberal, if you believe in religious liberty, if you believe in liberty from God, why should you be tied down by society or your fellow men? 


There’s an officer in one of the Dostoevsky’s novels who says to himself at a point, “If God doesn’t exist, why should I be an army officer?  Why am I an army officer?”  It’s very profound because if God doesn’t exist there’s no hierarchy and there’s no order, there’s no reason why anybody should be higher or lower in the army.  When the Communists were fighting in Spain against Franco, the Communists tried to organisation their army on the basis of equality without having superiors and lowers, but the reality came back.  Inevitably you had people who behaved like officers giving what looked like orders to people who behaved like soldiers.  They may have said that the officers and soldiers are completely equal, but in reality there were still officers telling soldiers want to do, and if there hadn’t been officers telling soldiers want to do, they couldn’t have fought the war.  You can’t fight in an army without officers, with chaos.  So the liberals are always contradicting themselves.  They don’t like in the evening the results of what they have been loftily preaching - their noble principles of liberty, rights of man, democracy.  They’ve been preaching this in the morning, and then when the democratic people in the evening practise liberty and equality, the liberals go out to shoot them. 


Have any of you seen that great film Birth of a Nation by DW Griffith?  It’s a film about the liberals in the North.  DW Griffith was from the South.  The South had suffered this terrible defeat in the civil war.  The industrial North had crushed them.  The south had very good officers, good soldiers, but they didn’t have the munitions, they didn’t have the machines, they didn’t have the numbers and so the North finally crushed them.  The Northerners went into the South and cleaned up and imposed the freedom of the slaves and so on.  This Northern politician is shown preaching that the blacks are wonderful, the blacks are equal, the blacks are this, that and the other, and then his daughter starts getting interested in a black, and the politician suddenly has his foot on the brakes.  Liberals are continually contradicting themselves because they are in a dream which is opposed to reality, and reality keeps coming back, keeps imposing itself.  The liberal’s daughter who wants to marry a black – “I don’t want my daughter marrying a black” – then reality imposes itself.  So the liberal who professes these high principles, he’s got the same sense of reality as anybody else who’s got some common sense. 


Interracial marriage is not common sense.  It’s not a sin.  It’s not an offence against God necessarily, but it may often be an offence against common sense because there’s too much difference between people of different races for the marriage probably to last.  You’re going to say to me that many interracial marriages do last.  Fine, undoubtedly, but it’s still not a good idea.  It’s less bad than a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, but it’s pretty deep.  The difference between the races is pretty serious.  Blacks should normally marry blacks, whites should normally marry whites, and Chinese should normally marry Chinese.  If you’re in the upper class of society you should marry upper class.  If you’re lower class you should marry lower class.  There’s common sense behind that.  Marry somebody as close to you in social background and race and colour.  Marry as close as you reasonably can.  Not your first cousin but somebody as reasonably close to your own background as you can.  That’s common sense because the more you have in common the more likely the marriage is to be able to last.  There are marriages which work across huge differences but they’re the exception rather than the rule.  Exceptions don’t make good rules.  Hard cases make bad law.  You can’t make a law according to a difficult case.  You’ve got to make the law in the generality of cases.  Some women are taller than some men but the generality of men are taller than the generality of women obviously, so there are exceptions, but that doesn’t prove that the rule is false.  Men are taller than women is a rule, and it’s a rule that’s generally true. 


People don’t have common sense today.  Why don’t they have common sense?  Modern man is making war on God.  Common sense is the natural, inborn sense of reality.  It comes with my nature.  Some people have more common sense than others, but a measure of the sense of reality comes with every man.  Nature comes from God.  Common sense comes from nature.  Therefore common sense comes from God.  I’m making war on God; I’m going to make war on common sense - that’s modern man.  He’s making war on common sense, and that’s why people have less and less common sense because modern man is trying to wipe out his own common sense.  “I absolutely believe in the equality of the races.  I absolutely believe there’s no difference between Jews and Gentiles.  I will not believe that there’s a difference between men and women.  They’re absolutely equal.  The man can just as well change the nappy of a baby, and the woman can just as well go out and work” - completely false.  Now you have a nappy-changing station in the men’s lavatories.  That undermines the sense of manhood of the men, which again is what the bad guys want.  They want modern men to be wishy-washy and silly and dish rags because they’re easier to rule.


“It’s a contradiction which is continually coming back, and it will only come to an end when men in authority come back to Christianity.”  That’s a quotation from Cardinal Pie. 


Bishop de Galarreta goes on with some more quotations of the Archbishop again.  “Question to the Archbishop – ‘Cardinal Oddi recently declared, “I’m persuaded that the rupture will not last for very long and that Archbishop Lefebvre will soon enough rejoin the Church of Rome.  Similarly, people are saying that the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger feel that the Lefebvre affair is not over but it will soon be over.  In your last letter to the Holy Father you declared that you were waiting for a more propitious time for the return of Rome to Tradition.  What do you think of eventually picking up conversations again with Rome?’”


This is an absolutely classic quotation of the Archbishop – “We do not have the same way of envisaging the reconciliation.  Cardinal Ratzinger sees it in the sense of reducing us and bringing us back to Vatican II.  We see it as Rome returning to Tradition.  We’re not on the same wavelength.  It’s a dialogue of the deaf.  I cannot speak much about the future because my future is behind me, but if I live a little longer, and just supposing that within a little length of time Rome will be appealing to us and it wants to see us back again and to start talking again, at that moment it is I who would lay down the conditions.  I will no longer accept to be in the situation in which we were back in May 1988.  It’s over.  I would pose the question on the doctrinal level.  What I would say is, ‘Do you Romans agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes that came before you?  Are you in agreement with Quanta Cura, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII?  Are you in full communion with those popes and with their statements?  Do you accept still the anti-Modernist oath?  Are you for the Social Kingship of Christ the King?  If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless our talking.  As long as you have not accepted to reform the Council by taking into consideration the doctrine of the popes that came before you, no further dialogue is possible.  It’s useless.’  The positions would thus be a lot more clear.  It’s not a trifle which is opposing us.  It’s not enough for them to say to us, ‘You can say the old Mass but you must accept the Council.’  No, it’s not that the Mass where we’re opposed.  It’s doctrine.”


Doctrine is not just dogmatic definitions which the Church imposes on all its poor wretched sons because they don’t have liberty, and they’re hit over the head by the Church – “You’ve got to believe this otherwise you’re going to hell.”  That’s not what doctrine is.  Doctrine is a sane grasp of reality that we can pick up with our minds, a reality that we have to pick up by the Faith - a sane grasp so that I will get to heaven.  That’s what doctrine is.  Just like doctrine for aeroplanes is a sane grasp of the laws of aerodynamics so that the way you design the plane it’s not going to crash.  That’s engineering doctrine.  Everybody today believes in engineering doctrine.  Nobody would climb into an aeroplane which they were told had been built against the laws of aerodynamics.  Imagine – “This aeroplane has been built against the laws of aerodynamics.”  What?  This aeroplane that I’m about to get into, against the laws of aerodynamics?  Oh, forget it.  Supposing that the notice says, “This plane has been built against the doctrine of aerodynamics.”  “Wow, somebody’s trying to impose upon me doctrine?  I will climb me into this plane because nobody’s going to tell me anything about doctrine.”  They get into the plane and the thing crashes, of course.  People, come on, wake up!  What is doctrine?  Doctrine is simply what the mind grasps of natural and supernatural reality.  This man has a doctrine according to which wine, women and song are the purposes of life.  OK, it’s a false doctrine but that’s his doctrine.  Every man has some doctrine.  Doctrine is not just a hammer of the Church to hit over Catholics’ heads.  Every man has some doctrine.  The question is whether he’s got a false doctrine or a true doctrine.  Mother Church cares for these souls, wants to get them to Heaven, and therefore cares that they should have the true doctrine and not a false doctrine.  The true doctrine has been laid down by the Church over centuries.  There’s the Apostles’ Creed, which then evolved into the Nicene Creed, the Tridentine Creed, the anti-Modernist oath - the Church is constantly protecting her children with more doctrine, with more developed doctrine, so that the Devil doesn’t overtake doctrine and arrive at an error.  So the Church keeps fighting off the Devil and adds on things that we need to accept or things we need to believe, but it’s not adding on to the revelation of the Faith but it’s adding on to what we need in order to believe the revelation of the Faith.  But people today have got an absolute horror of doctrine.  Horror of doctrine is Liberalism.  It’s Freemasonry. 


Bishop de Galarreta goes on – “We would enter into contradiction, for if we advanced in the direction a practical agreement we would be denying our word and our engagements to our priests and our people, Rome and the whole world.  That would have enormous negative consequences ad intra and ad extra.”


You’re already watching those consequences.  The SSPX leadership is now denying the word it gave.  It’s denying its word to stay faithful to Tradition, and therefore the Society is being shaken to pieces – civil war, which you may see in your parish quite soon. 


“There is no change from the point of view of doctrine on the part of Rome which would justify our change.  Quite to the contrary, these discussions of 2009 to 2011 demonstrated that they accept none of our criticisms.  It would be absurd for our part to work in the direction of a practical agreement after the result and what’s been made clear by the discussions, or else we would have to think that Bishop Rifan and Fr Aulagnier were right.    Such a step shows a grave diplomatic weakness on the part of the Society and, to tell the truth, worse than just diplomatic.  It would be a lack of coherence, a lack of uprightness, a lack of firmness, which would have as its effect the loss of credibility and moral authority that we presently enjoy.”


The credibility and the moral authority of Bishop Fellay are today crashing because he’s abandoned his word.  He’s done a 180-degree turn without warning, pretending that there’s been no change.  It’s nuts.


“Five, the implosion of the SSPX - the simple fact of setting out on this road towards a practical agreement will cause amongst ourselves doubt, dispute, distrust, dividing into parties, and, above all, division.  Many superiors and priests will have a legitimate problem of conscience.”


That’s exactly what we’re now seeing.  One priest after another in the world is popping up with serious doubts about what Bishop Fellay is up to, and they’re writing respectful letters to Bishop Fellay – “Your Excellency, what are you doing?  Are you looking after the unity of the Society?  Are you looking after the common good of the Society?  Are you looking after the unity of the Society or are you smashing the Society in pieces?”  Bishop Fellay has said, “I know this is going to cause division but I don’t mind.  Let it be division.”  He said that - “I’ve taken into account that there’s going to be division.” 


“The authority and the very principle of authority will be undermined and put in doubt.”  That’s exactly what’s happened.  “We cannot tag along behind our contacts with Rome.  We must stay in command.  We must mark out the times and conditions.”  That’s exactly what I was saying to you.  The Society has got the Truth.  It should be in the driving seat, and not these Romans.  “Therefore we need a line defined in advance, clear and firm, independent of the solicitations and eventual Roman manoeuvres.”  That’s very wise.  That’s exactly not what Bishop Fellay has done.  Bishop Fellay has heard this, he saw all this, and he’s persevered in his line of going with the Conciliar Romans.  “Consequently, it is not a moment for us to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006, which was no practical agreement without a solution of the doctrinal question, and it is neither correct nor prudent to launch into a campaign of preparing minds in the opposite direction,” which is exactly what Menzingen has done.  They have set up a propaganda campaign.  They’ve set up a whole spin campaign to get the Traditional Catholics and the priests to follow and trust Bishop Fellay.  That’s what Menzingen has been doing for a while now.  Bishop de Galarreta says that’s exactly wrong.  “To do the opposite is to provoke division and a reaction, war and anarchy.


“Sixth point - the secretary of Cardinal Canizares warned us - ‘Don’t make any agreement with Rome.  They won’t be able to keep their promises.’  We received similar warnings in Rome.”  There are good guys in the Roman Curia.  There are those who know that the Society is right, the Society is going what needs to be done, and they know that Rome is setting a trap, Rome is promising the moon and they won’t keep their promises, and it’s a decent Roman who says it.  The picture is so clear. 


“Then what do we do?  What do we reply?  The best thing we must do is to hold on to the line which has guaranteed up till now the unity and the survival of the Society and which has given a great deal of fruit with regard to Rome and for the Church.  They are hesitating.  They are beginning to give way.  Their building is crumbling.  They can no longer do without us.  Nevertheless, let us remain firm in our policy and let us wait for there to be conditions which are absolutely sure and guaranteed.  As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out after the consecrations – ‘We must wait unfortunately for the situation to get still worse on the side of the Romans until they are ready to let go of Vatican II.’  We could reply that, given the conclusion of the discussions, out of fidelity and loyalty towards God, towards our conscience, towards the Church and even towards the Holy See, we cannot involve ourselves in a purely practical line of action, but, as we have already said, we remain open to collaborate or to participate in a critical doctrinal study and criticism of the Council.  If they cut with us a pause in the constant tension involved in contacts with the Society, it would be welcome, and, in my eyes, providential.”  If the Romans cut with us, three cheers, says Bishop de Galarreta.  He’s right. 


“In any case, knowing them, it would not be long before they came back to try to talk to us again.”  Exactly.  It may be only another three years before they’ll be back saying, “Oh, let’s talk.”  “Do you accept Quanta Cura, the Syllabus and Pascendi?”  “Well, not, actually.”  “Get lost and don’t come back until you do.”  That’s what’s needed.


“In conclusion we must not try to anticipate Providence.  Providence will resolve the crisis.  We must pay great attention to the temptation beneath appearance of good.  We must avoid being too hurried.  We must wait and we must only set out on this practical way when there is no longer any doubt that Rome really wants Tradition, that they have a proper idea of Tradition and that it is prudent and it is the will of God that we should get back in contact with them.  We need more reasons to change than we need to stay on the sure and tried and tested line of action which is presently ours.”  Yet it is the opposite that has happened.  We are abandoning the tried and tested line of action to launch out in lovey-dovey talk with the Romans when it’s anything but obvious that the Romans have come back to Tradition.


Archbishop Lefebvre again – “Without dwelling on the fact that many things were not working out, the accent has been put on the great hopes with which Charismatism and Pentecostalism give rise.  Rome wants to be convinced that that’s the future.  They are obstinately closing their eyes to the catastrophes caused by the Council and which they are fulfilling, to the ruin which they’re in the process of leading the Church into.  If we make one step in this direction, if we submit to their authority without guarantee, sooner or later, in two, three or five years we shall lose Tradition.  We don’t want to lose it.  We cannot submit to these authorities who want to make us lose Tradition.  As I already laid it out, if I went down to discuss in Rome it’s because I wanted to see if we could possibly come to some agreement with the Church authorities, even while we would protect ourselves from their liberalism and safeguard Tradition.  I was bound to recognise that no agreement was possible which would at the same time give us a guarantee and the conviction that Rome sincerely wanted to contribute to the preservation of Tradition.  I waited until 5th June to write to the Pope – ‘I am sorry but we cannot understand one another.  You do not have the same purpose as we do.  By making this agreement your purpose is to bring us to the Council.  My purpose is in the contrary, to be able to maintain ourselves outside the Council and outside its influences.’”


The last few words of Bishop de Galarreta – “For the good of the Society and Tradition we should shut again as soon as possible the Pandora’s Box.”  Pandora’s Box is a Greek story.  There were all kinds of things locked up in Pandora’s Box, and she was told not to open it.  Once she opened it, all kinds of things flew out.  It was absolutely impossible to put them back again inside.  It’s a myth that tells a lot of truths.  Bishop Fellay is now opening Pandora’s Box and all kinds of things are flying out which is going to be impossible to heal.  All kinds of divisions, enmities, hatreds, antagonisms are arising, which is going to be very difficult to quieten down again, if not impossible, because the war is now on, and he’s waging a war on people inside the Society who oppose him.  He is starting it.  He really is starting it.  He would say I started it.  Listen to him when he says that.  Listen to his arguments.  I can be every now and again a little bit provocative.  It’s true. 


“So we must close shut again as soon possible the Pandora’s Box in order to avoid the discrediting and demolishing of authority, contestations, discord and divisions perhaps without a solution.  In this sense, the true question which needs to be answered is the following – what are the other conditions required inside and outside the Society in the hypothetical case of a good proposal, totally acceptable in itself, to try and come to an agreement?  The text quoted of Archbishop Lefebvre allows us to reply with clarity and firmness.”  It’s very good.  In other words - what conditions that Rome accept the Syllabus and Pascendi?  Then a practical agreement might be possible.  Until then, forget it.  Any questions?  That’s the text of Bishop de Galarreta.  It’s excellent. 


What reaction did he get?  Was this read out at the meeting?


This was read out at the meeting of district superiors.  The result was that the general mood of the district superiors was no practical agreement, no talking for a practical agreement, don’t go for a practical agreement.  Fr du Chalard, Fr Schmidberger, Fr Nely and Fr Pfluger paid no attention.  It doesn’t matter what the district superiors think.  It doesn’t matter what the assistants think.  It doesn’t matter what the bishops think.  It doesn’t matter what the faithful think.  It doesn’t matter what the priests think.  “We have a dream.  We are going headlong towards a brave, brighter, new world.  Don’t get in our way” – that’s it.  It is shocking, but it’s happened before.  At the time of the Council, the Council said “We’ve got a brave new world” and the bishops and the Pope paid no attention to the faithful and the priests, because there was quite a lot of faithful and priests that objected.  “No, no, we bishops know.”  Then the Pope moulded the bishops, and the bishops moulded the priests, and the priests moulded the people, and so the whole Church has gone Conciliar, or the great part of the Church has gone Conciliar.  It comes from the Pope.  The responsibility of superiors is tremendous.


How could any of the district superiors at that meeting last October have read that document and yet still vote for a practical agreement?


Because their minds are not functioning.  Fr Pfluger, Fr du Chalard, Fr Schmidberger, they all heard this.  They heard Bishop de Galarreta pronounce it.


Those who voted against the practical agreement last October after having read that document, how could they now make a similar U-turn?


Because they believe in obedience, because they’ve caught the sickness, because they’ve been seduced by the dream - you name it.  They’ve been caught by the same things that the leaders have been caught by.  They’ve been caught by everything that all of these people have been caught by.  It’s the modern dream – “We men without God are going to build a better world than He did.  We’re going to do a better job than God did, and we are going into a world without Original Sin, where everybody’s nice, where there’s no more war, where everybody is a king, democracy and so on.”  It’s a brave new world.


I cannot imagine anyone agreeing with that document and then backtracking.


Have you never heard of people thinking what’s true and then later thinking what’s false?  Are men not capable of slipping away from the Truth?  I’m afraid we all are.  It’s all too easy to slip away from the Truth.  The Truth is uncomfortable.  The Truth is demanding.  The Truth is the Cross – “I don’t want the Cross.”


How could they do it so quickly?  It was only six months ago.  If it was over a matter of years I could understand, but not so quickly.


Well, possibly they were inclining to a practical agreement before.  They were temporarily swayed by the reasons of Bishop de Galarreta and then the feelings came back.  You take a pond with green scum over it.  You heave a break into the pond and the scum shifts.  It scatters.  The brick disappears, never to be seen again, and then the scum quite quickly closes over again, and I think that’s a description of what Liberalism does to minds.  It’s green scum that covers the minds, and you can break it for a moment but the scum immediately reforms.  I’m afraid that’s where many people are at.


How best is it to break people out of the mentality of wanting to be part of the respectable Church?  As you say, and as we all know, the British are bloody-minded – Athanasius Contra Mundum – we don’t care what the consequences are.  For a lot of people, whether it’s attachment to a school or their family or whatever, what other than the grace of God is going to help them break out of that mentality of going along?


Fr Barrielle quoted Fr Vallet saying “liberals don’t convert”.  A real bitten liberal, who’s convinced of his Liberalism, who’s convinced of the principles of Liberalism, it takes a miracle to convert.  It’s an elephant trap once you fall into it.  “Everything is so glamorous.  Everything is so lovely.  Everything is wonderful for me.  I become a king of the universe because I create the world.  I can think what I like.  I can do what I like.  I am free from the Ten Commandments” - that’s a great pressure for us poor men.  “I’m also free especially from the First Commandment, having to submit to God.  As long as God is Number One, I am not Number One, and I prefer being Number One” - that’s pride and that’s very common.  How do you get people out of it?  You can very quietly gently try arguing on a clear and simple point where they grant the premise, where they give you something to argue with, and then charity, prayer and example.  That’s it.  Few people resent real charity, a real concern for one’s fellow human beings.  Few people mind being genuinely concerned for.  You can pray whether they like it or not, and example is the best argument because example pulls people along where argument pushes people away often.


Do you know what the source is for Archbishop Lefebvre’s conditions that he mentioned that he would set, for accepting the Syllabus and so on?  In my mind that’s the strongest argument against this argument out there that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted a deal with them.


They’re pretending that the deal now being offered is much better than the deal that was offered to the Archbishop.  Of course it isn’t, because it’s still putting oneself under the Conciliar authorities.  But that’s the pretence.  The pretence is that Rome has changed and it’s offering a much better deal, and I wish whoever believes that would come and present you the case so that you could listen and think for yourselves.  I presented one case, the case for the prosecution, but I’d like for you to hear the case for the defence so that you could make up your minds.