Your Excellency, with the publication of your final volumes 3 and 4 of your letters from the rector,
I thought it would be appropriate to visit on some questions in general about the themes in the letters.
We'll start with, why write a monthly letter in the first place? Why would a rector write a monthly letter?
The letters began in the spring of 1983, when I suddenly became rector of the Society of St. Pius X's Seminary in the United States, in North America.
Because the previous rector defected, shall we say.
He had been writing a monthly letter, I do believe, simply to obtain support from the faithful for the seminary.
So I continued writing the monthly letter and its real purpose was to get support for the seminary, particularly financial support.
But I used to write about anything that came up because I thought readers would be interested
and if they kept interested and kept reading that's the way they would keep supporting.
So, those early letters are obviously continuing raising, helping to raise money for the society,
but also you had to deal with what you alluded to, the defection, regarding the nine priests
in North America.
Why, there's two questions here, Your Excellency.
Why did so few of the American faithful stay with the Society of Saint Pius X?
Why did so many of them go with the nine?
Father Kelly, Father Clarence Kelly, who at that moment was the leader of the Nine, was
on the spot, and the Archbishop was not on the spot. Immediately after the division,
the Archbishop was told, was begged, to stay behind in New York, I can remember, to stay
behind in New York in order to explain things to the faithful. And if he'd been able to
do that...
I think the case might have been different, but as it was, the Archbishop had a confirmations
tour which he didn't want to fall down on, so he left New York and went around these
other places already arranged to give confirmations.
That way, Father Kerry was left in possession of the terrain, so to speak.
The faithful knew Him, they didn't yet know Me, they knew Me later, they didn't yet know Me.
They had trusted him, he had been the society's man for many years and he was very clever.
He was very clever.
I always say he knew exactly how to fire off the shotgun or to make the bang go, go bang
in such a way that all the sheep or most of them would go through his hole in the hedge.
He was masterly, he was an operator, I think he still is, I don't know.
So then the second part of the question is, some have said that the nine may have left, but the spirit of the nine have never left, that there's always been a hard line within the society, and with them leaving the set of a contest, people like you are the new hard line, and you've taken their place.
Is that a fair assessment?
Firstly, inside or outside the society, ever since Vatican II, you've had all ranges of
reaction to this crisis in the Church, in all parts of the Church.
So you've had real hardliners everywhere, you've had gentle hardliners everywhere,
You've had gentle soft liners everywhere and you've had real soft lines everywhere.
You've had all shades everywhere, not just inside the society.
Since it's true that the harder hard liners
left or with the nine, let's say, then the soft hardliners were, so to speak, the only
hardliners left, and they filled the role of the hardliners.
But.
That doesn't mean to say that they much changed their own position, or that they became more hard-line.
It simply means that the society had eliminated those who seemed to it to be too hard-line.
So you were a soft hard-liner?
I'm sure you would think so.
That's a way of naming the animal.
You can call him how you like, but that's a way.
I think most people would have a hard time thinking of you soft for anything.
Well, maybe soft in comparison with the nine, I think they would definitely regard me as soft.
They are still around, so to speak, and there's still some contact, not a great deal.
But I'm sure they observe what I get up to, and I'm sure they still disagree with what I get up to.
I know Father Sanborn doesn't agree with everything I do, by any means.
Along with the nine, they all left, but you've had priests leave quite a few in the United
States throughout the years for various reasons.
What are your reflections, if any, on these defections in general or these leavings?
I always quote the prophet Zechariah from the Old Testament, whom our Lord quotes in the Garden of Gethsemane,
the shepherdess struck and the sheep are scattered.
Our Lord was struck and the Apostles were scattered.
The Pope is struck with conciliarism, with an excessive love of the modern world, and
the Catholic sheep are scattered because it's no longer purely the Master's voice that's
coming from the Pope.
And when this comes from the Pope, the Catholic sheep and Catholic priests and Catholic bishops
are all more or less bewildered.
They are more or less leaderless, they don't have a firm and clear Catholic lead.
Now you speak about the Pope, in letter number 18, which comes from volume one, you really
rejoiced I would say in the Indult, and this was the first of the carrot sort of initiatives.
What does hindsight, I mean years and years, decades of hindsight tell you about the initiatives
from Rome to the society then, and the initiatives from Rome to the society now, seeing how much
further along we have come from the Indult.
I then described the Indult as the first log, or logs, breaking up from a log jam on a river.
And it's, I rejoiced in that sign of the log jam beginning to break up.
That still stands, there have been since more logs that have broken up,
following the Indulter course,
like most recently the Monte Proprio over the last year, 2000.
2007 or 2008 I was frightened, but on the other hand I'd have to admit that my rejoicing
was a bit excessive because as time passed it became clear that
The Indult was not really designed to let tradition back into the Church.
It was a very reluctant concession rather to try to draw traditionists back into the mainstream Church.
The same is true of the Motu Proprio of whatever it was, 2007-2008.
It's not really designed to help the Church back to tradition, it's really designed to
help traditions back into the Church.
On the other hand, gone bright straight with crooked lines, I think he did a certain amount
of writing straight even with the Indulter 1984, and I'm sure he did a lot of writing
straight with the motopropry of just recently.
Priests all over the world are now celebrating the Tridentine Mass who weren't doing so beforehand.
It's definitely not the breakup of the Log Jam.
The logs are still jammed.
The church is still, the mainstream church is still blocked as far as tradition goes.
But as these, you know, two swallows don't make a summer, three swallows don't make a summer,
But soon there'll be a whole flock of swallows. I don't know how soon.
Soon it will be summer. The tradition will come back in the church.
Well, along that line, Yerses, we've spoken about this before.
Many people have communicated with you that they feel certain that the SSPX will make a deal along the lines of these initiatives.
Why is it that you always disagree? And whenever I'll bring up these communications or I'll forward you emails or letters, why do you always disagree? Why do you not think that the society will make a deal?
Because I know the other leaders of the society and I know...
a great number of priests inside the society,
and the priests, I would say the large number of priests,
do not want a false deal with Rome.
I don't believe it.
And I don't believe that the leaders of the society want a false deal with Rome.
And therefore I don't think they're looking for a false deal, and I don't think that any
one of them, not even the superior general, could make a false deal if he wanted to.
I don't think he could get away with it.
Well, what do you mean by a false deal?
Well, a false deal which would compromise the defense of the traditional faith.
was it was what the archbishop signed in 1988 a false deal it risked being that
which is it risked being that which is why he took back his signature he saw
that he was letting himself into a situation which he could possibly no
longer control for the defense of the faith and so for the defense of the
faith he he took back his signature we only protocol he he said that the
following day no
So that was, that was in danger of being a false deal. And so you would say that a false deal in today's climate would consist of
Anything that compromises the defense of the faith, the defense of Catholic
tradition, in what form it would take, I would say they must be scheming in Rome
to form, to shape that form.
I think in Rome they, quote-unquote, sincerely want to get us properly back into the Church
and not sort of half back into the Church, into the mainstream Church.
The mainstream Church is conciliar, and therefore they want us to get, by book or by crew, by
some means or other, with, God knows, maybe the best of intentions, they want to get us
back into concinerism.
If we go back into Considerism, we would be betraying the Faith, because Considerism is
essentially the Betrayal of the Faith.
Now your excellency, you say you know the leaders don't want to make a false deal, but that's assuming that they have the same understanding that you just outlined about avoiding conciliarism, yet one of the leaders of other societies quoted as saying that the society accepts 95% of Vatican II.
That's specifically, of course.
Is that a fair assessment?
He said that several years ago, he...
I don't think he would say the game because I think he realizes I know what he meant when he said
What did he mean?
I think he meant that if you don't scratch too deep
The surface of many of the documents is okay.
There are 16 documents of Vatican II, and if you don't scratch too deep,
there are passages which are okay, and, you know, quite a lot of it looks okay.
Five percent of red-heated, the worst five percent is pretty clearly troublesome.
But the other 95 percent, you know, you can...
If you don't look too deep, on the other hand, the archbishop said, the council is a block,
meaning that it hangs together, it falls together, and by that he implied it falls together,
because the block is false.
But it's very well designed, it's very cunningly designed, so that the appearances are good.
And I think Bishop Foley was, in order to be nice to the journalists he was talking to,
to be kind towards the conciliar church, to not alienate them, I think he was speaking
as kindly as he could at that point in time of the documents of Attica II, but I don't
think he would say it again today.
How can we be kind about a council that the archbishop consistently referred to as the
1789 within the church?
I mean, what is there kind to say about 1789?
As I say, I think Bishop Ferle was, he was not scratching too deep.
He was...
And if you don't scratch too deep, like there are so many conservative Catholics,
umpteen conservative Catholics, you attack even the worst phrases of the council,
and they're ambiguous, and you can sort of steer them back into a Catholic sense.
He will give them a kind of Catholic sense.
And that's what I think Bishop Hilly sort of meant.
That's what the conservative Catholics massively say.
They won't allow any sense of the council to be attacked.
They're wrong because the council is bad.
But let's just say that the 1789 is very cunningly disguised.
Those that had eyes to see, from the very beginning, like Archbishop and Cardinal Sounens, they said that it was 1789.
Bishop Fouley wasn't thinking he was 1789, at the moment he made that remark, because he was thinking of the journalists that he was talking to.
But if it is okay, I mean, let's say drop 95%, let's say if it's 75%, if it's 75% okay, why not accept it?
If it's mostly okay, why not accept it?
Because, the famous comparison, a poisoned cake.
You give a cake to a mother saying just a little part of it is poisoned, just this part of it is poisoned.
Do you think she's going to give any of that cake?
You can tell until you're blue in the face that the rest of the cake is perfectly okay.
Do you think she will give any part of that cake to a child?
Never.
The whole thing will go straight into the dustbin.
So, then this goes to, how do we resolve Vatican II, and we have two different, one, Bishop Tissier has said that the council must be erased, and Bishop Sanborn, in a recent interview, said that the council documents must be burned in St. Peter's Square.
By by the pope you have two different perspectives, but both of them refer to
Basically a raising of this council
So is that this is two questions is that Bishop Williamson's position to add to Bishop TCAs and is it the society's position?
The council must essentially be dropped.
Is that Bishop Williamson's position?
Is that the society's position?
I said in a French interview a few years ago,
that it's like a poison cake and the whole thing's got to go into the dustbin.
There then arises the question of how does authority,
how does the church authority,
ditch or drop 16's official documents without losing faith and without undermining its own authority.
That's a problem for the future.
That is a problem. That is an administrative problem.
It's not a truth problem, it's an administrative problem.
I don't know how the church is going to do it, but God looks after his church and says,
God will find a way of doing it.
Maybe on the other side of a great chastisement. It's my own. I think that's the way that God is going to resolve this whole problem with a great chastisement
I don't see it really being resolved with much of this. In any case
The church will must and will finally drop those documents. They're two they're two poison
So you think this way Bishop Tissier thinks this way that's 50% of the society's bishops. Yes
The other society bishops feel this way and I'm not asking you to speak for them. No
No, I can't, but broadly, yes. Bishop Ferre is always diplomatic and he's always inclined to speak on the wavelength of whoever he's speaking to, because he wishes to be diplomatic, he wishes not to offend people, he wishes not to alienate people, he wishes to...
rather build bridges with Rome than blow up bridges with Rome.
Therefore, that's his inclination.
But I think that he sees the basic problem perfectly well,
and there are many things he says which indicate that he sees the problem perfectly well.
And therefore,
I don't think he substantially takes a position substantially different from, it's got to go into the dustbin.
As for Bishop Gallerator, in a recent interview it was very clear that he also thinks that there's not much to be salvaged from the documents of this council.
Would you say, is it fair to characterize the documents Vatican II as being written in a holy uncathlike manner?
Because of the profound ambiguity, yes.
That conciliar documents from Catholic councils are not normally written, are not ever written in such a way.
Absolutely.
The church, the church of our Divine Lord is clear, let your language be yes, yes, no, no.
And anything in between belongs to the devil.
I think that's our Lord's in words.
And the Catholic Council, all the Catholic Councils up till this, up to Vatican II, speak clearly.
So if you were just to do a simple side-by-side comparison of 20 Church Councils versus Vatican II,
it would seem just by appearances that Vatican II was not a Catholic Council?
Exactly. It was Catholic in its convocation, in its summoning, in its assembly. It was
the pope who officially convoked all of the cardinals in bishop to the church. Therefore,
in that sense it was Catholic. That's the Archbishop's distinction always. It was Catholic
in its summoning, but it was not Catholic in its content or its working.
You guys see I want to step back and when you have alluded to blowing at bridges with Rome
And a lot of people think that that's your job that you like blowing at bridges with Rome that you like causing problems
That you don't want a deal to happen. So you're you're the one making
Trouble do you think that's that's fair that you're a troublemaker?
No, I don't think it is fair because I certainly don't set out to make trouble.
If trouble happens, it's not what I mean.
I don't think I've ever set out to stop.
understanding with Rome. What I've always, when I say things that result in trouble,
I do believe is because I simply want to tell the truth. For instance, recently I think I
wrote about difficult discussions.
And what I meant was that it's all very well for the Romans to be kind towards us,
and I really believe that Benedict XVI wants to be kind towards society.
It's all very well.
for the society to be kind towards Rome, and again, there are many people in the society starting with Bishop Helene,
who want the society not to alienate Rome and to make it as possible as can be to reunite with Rome.
But all I say is, well look everybody, we've got a big deep down problem.
And if we want to operate in reality, we have got to, whether it's Rome or ourselves,
we have got to take into consideration that we're in the presence of a war between two
religions and it's a war to the death, between the religion and man of the religion of God.
The religion of God become man, which is the religion of the incarnation, the
religion of the creed, or the religion of man become God, that is, say, the
religion of humanism, secular humanism, which dresses itself up in the council
as Catholicism.
So I don't think, I simply don't set out to make trouble. I set out, in so far as I
try to do anything, I set out to remind everybody what is the deep-down reality of the situation.
Because if we don't deal in reality, we're dealing in illusion, and illusion is not going to save the church.
Illusion is not going to save the church.
They will save neither the society nor Rome.
You're excellency. I think those of us who live in America and those of us who are Americans, I...
It's harder perhaps for us to understand the impact of certain opinions here in Europe
that are not as, they don't, I don't want to say, hit home as much, and also because
we live in a country which from the beginning has been okay with free speech.
So you having an opinion on a historical matter?
whether that's good or bad, is something that as an American sees that as a right you have.
That you have a right to an opinion.
Why is that so different in Europe?
Why is it illegal to have an opinion in Europe?
Remember that America was born in religious liberty, or religious liberty.
Actually, America was born in Protestantism, the Puritans and the Protestants that spread
out from Boston, that's the classic launching point of the United States.
And soon after the Puritans mutated into liberals, that's a very interesting point, they did
the same thing, they did the same thing, they did the same thing, they did the same thing,
appearance mutated into weeks here in England and then mutated into liberals
over the United States and therefore liberalism or freedom, freedom of opinion
was the rapidly became the American solution for
people wanting, very different religions and beliefs and so on, wanting to live together and make a new country.
So, liberty of opinion and liberty of religion is at the very foundation of the United States.
Catholicism is at the foundation of Europe.
And liberalism has only arrived recently in Europe.
So you scratch Europe even here in England.
You scratch and you come down to many centuries of Catholicism, even in England,
which for four centuries has been Protestant and legal, nearly five centuries now.
So it's a big difference within the new world and the old world.
So, in the new world, questions of truth and falsehood count more than just questions
of liberty.
In the new world, questions of liberty are fundamental.
So, going back to this reason, you're associated with why you're restricted, now you have an
organization that has run since 1988 with four bishops, now it's running with three bishops,
one of whom is trying to run the organization at the same time.
How long can it do so without consecrating more bishops?
Bishop early spoke to that question in an interview which he gave up an owner on April the 9th, I believe,
and he said quite clearly, three bishops can do the work of four.
He said that quite clearly and he was then asked what about consecrating another bishop
and he said that's a possibility but it's not for the moment, that's always a possibility
and open possibility but it's not necessary for the moment.
Alright, you're at some C. We've gone quite a far field, but that was all originally
from that adult question, and how far we've come from the adult.
I want to circle back to Volume 1, and one of the last letters in Volume 1 is letter number 45 and this reflects on the death of your father.
This last January was the 22nd anniversary of his death.
What had you reflected on about his passing as years have gone on?
And how do you think he would have reflected upon your biscuit?
He died before, he died in the year before the consecrations of 1980, he died in 1987.
And so he, when I became a priest in 1976, he was there for the ordination, he attended
respectfully and kindly and never made any sarcastic or nasty remarks to me about being
a Catholic or being a priest.
And I think if I had become a bishop, he would have taken it in his tribe to just the same.
You reflected in that letter that he did not die in the faith.
As years have gone on and as you encountered in your pastoral duties,
more and more people who have died either in or out of the faith,
what are your reflections as far as your own parents raising you
and Catholic parents dying within the Catholic faith or not?
You're asking about a mystery of God. Only God knows what happens to people who die outside
their faith. Normally they won't save their souls. That's why it's so important to baptize
souls and if they baptize to make sure they attend the sacraments and that they die with
the sacraments especially of confession.
extreme function and that's why a pious Catholic, one of his prayers, is not to
die without the sacraments. The sacraments, the same sacraments, cost our
Lord his life. He died to launch his church for the seven sacraments. The blood is
the Eucharist and the water is baptism that came from his side on the cross.
Therefore, the sacraments are very important and to live and die without the sacraments
as though they are of no importance is running a real risk, a real risk, that the Judgement
Seed of God when one dies.
Of course, the Lord God can always make exceptions if he knows that the soul has been very virtuous
and that if a soul were really known, if it would have, erm,
it would have been a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk, a real risk,
converted if it had really known and if it lived virtuously according to its
lights until it died according to its best lights. God knows those things, God
judges those things and therefore God can always make exceptions but
The Catholic Church has been very wary of extending very far those exceptions.
It was a great controversy in the 19th and 20th centuries because of course it's liberalism.
Liberalism says, everybody is sweet, everybody is good, everybody is nice, everybody is sincere,
everybody means well, they are for everybody goes to heaven, but that's not true, that's
just not true.
Not everybody is nearly as good or sweet or nice as they think they are, and deep down
people know it, deep down people know that they are living without God or they are living
against God.
If they didn't know it, God could not judge them, they had their judgment, God could not condemn them and their judgment.
So, my father was a dear man in many ways, but his religion on Sunday morning was the
golf course.
So, may God have been able to have mercy upon his soul, and I owe him a very great deal.
That's for sure.
I owe him my life together with my mother.
And another thing, you talk about the passage of the years.
Certainly, over the last few years, after the last 10, 15, 15, 10 years, I have appreciated
more and more the decent, natural upbringing, it wasn't supernaturally, it wasn't catholic,
but it was a decent, decent liberal protestance.
formation at home and in good school, good,
Protestant schools and it was I think a good
natural formation for life and I'm very
grateful for that and I realize how much it
It's worth, when I see today, how what trouble Catholics and Catholic education is in because
of the lack of a sane nature.
People think, and I would think I'm a naturalist for that, but it's one of my hobby horses if you like.
I keep talking about that because I reckon that having been born in the 1940 and having been then to school and university, I came out of university in 1961.
So my education was turned into the 1940s and 1950s.
before the dreadful night, the revolutionary 1960s, and that gave me a sanity of natural
formation, a formation on the natural level, which many youngsters have hardly had since.
Having read all your works just I don't think I've ever seen the word decent liberal and Protestant all in one sentence
Well, I won't normally put them together, it's true, but you ask about my father and...
He was a decent man, many people would have said he was a gentleman, you know, and humanly speaking, as far as the world was concerned, that's how he came over.
If you ask before God, it's a different story.
And that's what, of course, is so dangerous with people who live their lives well according to the world.
Well, that was, so that was 1987 years, let's see, so 1988 you become a bishop.
A lot of people don't know your episcopal code of arms.
How was that designed?
How did you come by the quote that appears on it?
It's designed, it's the English lion, or perhaps leopard, in the case of the English
leopard, brandishing a sword like the coat of arms of St. Pius X from Venice. When he
became Carl of Venice, he took the lion of some mark who was brandishing a sword. So
basically it's an imitation of that, only it's the English lion or leopard.
Then, underneath, it's the Rose of England plus a cross, which makes somebody think,
I'm a rosy-crucian, they can think as they like, I'm nothing of the kind, but they can
think that if they like.
The Rose of England and a cross, and then a blue background for the mother of God, that's
the basic design, it's not very complicated.
And then Fidelis in Veriata is a quotation from St. Paul, first of his sort of good
enthumils, and it's some, St. Paul's saying in order that each, I forget exactly, that
everybody be found
be found faithful. I think I was looking through some Paul for a couple of words, you know,
two words is best, just, or very few words, a few words are possible. Two words is better
than three, I think, and three is better than four. And I just like those two because I
think that fidelity today is where it's at. So it means may he be found faithful.
And so you made these suggestions to the person who did the heraldry.
I was more than a suggestion. It was, uh, yes.
This is what you wanted.
The heraldry was done in London, yes.
Here in London by the...
I forget what is called the...
The heraldry college there's I forget entirely forget, but it's this the the office in London which
Makes coat of arms coats of arms for those who need them did they do that for the other bishops to or today?
They settled it in their own.
No, I did this in London.
They made adheres made in their own countries.
We're still in that 1988 time period yards and C and in letter number 65, you predicted
labor rule would become a fully conciliar monastery, quote unquote, prediction true or
false?
Essentially true, superficially false.
Once again, the surface has been maintained, the appearances have been maintained.
I'm sure I don't know, but I do believe that the Tridentine Mass is still celebrated mostly at Le Baru.
But the community mass is probably every now and again, if not regularly, the new mass.
I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know.
But I'm certain that
Rome has allowed a good deal of the appearances of tradition in order that the substance of
the resistance to the consider revolution should come to an end.
Substantially they're no longer standing up to the council.
But if you can say they're maintaining certain Catholic practice and certain Catholic appearances,
but their resistance essentially came to the end, came to an end, essentially.
He went over to Rome, when he went over to Rome, he made the Archbishop Week.
because the archbishop knew that if Dorgera had stood firm,
it would have made a huge difference to Catholic tradition.
And his defecting, if that's how you like to see it,
meant a great weakening of Catholic tradition.
In New York, since you were talking earlier about this sort of decency within this liberal
Protestantism, letter number 89, you talk about Malcolm Muggerage, what was different
for him?
Why did he come out on the other side? Why did he, as you say, see the light? What made that difference?
I think, if you're asking why did he convert, I think a mother to razor cow cut had a great deal to do with it.
At one point Malcolm had seen through liberalism ways back.
He was in Russia as a journalist in the 1930s and he saw the crimes of the communist regime
and he told the crimes of the communist regime, he was honest, he was a truth teller.
And he did not pretend like many of Western journalists did, famous Durand of New York
said that it's wonderfully denied it, that they lied.
They lied, lied, lied, in order to pretend that communism was fine.
Malcolm Ardujno.
So he saw through liberalism, saw through communism, where he's bad.
And you could pick up today the books he wrote against liberalism in the 1950s, 1960s.
So he was no believer in the wonderful modern world.
For a long time he had not believed in the modern world.
In which case, he's well on the way towards believing in the old world or believing in the Catholic world.
What I think clinched it is that as a broadcaster he...
He was invited to go to India for the British Ball Crossing Corporation and do a program
with Mother Teresa Calcutta, and he was deeply impressed by her work amongst the poor of
Calcutta, deeply impressed.
So she won over Malcolm Uggridge, but she is no favorite among traditionalists.
No, because since that time, I think since that time, from that time, she became more
and more ecumenical.
at least in words as well as in practice and I think because the priest told her
to do so. I think she was, I think there was something very genuine and very
holy in Mother Teresa
And I think she was just an opinion, but I think she was misled by the priests.
The priests following their bishops, following the Pope,
forced her or imposed upon her or persuaded her
to become more open or broad minded and ecumenical.
And I'm sure she did that with the best of intentions and with the best of good faith.
God knows, I don't know.
But in any case, I don't think probably there was such a difference between the Mother Teresa who impressed
so deeply impressed Malcolm Irish and the Mother Teresa who went ecumenical who
Later, I think it was later. I don't think she immediately went into that, but I don't know the facts. I just don't know
Letter number 95, you ask and answer the question in response to some young men who had asked you this question,
should abortionists be assassinated, and this question is very relevant for those of us in the United States
where such a murder happened some weeks ago.
You said no then in that letter.
Why no then is it still no now, and why?
No, then, because if individual citizens begin to take the law into their own hands,
you are liable to finish with anarchy.
If everybody that has a gun and has convictions that so-and-so is a criminal just goes and
shoots him because they can see he's a criminal,
Law and order are on the way to breaking down. Normally the only authority to
execute criminal, to perform a life in death, a death, to take out a death
warrant on a criminal, is the state.
And the state has the authority to do that.
People today, of course, are opposed to capital puncture, which is not wise, and it's not Catholic.
It's perfectly reasonable that somebody who's made himself unfit to live in society
should be taken out of society, taken out, should die,
especially if it's a Catholic society, so that you can make sure that he dies with the settlements available.
Many of us, one wonders if
You know, many of the passages on AF447, the French liner that just went down in the Atlantic, the airline that went down in the Atlantic.
Many of those might have been happy if they have the faith, if they have the faith.
They might have been happy to die on the gallows rather than die in a plane crash because if they die on the gallows,
they would at least have a complete chance to make a good confession and die a peace with God.
Crashing the airplane is a different story.
And you still alluded to in your column on this that they may have had perhaps the opportunity
to make an act of perfect interestion, but how difficult that would be.
It would be difficult because when the plane is crashing, when you know it's about a crash,
you're gripped by a panic fear.
And the panic, fear, unless you've got credits from faith will exclude any idea of, it will
just overwhelm any idea of making a perfect act of contritioner.
I know that from somebody who was on a mountain when they heard rocks coming down above them.
And they flatten themselves on a mountain face, hoping the rocks would bounce over them.
But they told me afterwards they did not think of making an act of contrition.
They were in danger of death, even in danger of death, but the imminent danger of death
shut out the idea of making an act of contrition.
So, in fact, the rocks bounced over them obviously because they lived to tell the tale.
But they knew afterwards that when they were in danger of death, they were not thinking of making an act of contrition.
On somebody who dies on the gallows has got a very good opportunity, he knows exactly when he's going to die.
And in a Catholic country, I think the chaplain used to, or still days does maybe,
accompany the criminal up to the very last moment so that if the very last moment he wants to make some sign of contrition,
he's there for the priest to grim absolution before he appears before God.
So the capital punch is not such a terrible thing, especially with the Catholic faith.
But in this case, if you take the law into your own hands, it's liable to generate anarchy.
That's the danger.
Of course, these abortionists are criminals, and they're going to have a terrible count to render before God.
And this doctor, this latest doctor, killed in the United States.
by an anti-abortionist. He may even be grateful now to the one that took him out, because the one that took him out stopped him committing even more murders if he'd gone on living.
So, you know, the perspective before the Judgement Sea to God is quite different from the perspective in this world.
But in this world, law and order depend, at least in part, upon everybody not taking into their own hands, law.
So, you'd write that same letter today.
I don't remember the exact phrasing of the letter, but I think I would, yes. I think I would.
I don't think the situation has substantially changed. Another thing is that...
The public opinion today is so corrupt that if you commit a murder like that of an abortionist,
the media have an easy task in turning him into a martyr.
So that when you kill a doctor like that, when you take out one of those
abortionist doctors, at least before men, it's not necessarily productive. It can
even be counterproductive. I'm sure it scares a lot of other abortion
doctors, which is a good thing, but...
But the media will have a field day, these wretched, wretched media, and the wretched
media correspond, unfortunately, to the state of public opinion.
If you had the same people, the people wouldn't stand for the media turning an abortionist
into a hero.
But today that's all they ask, the people today are liberal and they think everyone has got a right to do is he likes, the abortionist is helping a lot of women and this murder is the one who killed the doctor is a murderer, it's not the doctor is a murderer, it's the one who killed him as a murderer, it's an entirely false way of thinking but that's how the massive people today think and therefore
If you take somebody out like that, you're handing an opportunity on a sewer plate to the media.
Letter number 104, your Excellency, talks about Garibundal, and people think this is
a big eccentricity of yours that you cling to apparitions, you've talked about Akita.
Is this an eccentricity?
Is that a fair characterization?
Oh
Excentric means out of the centre, so the question becomes where is the centre?
It's certainly true that for a lot of Catholics, apparitions are not at the centre.
They're just an optional extra.
Some of them, they're even nuisance.
Again, it's a question of truth.
Is it true that a mother of God appeared in this case?
Is it true or did it fall so she appeared in that case?
Medugari, I don't think she did appear.
Or she may have appeared occasion and then it completely went off the rails.
I don't know the case of Medugari, but in German it gets false.
But Garabando, I look at the evidence, I look at the arguments, I look at the evidence.
What people saw who were there, I read what they said were there, I read the two messages
of 1961 and 1965, it all makes a lot of sense and it seems to me, and it still seems to
be true, it seems to be entirely possible and likely that the Mother of God will do her
best to save her children in this wretched modern world, in this godless modern world.
It seems to me, it makes sense to me, it stands to reason that as the world sinks more and
more, she will attempt more and more to save it.
So as time goes by, and modern times there will be more and more apparitions, not fewer
and fewer.
Of course, the church is very wise to be prudent.
But when the church, what normally, the church bishop, the Catholic bishop in where the diocese,
where they are apparition occurs, it's his responsibility, because he's on the spot,
it's his responsibility to examine the case thoroughly.
and to judge whether it's true or false.
The trouble with the mass of modern bishops is their liberal.
The trouble with the mother of God is she's not liberal.
And therefore the mass of modern bishops don't want the mother of God interfering in their diocese.
Either they don't examine the case properly or they examine it and come out with a false conclusion.
That's what I do believe happened in the case of Gariband, don't you?
You can't realize you used to be able to go on the Catholic bishops to do their job,
to do their proper job, to fulfill their responsibility of seeing.
If it is the mother of God that was intervening, or all the saint where it is,
in the case of Akita, the Japanese bishops did investigate.
He then came up against the full weight of all his fellow bishops, and if he, if he'd
been a coward, he'd have backed down and said, all right, all right, you're all right, I'm
right, but he didn't back down.
He then made another examination of the facts, of all of the facts, of the evidence of the
truth, and he came up with the right, in my opinion, the right conclusion.
This is true.
Because the mother of God.
not only spoke three times in the case of Akhita, she not only spoke three times to this death nun,
the nun had no hearing, she couldn't hear.
But she heard this voice inside her mind, which of course is perfectly possible for God.
He can make people hear voices inside their mind.
And of course it could be an illusion of the devil, it could be some illusion,
but when you look at the content of the messages, when you look at the fruit of the messages,
and above all,
When you look at how the statue, the wooden statue of the Madonna in the little Japanese
convent, wept 101 times over the next, from 1975 to 1981 I think it was, that's a miracle
101 times, which is difficult to fake. You can't fake that 101 times.
I mean 101 occasions were 101 tears.
Some from one different occasions, you know, I mean obviously they picked up the wood and
they looked for plastic pipes, obviously, then in fact they explained the wood, obviously
the wood was touching, made by buddies, obviously they checked, obviously they thought maybe
it's perspiration, maybe it's this way, there's no expression.
They then took a cotton wool swab of the liquid coming from the eyes of the statue.
They took it to two different laboratories at two different universities, at two different
times, and both times the university without any of what the liquid ball says is human
tears.
I mean, this is evidence.
If God wants us to believe something, he gives us sufficient evidence.
For my money, the apparitions which I believe in the apparitions where I think the evidence is there, it's a question of truth.
It's not a question of eccentricity, I mean, if the centre is off-centre, then to be eccentric
is to be in that you can be in the truth.
So where are Catholics?
Do Catholics give enough respect to the apparitions of the Mother of God?
My humble opinion is no.
For instance, Fatima, I think the mother of God herself told Sister Lucy at one stage,
neither the good men are paying attention to my apparitions.
Or it was maybe our Lord who said that I could get.
Now, speaking of fathom, a bishop-fil-a's asked for a rosary crusade, which seems to
imply that the conditions have never been fulfilled, that Russia has never been properly
consecrated.
So is bishop-fil-a putting that forward as the official position of the society, that
Russia has not been properly consecrated?
As you say, the non-consecration is simply implicit in what he's doing.
And you'll be interested to know, if you don't already know,
apparently, and it's on reasonable authority,
Benedict XVI recently sent Cardinal Bertone to Ros Moscow
to ask the patriarch of Moscow
if he would have any objection to the Pope performing this consecration.
So, if that's true, then Benedict XVI, firstly, does not think that Fatima is dead and buried
as they pretended in 2000, nor does he think the consecration is performed, because he
wouldn't ask him if he would mind it being performed.
So, if Benedict XVI, if this story is true, that not only the Schapherlig would also
things that the conscriptions that I gave you before.
Now, we're jumping ahead a bit, you're actually going to see, but let's follow this.
This is in Volume 4, a letter number 198, you talk about the third secret,
but wasn't the then-Carnell Ratzinger part of a cover-up?
Yes, he was. He played a leading part in what you and I might call the cover-up, the attempt
to smother that fatmer and bury it once and for all. To pretend that it all belongs to
the past, it was the assassination attempt on John Paul II, 1981, and therefore, it
doesn't concern us any longer because it's all the past for me now, threw into the wonderful
period of peace and so on. Okay, that's what they pretended.
And Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, did play a part then.
But an interesting thing is that, and it's mentioned one of the other letters, also involved
no, it's after 2003.
We know from, I think, an Austrian bishop to whom the Cardinal was talking, between 2003 and 2007 when he became Pope.
Before he became Pope.
He said I have two regrets. One, that I didn't arrange things, I did not succeed in arranging
things without Richard Affive, and two, that
the Fatima affair. And he said that, in the case of Fatima, this, he's speaking
as calm before he became poor. But after 2000, in the case of Fatimis, he
said to this bishop privately, but it was repeated to Bonavirus, I think
through Father Schmittberger, he said privately, and my hand was forced.
After 2000, before he became poor, the card was saying that he was forced to take part in this smothering compartment.
Well, we're on the then Cardinal Ratzinger one. We'll stay on that here so see that that is the letter that begins volume four.
It's letter number 182. And in it you ask the question, can Cardinal Ratzinger be trusted and you answer in the negative?
I have two questions. One is that for years, the Catholics have been subject to the narrative of
there was a good Paul the 6th and bad Paul the 6th and a good John Paul the 2nd and a bad John
Paul the 2nd and and here you just made
you talked about a previous Cardinal Ratzinger and a current Cardinal Ratzinger.
So how, first of all, how do we deal with that?
And secondly, if Cardinal Ratzinger can't be trusted,
what are Catholics to do with the pope they cannot trust?
Okay, there are two questions I have as you say.
One.
How can these high churchmen have like a jekyll and high personality?
How can they have this split personality?
The Archbishop always said, the Archbishop of Ferv always said,
no, a liberal Catholic is a schizophrenic,
or there's not how he put it, but a liberal Catholic is a divided man.
and they have a good side, they have a Catholic side and they have a liberal side.
They have both sides. That's how they are.
Because they believe in the old church and they also believe in the modern world.
The two beliefs are in fact irreconcitable because the modern world is intrinsically opposed to the Catholic church and the Catholic faith.
But if you don't see deep enough,
or you don't have a strong enough faith, you don't see the clash.
And it's much more convenient and easy not to see the clash.
It's much easier to go with the current of the modern world than to swim against it.
And so the temptation to both believe in the modern world and believe in the Catholic Church is a very common temptation.
And so you get these objectively two-faced churchmen who may be subjectively in front
of God, meanwhile, our sincere, have good intentions, etc.
This is the whole drama of this church crisis of the church.
Good men who have a good deal of good in them but are deluded by the modern world and therefore become liberals.
How did the Auschwitz put it? A liberal is a divided man or he said that Paul 6 was a tormented man because he was torn apart by this double belief.
These poor people don't understand that the modern world is intrinsically more with the Catholic Church.
So then the second question is, what are Catholics to do with such men?
what our Lord says, our Lord says to his apostles, do what they say but don't do what
they do.
In other words, concerning the Pharisees of these, then
evil churchmen who was occupying the seats of authority in the Mosaic religion, which
was still valid until the moment our Lord died on the cross. It's never been valid
since. It was emptied out by our Lord on the cross. Our Lord told his apostles, do what
say, in others, follow everything that is of Moses in them. The words are of Moses. Follow
what is of Moses. Follow what is true, what is traditional, what is ancient, what is reliable
in these authorities, the scribes and Pharisees, but don't do what they do, meaning don't follow
them in their actions, which are definitely not of Moses.
They are actions like persecuting me. I know it's said to them in the 8th chapter of Saint John,
you are sons of the devil. You say your children of Abraham, you are nothing of the kind of your children
and the devil of Satan. I would say it's straight out. So you have to, Catholics like the Archbishop
must distinguish between what is Catholic in these churchmen which they can respect and follow
and what is not Catholic which they must not follow.
That's what the Archbishop did with Pope Paul VI and John Paul II.
That's what all the rest of us must do.
It means that it's more difficult today to be a Catholic than it used to be.
You used to be able to follow the churchmen blindly.
Catholics can no longer follow their churchmen blindly, no way.
They're going to use their minds. Can you imagine of such a thing? Catholics having
to use their minds? Horror! Horror! That's what Allah is requiring us.
I'm being sarcastic. Yes, of course, of course
We jumped a little forward, let's jump back a bit, we've spoken about the modern world a lot today.
In volume three, there are three movie reviews, and they're not the only three movie reviews you've ever done,
but letter number 136, natural born killers, number 147 Nixon, number 174 Titanic.
Why write about these movies? Why bother?
Movers have a huge influence on people's minds today.
The, for instance, why did certain people
get so upset at the prospect of Mel Gibson making a film on the passion, because these
people knew that one movie would have more in
effect in getting through to the crowds, the masses of today, with the passion of our Lord
than one zillion books. One movie would have more effect than a zillion books, and that's
how it was. The movie had a tremendous effect.
And I doubt it's the movie on the Passion by Mel Gibson, had a huge effect, and doubt
it's still having a huge effect.
It's still being sold and doubtedly.
I'm sure it's often viewed at East East in Holy Week or at East of Time, and I'm sure
it still has a great deal of good.
How many people do you meet who can quote whole chunks of movies you were doing it just a few moments ago
They can quote by heart
imitating the acts imitating everything
people drink in movies, they have an immense power.
Therefore, a lot of readers of the seminary letters will have seen these movies
or will be able to see them, will be inclined to see them.
Titanic had a huge success.
huge success, and that people would have drunk in this movie of the young couple that goes
down with the Titanic, they meet on the Titanic, they fall in love with the Titanic.
and then she manages to rescue him at the last moment
and then they find themselves in the ocean
and he's one too many on the raft so he sacrifices himself and slips away into the depths
and she comes back years and years and years later.
It's a movie that marks people. People go to see it because actually here, like in Casablanca,
there is self-sacrifice, which is an old-fashioned lesson, it's a noble lesson, and it does appeal
to people. There's something more than just the usual and the low values, let's just say.
So movies have an enormous effect on people, and so you know if
to present, let's hope, a Catholic way of looking at these movies, a Catholic take on these
movies may help people to
put what they saw and what they'd ground in in relation to their faith.
And then they may realise, hey, this is not as good as I thought it was.
There's more to this than meets the eye.
That's especially true, of course, sort of the move you didn't make.
which I wrote about, which I keep mentioning.
Somebody says I'm obsessive about this.
I said, I said that you were obsessive about that.
That sounded amusing.
This is more interesting.
I didn't want to give you an opportunity to do that.
There's more than, more to the meets the eye.
You know, on the surface, it's all sweet and nice and she's, the mummy is a, the Judy Andrews
acts the part of her lovely little sweet little kitten and then she's a kitten with that
children.
She's a kitten with her husband and the idea of being a kitten is, is the idea, the modern
idea of the good woman in the home.
But the children don't need a mother who's a kitten.
a number of traditional Catholics who know every song in that movie, your excellency.
I don't exactly, you're playing right into my game, that's exactly it.
These movies soak in, they soak in.
And who controls these movies?
The friends of God are the enemies of God, well it's well known, it's not the friends of God.
Very well known.
and therefore these people are molding, they're using, the enemies of God, they're using
move, move is to mold Catholics' minds and Catholics are moved away from God without even
realizing what's going on because it's so clever they've done and...
And, or, when I say it's cleverly done, it suggests that it's conscious
ability on the part of these people who control Hollywood, not necessarily
then
It may well be, in the case of a number of them, but on the other it may be that they are convinced they are also convinced of their own worldview, which they are pushing, which is essentially a naturalist worldview, excluding supernatural.
The exclusion of supernatural, which is deadly.
And the Catholics become naturalist without realizing what's happening when they soap themselves and Hollywood moves.
Therefore, you need to take one Hollywood movie off to another to stop Catholics in their tracks and make them start using their minds.
What horror.
Isocasolisis was just devotion about feeling nice about being spiritual.
Well, no, it isn't. It's as hard as three bitter, bitter nails on a wooden cross.
But with such subtlety and subterfuge, why not avoid this?
You are a big advocate of not watching any television, why not not watch any movies?
If it's so subtle.
It's a poisonous.
If I wrote letters about these movies, it's on the assumption that a large number of traditional
caties would have seen them.
You yourself have just told me that large numbers of traditional Catholics know all of the
songs of the sounding music by heart.
Do they realize what risk of poison they've drunk in?
I don't think they do.
And you're not, the argument I always hear when I discuss this with people is that
Bishop Williams is just being fanatic about this movie.
He's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Good luck to them.
Good luck to them. If they've listened to the arguments and thought about the arguments and that's what they, and they're sincere and honest in thinking I'm wrong, good luck, but I'm afraid that they're drinking in a false and naturalist, they're drinking in false, a false way looking at the family in particular.
But you must have gotten a lot of letters when you wrote that original letter.
don't think so. Maybe by then people are given up protesting because they knew it was useless.
They protested big time over slacks, after that I think they sort of gave up.
Now on Slack, do you think that you've made a difference throughout the years or do you think
this there's still been resistance to this ideal over time?
I'm sure there's still resistance because it's too much the world and it's a very strong
current.
This way of thinking about womanhood, again it's a very powerful influence of the environment.
Films will have a lot to do with it I'm sure.
When Catherine Heaven began wearing slacks in movies on the late thirties,
had a tremendous influence I do believe.
It was made to look like the latest and the smartest thing to do.
And people wanted to imitate Catherine Heaven.
They wanted to imitate the movie stars.
The movie stars have a huge influence, huge influence.
And only the enemies of God are smart enough apparent.
He's realized what a huge influence they have.
The friends of God are too dumb.
They think, well, there's movies over here,
which are all that are nice and sweet and entertainment.
And then there's religion over here.
Religion is nice and sweet and it's not that it works.
Devil is a lot more coming than that.
Guys, let's see, going again, we've been stepping back between volumes 3 and 4.
Letter number 217, which appears in volume 4, talks about compost.
What are your reflections since then?
Well, it's parallel to the case of campus, which is the case of the Diocese, the small
country Diocese, about six hours by road, maybe north of Rio de Janeiro.
The diocese, which resisted the modern changes under the leadership of Biscuit de Castelmaier,
after Vatican II, the only diocese in the world that did so.
It resisted for a long time, as long as Biscuit de Castelmaier was living,
and even for another nine years after he died, nine or ten years after he died.
And then the resistance came to an end when Biscuit refan,
This is one of the second successive of Bishop Gestermeyer took the diocese with him back under Rome.
That's what happened.
I think it's like the case of Lebeau, the monastery of Lebeau, the Dongiro.
A lot of the only, I think,
The, there's more substantial Catholicism continuing in campus than there is continuing in Lavalu.
I'm not sure of that.
It doesn't matter.
In both cases, the resistance, the essential resistance to the council is over.
Both of them have essentially submitted to Rome.
In both of them, it's normally a matter of time before they slide and slide into the considerate religion.
But it's certain that in Campos, there is, the true message still being said.
that there is still undoubtedly good deal of the true sacraments in the various
papa parishes, a bishop of the castro mire.
A certain amount of practice of the faith is still being maintained, but the question
is not only what is being maintained, but in which direction is it going?
The question of direction is sometimes more important than the direction of content, because
if I…
Going in a direction of empty out the content, then there's simply a matter of time before the content is emptied out.
If I'm going in the direction of filling in the content, then it's simply a matter of time before I fill in.
In other words, empty, we're going in the right direction, maybe better than full of going in the wrong direction.
Well...
was for, it's now being for few years going in the wrong direction. If you keep
some going in the wrong direction, they may not be much left in Sybilis
time, but it may take a long time, a longer time for it to empty out finally, but
there's no doubt that
there will be, there is already a certain reaction amongst the laity in the
diaspora campus, definitely one or two or three of the priests have.
reservations about what's going on. But for the moment they are all thinking that
the best thing they can do is stay with their parishes and stay with. But we know
the society has a few, one or two masses, one or two priests at the start or the
friend of the society visit.
the parishes of Campos and they know that there are laity who seek clear and who are no longer attending
Bishop Riefen Masses. There's a parish with 170 souls, one of the parishes where they've now completely rejected
Bishop Riefen on this priest and they wait for the society priest to come in. So you know and it's with time
Probably a large part of the campus diocese will slip towards the new religion.
probably the resistance in sitting up on the old religion will grow. It's the
only little pack. But you're essentially, if you wrote this obituary about
Le Peru in 88, compost in 2002, why can't someone write this obituary about the
society in the future? Because the society is not slim. Well if may I, may the
society, may... So what is that, what is going to keep the society from sliding
that didn't stop Baru or compost?
sufficient for the days to evil they're off you cross your bridges when you come to them
It's I've always said in the letters you may have noticed that you know Catholic should not
Treat the societies though. It's infallible and indefectible like the Catholic churches
The society does not have the guarantees of the church house
You know, I've said that in several times. I've said it to the point that colleagues in the society are not happy with me
priests are not happy when I say things like that, because it's sort of putting a question mark against the society.
But absolutely speaking, it's definitely true that souls should follow the society, not because it's the society, but because it carries the truth of our Lord.
For no other reason, and if they must at least in this tremendous crisis of the world of the church,
they must at least bear in mind the possibility that the society may go the way of La Barroon campus in May.
I don't think it will.
If you ask me, why do I not think it will?
Because I say I know a number of the priests and I know the bishops and I don't think any of them want to compromise the defense of the faith.
Rome would really, Rome is very clever. The Romans have 2,000 years of experience of leading
the church and of getting what they want. And they've shown quite a bit of skill in their
attempts to get the society to abandon the defence of the Old Faith. But the least you
Well, then, to book under our previous conversation, so the defense of the faith in its current
iteration consists of rejecting Vatican II.
Yes.
And all its works and all its poems.
Yes.
As you see you we remember when you first came back from Rome in 2000 when you were at the pilgrimage and you had the
You had the lunch with Cardinal Castrione, it was all sweet and nice.
He's on his farewell tour now, we hear.
Have there been any communications with you or have you heard from other people what his thoughts are?
Does he feel like he's made a difference or is he sort of resigned to the machine?
He is in...
As best I know, he has sincerely tried to help the society, which is why Bishop Felley
at one stage said he is a true friend of the society. So other people said that's
purely naive and foolish to think so. I don't think so. I think there's a part of
the Cardinal, which generally wishes to help us. On the other the problem is that
the Cardinal's head is conciliar.
And even if he's not himself a Hegelian, he does believe in serving the Pope, because that's
how to serve the church, the Pope is a Hegelian, but better the existence of Hegelian.
And therefore, the Cardinal willy-nilly,
once the society to join Hegelian,
that he wants the society to lose its mind and adopt the conciliar mind.
And he thinks, but he's so mixed up in his head,
like practically all of them are,
he's so mixed up in his head that he thinks this is the best thing he could do for the society.
And therefore, down to an including today, I do believe that with a sincere good world towards the society,
because he's gotten to know quite well some members of the society, and he likes us.
He likes us on a human level, and I think he likes us for the fact that we stand up for what we believe,
that we have sincere beliefs, and we stand up for these beliefs. I think he likes that.
He likes us, and therefore he would like to see us inside the mainstream church.
So again, you've got to distinguish.
His liking house is not bad, but when, but his mixed up head, which means that liking
us means that we should go into the conservative churches is mistaken, he's wrong.
So the poor man is torn.
He's tried. He's got himself into a long hot water amongst the modernist in Rome.
He's been mocked, he's been despised by many fellow Cardinals and bishops in Rome, they scorned him for everything he's tried to do.
Recently it seems that, you know, the Pope has sort of distanced himself from him, from the concastrian, and therefore he's been pretty much on his own, so to speak.
And it's got a lot to do with the fact that he's trying to stand up for us, all of which
is to his credit.
On the other hand, his standing up for us means his wanting us to get back into the
party.
Now, you keep using this formulation, and it's all throughout your letters, and it's in your recent
columns about conciliar church.
So, you're, I mean, going back to this, and in this, all the way, your earliest letters and
letter number 23, and you're, you're talking about quarks and nets, and I want to, I want to
read the exact, the exact quote to you so that our, our, our, the listeners can get some
context.
Set the nets to the corks. What are you doing lazing in the sun while we down below catch all the fish?
Replied the corks to the net without as you would all long ago have been lying useless at the bottom of the sea
Same many Catholics to the society. What are you doing there outside the church while we fight within?
Replies the society without our stand outside the conciliar church.
Countless Catholics within it would have lost all sense of the faith and the fight long ago.
So the question many will ask is is the conciliar church the Catholic church and if it is the Catholic church then what right do you have to resist the Catholic church or attack it?
Okay, let's try a comparison.
A rotten apple.
I'm sure you've seen a rock napple. Part of the apple is still good. It's green or red.
The rest is completely brown with little white spots of rattle over it.
You've seen a rock napple.
The, is the rot apple? Yes it is. And it isn't. Is consumerism the church? Yes it is and it isn't.
The rot is not apple because it's rot is what was good apple and the good apple is now bad.
Look at that part of the apple is now bad.
But that the bad part, until it's cut away, does still belong to the good part.
The good, the good bad part, the good part, hang together in one apple.
It's still one apple, even the half of it is rotten.
So, the considerate church and tradition.
The whole of the church should be traditional because Catholicism is traditional, but heresy of neomodens,
which is a very subtle heresy, has gotten into the apple and so that you
When you say, when you look at most of the apple, it's rotten, and that, if most of the apple is rotten, it becomes difficult to distinguish in rotten, rotten, and what is apple.
Well, then someone argue, you're supposed to be that the ecclesiology is flawed because our Lord has an our Lord guaranteed us an unspoiled apple in the church
He never guaranteed he's I want to said when I come back the second coming at the end of the world shall I find the faith upon the earth
That's Luke chapter 18. I think verse 6 towards the beginning of it. Look, it's our Lord speaking about the end of the world
And he says, when I come back shall I find the faith upon the earth, shall I find the faith upon it?
And it was a church will avert you, virtually disappeared, but it won't have disappeared.
Because I all just says at the end of the gas costs of some Matthew, I am with you until the end of the world.
At the end of the world, the church will still be there, but it will be very small.
After the fierce persecution by the Antichrist, the most terrible persecution of all times,
the church will be very small, but it will still be there.
So when our Lord guarantees that the church can't defect, he doesn't guarantee that it
will not defect in all its extension.
He only guarantees that part of it will never defect, at least part of it will never defect.
That good part of the apple, back in the 1960s and 1970s or 1970s especially,
70s and 80s was after we should have failed. Not only the Archbishop, but outstanding to the Archbishop.
And those that were doing the same thing independently of the society,
they were also defending tradition, they were defending the same tradition,
like Bishop de Castro and Maya.
which is why in 1988 we should the Castro Maya who was quite independent of the
ostrich never came under him, never had to obey him, was never under his
authority, but Archbishop Castro Maya said
I would consider that if I wasn't here today to support the artificial effect in consecrating these four
bishops, he said, I consider I would be committing a mortal sin, because so important is the defense of the faith,
and bishop the catch of my was not told what to think or what to believe I ought to be should have
faith. The two of them simply believed in the same faith, a faith which is of absolute importance to defend,
And therefore he considered it he would have made a notice in young me that I hoped if it was not bishop to cast remaris set of a contest at the end
No
No, he wasn't. He had, that's another interesting question. He had saved the
Kansas temptations and inclinations. Some have said that on the day of your
consecration that he said in a cone that we have
have no Pope. He said this in public and that Father Schmittberger has confirmed this.
It's possible. I don't know. It's possible. But he never came out in that position with that
position. I don't really came out with that position in public.
And the Archbishop said about Bishop Kastramaya that he did have the city and his
intonation, but he also had legalist intonation. In other words, a bay cantaloure bay
cantaloure bay cantaloure bay cantaloure bay cantaloure which is the other side.
So he was part, liberal, and part,
saying to the chemist, because he hadn't got the synthesis,
the correct combining of these things,
not of the Tweras, but the correct balance of the truth,
the Archbishop had.
But the ostrich says that he said at one stage, it's in the letters, one of the letters.
If without me, he could have fallen in the same accountism, but because he wants to stay
with me, or he wants to stay with us, he's how the ostrich could have won't leave, because
he wants to stay with us, he's not safe accountist.
But the Archbishop didn't always, I mean, you had a set of
economists, seminary professors, you had a set of
economists, fellows, student fellow students who were ordained
in the Archbishop's new, so the Archbishop didn't always
have a problem instead of a Kantism.
As long as it wasn't arrogant, as long as it wasn't pushy, as long as it wasn't apostolic
because as long as it wasn't proselytizing, as long as people kept it as a private opinion,
I didn't even have enough because, you know, in W.I.s.
Liebertacht's system of gusting in things that are dark for liberty and the Auschwitz
did not consider it so certain that there is a boat or that these boats are boat.
He did not consider it so certain that nobody had any right to disagree.
So he gave people a certain latitude to disagree, but if they disagreed in public,
then they're taking position in public against the public position of the society.
There you've got a real problem, and that was the problem with the nine.
If the nine, he gave quite a lot of latitude.
to the nine before, you know, 1982.
But they were all known instead of the contest in the seminary.
Yes, but they weren't shouting it and they weren't pushing it.
They held it, but they didn't push it.
What happened in 1982 was that there was, as might be feared, if they began pushing it,
there was serious prospect of rebellion, division of the society, and confusion in ranks.
Of course, that's actually what happened in the United States.
You mentioned a few several moments ago.
that in the United States, the mass of people followed Father Kelly, the mass of
Kelly's in the United States followed Father Kelly, and that's what was live with
that happen. So the ostrich didn't want the society to suffer from that kind of
division. Therefore, when those priests made it clear that they were taking this
strong position and in public, the ostrich said, look, you go your way and we
go ours.
May God be with you. That's literally what the ostrich said at the time. He said,
up till now it looks as though God is blessing us the way we are going, but you can't,
you aren't going this way, we aren't going the same way. You go your way and may God be with you.
He did not say, you go your way. I am atomatized. You are rats and traitors. No, no, no, no, no.
He said, God be with you. I can remember it. Just think that you were at that meeting.
Yes. And finally, if you found us always said that if he had just stayed for the meat
loaf, probably things would have all been worked out. But you don't think so.
No, there's a real division.
Again.
I see.
The Archbishop discerned the reality. He was a great man for discerning the reality.
And the reality was that you had two different, two tendencies, which are two different, two divergent, to stay under the same group.
Well, that's fine, not standing in the same roof, but that the whole haggle over the properties could have been resolved over dinner that night.
And to say, all right, well, you can take these properties and we'll do this.
That's
You're an American way of seeing things. Well, it was said that you were doing you were the one who torpedoed this no in French
Or German or something I said I don't want to eat with
I don't, I don't think the ostrich would have stayed to meet. I really don't believe it.
But you certainly wouldn't have stayed to eat.
I didn't, certainly did not want to stay to eat, but if he had stayed to meet, I would have stayed.
I would have stayed with him. That's for sure.
But I don't think he would have stayed. I don't think it was what I said that decided him.
I think he said no.
So these issues couldn't have been talked out in an amicable way, it had to go to the lawyers.
And thus all of those years and costs.
Look, you say amicable, but what's amicable about, you know?
It was what we call a French accudator, I mean what happened at the beginning of that meeting was that these four priests were members of the Archbishop's Society and the Society's not a free-wearing association of individual priests.
The society was a church organization with the superior and with officers and then with members
They were members of the society under the office and under the superior channel and they
Father Jackard himself at the beginning of that meeting put down
a sheet with seven points on it, in front of the said, this is what we hold to.
This is what we want, and the ostrich said, well, all right, let's discuss.
Let's discuss.
And we began discussing the first point.
It was about three points of an hour.
We began discussing the second point.
It was about another three points of an hour.
Then about a quarter of an hour into the third point.
The ostrich said, look, this is useless.
This is going nowhere.
The difference is too great you go your way we go we've got here two different ways you go your way
And that was with his phrasing. He said that I
Forget exactly how I phrased about that was there was nothing discourteous
There was nothing insulting about how he said it
There's especially nothing insulting about make-on-be with you, but that's the effect look in reality
We've got here two different ways of serving the faith
This is the way the society is going. You cannot remain members of this society.
So do you think the Archbishop was implying that they were serving tradition in their own way and that they have taken a separate legitimate account?
not exactly, because if he had believed in what they were doing as a means of
serving tradition or saving the faith, he wouldn't have seen it as a
so essentially time-motment. No. He saw it as an undermining of the defense of the
faith, because it's going too far. It's an exaggeration in the opposite
direction from liberalism.
Actually, the interesting is, as the officers will say, the liberalism, the seed of accountism,
the hasten tales of the same coin.
But that's another big point.
But that comes into the letters and so forth.
Yes, I mean, the set of accountism is mentioned in every volume.
So I think, and I'm not sure that we have room in this interview too.
It's a recurring temptation for traditional Catholics.
Well, because again, you talk about Catholicism is clear, yeah, that's Catholicism says this is true, and this isn't with with such ambiguity
Set of a contism at times seems to be a Catholic solution and you said so in a previous interview
Yes, but I think that the quote was something that there are some intelligent and faithful
Catholics who simply cannot believe that these men have been true vickers of Christ.
I think that was somewhat like, yes, that's true, but I do say that.
I mean, those are moderate say, so I divide say we can address into moderate or rapid.
or shades between.
Margaret said that we can exist.
The Auschwitz you could have was tolerating
moderate city.
You can't just inside the society.
up until 1982, or the moderate city has it, because they see modern, but when they
proved that they were going to take a stand, that they were going to stand together,
and then especially this meeting, where the fathers of government, put down like an
ultimatum to the ostrich issue. The effect was backing the ostrich
against the war.
You know, lighting up against what? Look, you agree with this, otherwise. We are in the United States. We're going to run inside the way. We understand. And you're better agree. That was the effect.
And, you know, no, what's remarkable is the Archbishop was willing to stay there and discuss
what you did for two perfectly reasonable hours, and I say reasonable, I mean, he gave
his reasons, but they didn't satisfy it with the priests and therefore they would further
discussion with useless.
So this goes back to the original question of Rome and negotiations, and back then those
priests were worried.
I think there were some discussion with John Paul II and the rumor was there's going
to be a deal or something's going to happen.
And so the reaction was, in reaction to this deal, we're going to have this happen.
So, when I asked earlier what history repeat itself and did the spirit of the nine still stay,
that there's this hard line of action in the society, so we will resist whatever deal.
It's the faction that taught the Archbishop out of the 1980s of protocol.
But there's a difference. No faction taught the Archbishop out of the protocol.
It was in time itself.
He's spent a sleepless night, a difficult night.
It's entirely his own decision on that those around him were rather soft.
think that the Archbishop took the hard line in 1988, or the quote unquote hard line, because
of hard lines around it. That's a myth. It was his own decision. In May of 1988, when
he gathered together all of the priests, all of the leaders of Catholic tradition, and
a lot of the sisters as well, to put the question on the table and ask him about his opinion.
All the men, except Father Alain, wanted to go in with Rome, wanted to need wanted to make some kind of a given of Rome.
It was the sisters who stood against.
So don't pay attention to this idea that the ostrich was surrounded by hardliners,
and it was the hardliners fault that the ostrich took the hardline.
That's a myth.
Okay, what was your give a go back to what you just said to go to what you just said?
Well, I was saying that that that was what has continued to stay in the society is that there's
a spirit that's going to prevent a deal at all costs because going back to the fundamental
question is what what you said your phrase was the defense of the faith.
What is the defense of the faith resisting Vatican II signing a deal with anything less than
resisting Vatican II and denying that the book is pope.
And resisting Vatican II and recognizing the Pope is still Pope, but you don't see the
two.
It's inextricably linked, you're excellency.
That rejecting a church council is not the same
sort of bridge as rejecting a man as the Pope?
No, because rejecting a church council
and an ecumenical council has never really had,
we've had sued the pseudo synodipistory,
we've had smaller councils, but.
In Ecumenical Council with 3,000 bishops to say that
2,000 I think however many videos so were
That's been to his exception because it comes at the end of a long process of
corruption of the church, at the end of a long process. And don't all these
popes come at the end of a long, I mean we see pies at 10th, pies at 12th, and then
we see people like John XXIII. Yes, we've seen John XXIII
23rd Paul VI John Paul I had to count John Paul II and Abin X18 the
Consilio Pope's the Pope's who believe in the council they are
the end of a long process of corruption of the church. That's the key to the home.
So if you see Vatican II in that light, why not the papacy? And again, I'm not
making that I don't want to make the case for a set of the Consism here, your
excellency, but do not see the two as linked that if there's a rejection of the
council, there must be some question of the papacy.
I can see the link, but that's not the only truth in presence,
where in the presence of our other truth as well.
And the other truth is that the Pope,
The conditions that make a pope to be pope or not to be pope are not such that these men,
these latest popes are necessarily not popes.
That's not the case. We're getting to material or formal heresy. They're saying very
false and heretical things, as Bishop T.C. remarks about Benedict XVI. But I have
always argued that the modern, the corruption of the modern mind is such that they
don't fully realize what they're doing.
The city came this absolutely inject rejected on me, father, son, mother, father, child,
we'll have no truck with that argument.
Because they consider that they're logical and they say, well either or, but men are not always logical.
The truth is clear, yes or yes or yes or no, but many men are yes-nose or no yeses.
And these poops are so mixed up in their mind. I said a few moments ago.
They absolutely believe in the modern world and they absolutely believe in the Catholic Church without realizing all they think they believe in the Catholic Church without realizing that there's a clash.
I don't believe they realize.
And that's because the modern world has such a powerful influence,
majorly because they watch too many movies, including the sound of music.
The modern world gets to people, and it gets to people with its slush and its mush, and
you know, it gets inside the mind and it rots the mind, and the mind can no longer think.
The mass of minds today can no longer think.
Words have lost their meaning, the words of us, the ideas of us, they grip, people can
no longer think, they're just in moot.
You can't reason with people in it any longer, with very few people today can be reason.
They're switched off, they're spaced out, they're up in the, they're in their cyberworld,
they're in their television, they're in their internet, wherever they are,
they can no longer think.
The evidence no longer meet any truth no longer means anything.
All the better is emotion.
I know that this is true because I feel it, and all the new space.
I just feel it, and all the media and all the people.
No.
What actually happened, what's the history, what's the evidence?
And the best evidence is not what people say, because what people say can be influenced by the quote unquote,
I mean this is what people think or so, because they can be influenced by their emotions, okay?
The best evidence is sheer physical evidence.
Like, for instance, the two towers, the photographs of the diagonally sawn-off pillars.
Which strongly suggests that they were or the recent discovery in the case of 9-11 the recent discovery of nanothermate
Or is it nanothermate or is it nanothermate?
They're might I think nanothermite in in in the ruins
You know, and that's that's a doozy when I was writing that's the least of the questions about that event
The we're
We're going to cover some more questions in here.
There's a one cannot emphasize too much.
The minds no longer are oriented by truth.
Catholic minds should be oriented by truth,
today are not already a good truth. And the segment that even counts is not truth. It's
emotion in favor of liberty, emotion in favor of the rights of man, emotion in favor of
the modern world, government space. It's emotion. Not mine. It's not truth. Reality. People
have lost their sense of reality. It's terribly serious.
And that's where the problem is.
There are people who are watching this who say that you've got plenty of fight left, so you're just gonna stay, are you just gonna hang out here in England?
I have, it's my home country.
You had lunch here, and you've got to win moves, a very good lunch.
It's a lovely house, you've not yet been in the garden, but you haven't yet seen it.
I have the run of London, I have the run of England, I've been travelling in England.
I was down to exit, and I was up to Leicester, and up to Leicester came this weekend.
I'm leading a pleasant life.
But people will say that they need to hear these things that I need to see you and be affirmed in their faith in different parts of the world as you did for decades.
Well then make a Hollywood film to persuade them to buy the tapes where they can see me again getting all worked up.
All right, thank you, Your Excellency.