Setting aside the spelling mistake in the title, I noticed yet another volley in the ongoing war of words between Fr. Greiger and various other people he has labelled as 'cyrpto-lefebvrists'.
I also noticed that he has made some statements that are not supported by references or distort the actual positions of the SSPX.
As a rule I assume that a person is of good-will and not of malicious intent.
This is, after all, the Catholic approach to relations.
So at this point I am assuming that Father Angelo Mary Greiger is simply operating under a confirmation bias, that he may be using to reduce any cognitive dissonance that he is experiencing.
As such when I noticed some of the issues with the post were incorrect, I emailed Fr. Greiger my thought.
As he has not amended the article, I post below a copy of my email.
You failed to provide a reference for the following statement:
"... That intention, which he explicitly stated a number of times, was that the work of the Society should serve to weaken the influence of Vatican II. ..."
A reference would have been very supporting - especially if it was explicitly stated - as it would also seem to be inconsistent with the statement that the SSPX has the following approach to the council:
"... This is quite along the lines of the distinctions made by Archbishop Lefebvre to read the Council in the light of Tradition: what agrees with Tradition, we accept; what is doubtful, we understand as Tradition has always taught it; what is opposed, we reject. ..." ( http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/ )
Likewise, the CNS interview is helpful:
"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?" ( http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201931.htm )
Also, that the SSPX accepts, in this light, 95% of the Council. ( http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2012/08/a-theologians-questions-john-rt-lamont.html )
Also you statement that the Hermeneutic of Continuity does not allow for "... debat[ing] the merits of the Council,..." seems inconsistent with the CNS report on the doctrinal preamble:
"... but the Vatican said it leaves room for "legitimate discussion" about "individual expressions or formulations present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the successive magisterium" of the church. ..." (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202381.htm)
Perhaps I am operating under my own confirmation bias, but from my perspective you appear to have your own cultural blind spots.
At this point, I am assuming your good-will in this conflict of opinions and I am hoping you will provide corrections as noted above for those elements that contradict your statements.
Be assured of my prayers.