You are correct in that that may be what the Society believes however, that does not at all means that they are rendering a correct reading of the reality.

A tendency is not capable of building Churches, imposing canon laws and false rituals, teaching heresies and a foreign religion and if this tendency has compelled men to do these things which are anti-Christ, (which they did willfully and culpably),  then such men are non-Catholic and have placed themselves outside of the true Church having gone into an objective apostasy.

Martin Luther's followers believed him to represent the true church, did he?

Of course not, not any more than the conciliar sect represents the Catholic Church.

Re-reading the Archbishop's early and overly optimistic statements from that period tells us nothing. It was only but a few years after he affixed his approval to most of the Vatican II docuмents. We do not have the luxury of such soft appraisals today, after fifty years of destruction of, after and defection from the Catholic Faith.
Today the sect has become beyond one's ability to recognize it as Catholic.

Rome has become a house of rabbincal thought and doctrine which has displaced its dogma and its Saints.

J.Paul,

Again it doesn't matter what you think; it is what the society believes and I have shown that the society have never held the belief of two separate churches. I could add district superiors Frs. Scott & Fr. Simoulin in 2001: "The post-Conciliar Church is consequently not a separate church, but the Catholic Church "poisoned by an inimical and foreign spirit that tends to corrupt and destroy it…disfigured by the Council, and that which is foreign to the Catholic spirit in the spirit of the Council".

So, you see, it is a consistent view and inline with the archbishop's view.

But it is interesting to note that the inconvenient quote of the archbishop you simply dismiss as an outdated opinion from another time. Had it ever occurred to anyone here why, out of the 338 Eleison Comments, the society published a rebuttal to just one of them: 281 "Various Churches"? It was not so much a reply to Bishop Williamson, rather a warning to EC's readership: if you follow the author's thinking to its logical and dangerous conclusion: you start to believe the Church has defected.

So, J.Paul bringing us back on track viz. your question: "the question has always been which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome". This is another straw-man fallacy, the society have never believed in two separate churches.

A tendency is not capable of building Churches, imposing canon laws and false rituals, teaching heresies and a foreign religion and if this tendency has compelled men to do these things which are anti-Christ, (which they did willfully and culpably),  then such men are non-Catholic and have placed themselves outside of the true Church having gone into an objective apostasy.

Martin Luther's followers believed him to represent the true church, did he?

Of course not, not any more than the conciliar sect represents the Catholic Church.

Re-reading the Archbishop's early and overly optimistic statements from that period tells us nothing. It was only but a few years after he affixed his approval to most of the Vatican II docuмents. We do not have the luxury of such soft appraisals today, after fifty years of destruction of, after and defection from the Catholic Faith.

Today the sect has become beyond one's ability to recognize it as Catholic.

Rome has become a house of rabbincal thought and doctrine which has displaced its dogma and its Saints.

I would surmise that if it hadn't been for his approval of so many of those garbage Vat.II docuмents, ABL would never have been able to achieve the approval to start his fledgling new Society in the 70's.  He would have been a total OUTCAST if he had done the right thing at the Council and NOT approved anything.  

He really should have known better, because he was involved in drawing up the preliminary schemas before the Council began, and he saw his diligent work of two years get set aside in ten minutes by the Modernist infiltrators whom John XXIII put into positions of power.  He really should have known better.

He was only able to get the Society off the ground BECAUSE he was at least partially complicit with the REVOLUTION.  He then had an UPHILL BATTLE to wage against that revolution, which was the cause of his consternation in the years to come.  

We can be thankful that he had the fortitude to endure the pressures of that battle in his waning years -- he never was able to enjoy a comfortable retirement, and he gave that up to remain engaged in the fight for Tradition.  He suffered a dry martyrdom, for which we are very much indebted to him.  


.

.
Now, thinking can be a dangerous thing, because it can put you into the position of having to recognize that you have been wrong, and that you need to change you outlook on something.  Well, here we are.  The questions asked of Fr. Themann are open questions, and so far, he's not answering.  (And what is currently being allowed to happen on CI, to the detriment of any substantive discussion for the benefit of the Resistance, is the trollwork and disruptive intrusions of the likes of petwerp, which see, instead of intelligent responses.)  We can expect that if he were to answer, he would have to get permission from the Menzingen-denizens, and that would be well-nigh impossible.  But if he were to respond without first getting permission, he would be subject to severe penalties.  So his easiest approach is to simply not respond.
.

Neil,

What is happening here is that the first fallacious argument, the one on which pretty much the entire docuмent depends, has been rebutted. You know this but, as you say, "thinking can be a dangerous thing, because it can put you into the position of having to recognize that you have been wrong". The insults and name-calling only confirm that you are not interested in any "substantive discussion"; infact you have no response.

In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome  was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".

The argument that archbishop, upon reflection, concluded the protocol contained something unacceptable and hence retracted has also been disproved by numerous quotes from those who knew him and were close to the events of 1988. I even included a quote from the archbishop which speaks for itself: "I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course"

Finally, I addressed the "legitimately promulgated" nonsense and pointed out archbishop Lefebvre accepted that the 1983 Code of Canon Law ,and said "if the law changes, the law changes, and we must make use of it, for the Church can ask nothing evil from her faithful." How could he say that if the promulgation were not legitimate?

There is nothing in this open letter can't be refuted and I'm sure Fr. Themann could do a better and more complete job than myself, but he would just be wasting his time.

.

Good for you, Nicholas!  

While I don't believe generally in burying my head in the sand (who does) I care enough about my time and faith that when a troll and full time committee comes on here to cause circular confusion, I hide his posts (the red hide button), just as I have done with petwerp.  I feel better already.  

It's the reasonable thing to do, for it's so much easier not to be distracted with nonsense when you don't have to see it.



I missed a footnote and I have two more footnotes (5a & 5b), so I'll re-post this page:
.


In order to perceive what is going on in this conference talk of Fr. Themann, one has to be capable of thinking.

Now, thinking can be a dangerous thing, because it can put you into the position of having to recognize that you have been wrong, and that you need to change your outlook on something.  Well, here we are.  The questions asked of Fr. Themann are open questions, and so far, he's not answering.  (And what is currently being allowed to happen on CI, to the detriment of any substantive discussion for the benefit of the Resistance, is the trollwork and disruptive intrusions of the likes of petwerp, which see, instead of intelligent responses.)  We can expect that if Fr. were to answer, he would have to get permission from the Menzingen-denizens, and that would be well-nigh impossible!  But if he were to respond without first getting permission, he would be subject to severe penalties.  So his easiest approach is simply not to respond.

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: petwerp

There is one Pope, one Rome, one Church: visible and hierarchical. The society has always [been] clear on its use of the term "conciliar"; it is not a separate church.

0

Let's be more precise then, the Conciliar sect which currently occupies the Catholic Church, or do you propose that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church?

I have seen numerous quotes where Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the conciliar church as a separate church from the Catholic Church and that the conciliar church is in schism. He said that if one becomes attached to the conciliar church one is no longer a member of the Catholic Church and he also said that he didn't mind being excommunicated or suspended by the conciliar church because it was not the Catholic Church to which he was joined.

Sorry I don't have a link, I wrote this post from memory and don't remember where I read what I am talking about.

Right you are, Matto!  The references are numerous, that is, for those with eyes to see.

Which brings us back to where we left off..........

.
.
.

page 3 ................ (Pages 1-2 are found here.)


Archbishop Lefebvre’s firm principle beginning in May 1988 – no agreement with unconverted Rome – is a principle analogous to the principle (in our example) return property to its owner.  So if someone asks you why you refused to return the property given to you for safekeeping, it would be completely inadequate for you to simply say that there were “changed circuмstances”.  Rather, you would have to invoke the superseding principle and explain how the new circuмstances caused the application of the superseding principle.  In other words, you would have to explain that no one should give a gun to a crazy man and that this particular man had become crazy and wanted his gun in order to commit murder. (5)

So you are only freed from following the first principle of action because you are bound by the (second) superseding principle.  In your conference, you say that circuмstances freed the SSPX from Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle, apparently (in your view) leaving the SSPX free to do whatever it chooses to do.  

But prudence requires that we always act according to principle.

If you really think that changed circuмstances free the SSPX from following Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle, then clearly state which (second) superseding principle Bishop Fellay is applying and how the circuмstances require this.

Because you fail to invoke any superseding principle of action and fail to explain how (supposed) changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.


Summary of this section:  You make two errors regarding what prudence is: (5a)

1. You fail to understand that all questions of prudence are questions of principle and that in matters of prudence we are acting on principle.

2. You misunderstand that when circuмstances prevent us from following one principle, it is because we are bound to follow a (second) superseding principle.  Your defence of Bishop Fellay depends on these two key errors about what Prudence is.

What you said is true that, when a person misunderstands prudence (as you have shown you do) then “nothing else makes sense” when analyzing the negotiations with Rome. 10:40.


The Rest Of This Letter

Because your position hinges on what prudence is, and because you made two serious errors showing you misunderstand this virtue, your conference was completely inadequate as an explanation of the SSPX’s recent conduct.  However, we regret that this fact does not end the errors you made during the conference nor the harm you are doing.  Below, we continue our open letter, attempting to help the faithful and correct the misunderstandings you have caused. (5b)

___________________________________________
(5).  St. Thomas says it this way: “but since it happens sometimes that man's will is unrighteous, there are cases in which a deposit should not be restored, lest a man of unrighteous will make evil use of the thing deposited: as when a madman or an enemy of the common weal demands the return of his weapons.” Id.

(5a).  The fact that we have proof here on CI that at least one of Fr. Themann's minions (petwerp) refuses to recognize this principle, nor its source, nor its truth, nor its proper application here, is proof positive that Fr. Themann has caused misunderstandings to proliferate. (5b)  I'm only glad that others of his minions don't clutter these threads with their inanities, as Nicholas, above, aptly observes.

(5b).  Fr. Themann has caused misunderstandings to proliferate.



page 4......................

.
.
.


The misunderstanding Fr. Themann's conference has caused is apparently a thing that some of the would-be faithful are eager to hang on to, because it gives them an excuse to further practice the erroneous thinking they had already been practicing, which see, for those with eyes to do so.............


Here is another question in this Open Letter, to which Fr. Themann will likely never respond, because if he were to answer this question, he would likely suffer a severe demotion from his position, and perhaps expulsion from the tyrannical state of Menzingenitis:  


Question:  WHAT IS THE SUPERSEDING PRINCIPLE?

If you really think that changed circuмstances free the SSPX from following Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle, then clearly state which (second) superseding principle Bishop Fellay is applying and how the circuмstances require this.  

Because you fail to invoke any superseding principle of action and fail to explain how (supposed) changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.


.

.
I challenge Fr. Themann to respond,  

and likewise, I challenge petwerp to respond intelligently.

Neil,

This has already been explained to you so many time, which parts are you unable to grasp?

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome. If ever they do not, they are no different from the sedevacanists and Orthodox (the former deny the legitimacy of the pontiff, the latter denying the authority of the pontiff). If the society did not want to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, it would be, by definition, schismatic.

The society have always held this PRINCIPLE; when Rome calls we answer. It has never refuse contacts or discussions with Rome. It is PRUDENCE that has prevented them from coming to any agreement and submitting to the authority of Rome.

Now the author(s) of this article would have us erroneously (viz. turned prudence into a principle) believe that "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was a society principle (the quotes given do not support such an assertion). However, if this were true it would mean the society as a PRINCIPLE refuses to submit to the authority of Rome (until some future, undetermined time).

So the question is how can the society simultaneously hold two contrary principles? I dare say the author(s) would deny the first or that the second replaced the first, but it make no difference; to deny or replace the first principle would make one schismatic.

To refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a PRINCIPLE, and not as a matter of PRUDENCE as the society does, makes one a schismatic; a practical sedevacanist.

By the Way Neil Obstat, I do enjoy your postings and those are not hidden of course.  Well done.

.


So, after Archbishop Lefebvre realized his mistake in signing the 5-88 protocol with Rome, he laid down the following principle, which he maintained until his death:

It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.

Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13.




Here is another way Archbishop Lefebvre formulated the same principle:

We prefer to continue in Tradition;  to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to resume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.  This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.

Episcopal consecration sermon, 1988.




If you don't want to believe it, petwerp, just admit that you refuse to believe it.

Stop lying and repeating that it's not true.  It's right there in the record for you to see.  This is what ABL wrote, and this is what he preached.  Get used to it.


.