Neil has covered the other points for you.

In '02, '03 Bp fellay, Bp williamson and all the leaders of the SSPX were urging Bp Rifan ( Campos ) to not sign a practical agreement w/Rome...he was told that all the progress they had made in Campos ( for Tradition ) was made while in opposition to the modernists that they were now happy to be going back in with...It was pointed out to him how little sense that made...all the leaders of the SSPX were on the same page-or seemed to be..What changed?
Hmmm....could have been the crypto-Jew Jaidhoffer Found and all their $$..could be that having Zionist trash for a business partner ( Max Krah ) tends to change a person..
A certain member of our parish has a video on YT where all his effort is expended trying to prove that Bp fellay is "not a modernist.." Maybe he's not...but: 1. he's willing to compromise with modernists...2. he has a hard time telling those under him the truth...3. he changes his message depending on his audience...( Tells Rome one thing, the Carmelites another )..4. He's got a Zionist stooge who's chummy w/Mossad as a business partner..5. he set Bp Williamson up with an interview w/a journalist who cares nothing about the struggle btwn Catholicism and Modernism...6. He insisted Bp williamson take this Krah character as his lawyer...( or someone worse )..which is like giving a sick man Dr. Kevorkian...7. He's making us raise money for a seminary that's not needed ( and already paid for )...all of which makes him 8. a horrible Catholic leader..

.

In consideration for those who may be tuning in late on this thread and don't have time to wade through all previous 64 posts, here is a copy of the Open Letter from page one, through page 3:




[.Note:  Beginning in principio. My previous attempt to address a quasi-pressing issue fell on deaf ears and therefore, it seems that we ought to take this from the top after all.  As previously noted, the source is Ecclesia Militans, whose source is TheRecusant, whose source is TrueTrad.com, whose source is Anonymous.  I have made some corrections of obvious errors without noting the specific facts, to keep down the clutter.]

N.B. We reproduce the following article with the kind permission of the authors of www.TrueTrad.com The Recusant resumes its usual format in January.

[FWIW - I was unable to find this on True Trad -- I hope maybe they've taken it down to do some repairs, because not a few are in order!!!   HAHAHAHAHA.....]





From: Anonymous
(We are reachable at Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com )
Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, 2013 [October 15th]
Re: Answering your question: “Resistance to what?”


Dear Father Themann,

We have listened carefully to your April 2013 conference given at St. Marys, and which the SSPX sent to the faithful on its mailing list, as a free two-CD set, accompanied by a long written summary of your talk. In this present letter, through which we respond to your conference, all citations refer to disc 1, track 2 unless otherwise noted.

We are aware of many priests and laity who have pointed out errors and crucial omissions in your conference. We join our voices to theirs, attempting to mitigate the confusion your conference has caused.

We apologize for the length of our letter. But when you talk for 2½ hours, you can’t expect our answer to be only two pages.

We hold that Bishop Fellay’s attempt to make a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome is not the SSPX’s chief problem, but is a symptom of the SSPX’s problem. The problem itself is the continual liberalizing of the SSPX over time.


Your False Explanation Regarding Matters Of Prudence

Your entire talk hinges upon the (false) absolute division you make between “questions of principle” and “questions of prudence”.  10:40.

Here are your words in one of the places you emphasize this point:

      “Does the question of accepting a canonical structure
      boil down to a question of principle, or a question of
      prudence? It is very important to answer this question
      correctly, or nothing else makes sense.” Id.


This is your first error regarding prudence.  The truth is that all questions of prudence are questions of principle applied to particular circuмstances.(1)  So for example, when someone hands you a gold coin for safekeeping and then later asks you to return it, you will know how to respond to his request by applying a universal principle to the particular circuмstances. In this example, the universal principle is:  return property to its owner.(2)  So, using the virtue of prudence, you would apply that universal principle to the circuмstance that you have the man’s coin, and so you would return the coin to him.

Thus, your first error is to wrongly attempt to separate “questions of principle” from “questions of prudence”.  The truth is that every matter of prudence is acting on principle!

Don’t you see that, if you and the SSPX say that your actions need not be “questions of principle”, then you would be saying you think you are free to act in any way you choose?  But there’s more.  

Your second error regarding prudence, is your misunderstanding how changed circuмstances(3) affect prudent actions.  When ceasing to follow a prior principle (like no deal with unconverted Rome), you seem to think that it is an adequate explanation to simply invoke changed circuмstances.  But although circuмstances might change which principle applies, there is always a different principle which then does apply.

Let us illustrate this point by an example:  start with this general principle:  return property to its owner.  But man’s fallen human nature can cause exceptions to this principle.(4)  Suppose, a man gives a gun to you for safekeeping and then suppose he becomes crazy and so asks you to return his gun because he wants to commit murder.  In that circuмstance, prudence requires that another principle takes precedence and must be applied, viz., never give a gun to a madman.

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:

      [W]e prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition
      while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while
      waiting for Tradition to reassume 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.


_____________________________
FOOTNOTES
1. St. Thomas says it this way: “prudence … applies universal principles to the particular conclusions of practical matters.”  Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, IIa IIae, Q.47, a.6.
2. In his Treatise on Prudence, St. Thomas phrases this universal principle of action as follows:  “the restitution of a deposit to the depositor is in accordance with natural equality”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1.
3. We think it is plain that no relevant circuмstances have changed in Rome. In fact, if we had not been witnessing Bishop Fellay’s gradual slide into liberalism for many years, we would not have believed that anyone could be so naïve as to think that Assisi-hosting, mosque-praying, Vatican II-promoting Pope Benedict XVI was anything but a conciliar revolutionary.  More on that below.
4. St. Thomas says it this way:  “if human nature were always right, this [principle] would always have to be observed”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.57, a.2, ad 1.  The principle St. Thomas refers to, is the one quoted in footnote 2.


Page 3...........




[It seems to me that these first 2 pages alone are enough for an entire thread's discussion, and I haven't even made it halfway to the two posts I previously quoted from subsequent pages.]




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. [/color]
[/b]
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, Fr. Themann, 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, Fr. Themann, and you fail to explain how (supposed) changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.


.

.

Note:  Issue #13 is now arriving and I'm still on page 4 of 34 in Issue #12.

I'm telling you guys, if you don't scramble to keep up with TheRecusant, you're going to be left in a cloud of dust down the road.  I was saying that a year ago, and it has only become MORE so in time.  There are now 442 pages of INTENSE reading you have to study, if you want to know what the Resistance has been dealing with, and that doesn't count the Eleison Comments, at 52 pages a year, plus all the various docuмents that you'll find in the Resistance Writings sticky thread.  There are probably close to 1,000 pages in just the past 15 months.  And each page takes around 10 minutes to read and understand.  Sometimes you have to come back to the same page three or four times over a week, before you get to see what's really going on in it.  Some of that is due to grammar shortcomings and such (not in the ECs at all -- which are typically amazing in diction and precision -- nor much of a problem in TheRecusant, but in the translated writings especially), but it's mostly due to the intensely heavy nature of this material.  It does not make for light reading.


.

.

15 whole minutes?  You're slipping, petwerp.





Oh, and you have deliberately ignored the question, as I fully expected you would.  Your response is not intelligent, but instead, relies on your false assertions, as you have done all along, with your intellectual dishonesty.  

We await your intelligent response to THE QUESTION.  

And we're not holding our breath.



.

Neil the question has already been answered several times: (i) the society has always, as a principle (because it is not sedevacanist), wanted to submit to the authority of Rome an (ii) "no agreement with unconverted Rome" has never been a principle - it is a strawman fallacy.

You see

I do not see

J.Paul,

It simply doesn't matter what you do or don't see. The society have never held the belief of two separate churches. So your question or "which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome" is irrelevant.

Quote from: J.Paul

You see

I do not see

J.Paul,

It simply doesn't matter what you do or don't see. The society have never held the belief of two separate churches. So your question or "which Rome are they submitting to, Catholic Rome or Conciliar Rome" is irrelevant.

I do not care what I or the Society think. It is the reality which counts and whether or not the Society refuses to recognize it, does not determine what it is save to those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.

    save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.

Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"


.