.10 days is long enough, no? ....From post #65:
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.....]
An Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann
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 LetterBecause 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 (supposedly)
changed circuмstances require the SSPX to follow this superseding principle, your explanation is woefully incomplete.
.
.
.
...continuing with page 4...
page 4
You (and the current SSPX) Have Accepted The Conciliar Church’s Error that there Is Something Wrong With the SSPX’s Status.You say that, “The Society of St. Pius X, once upon a time, had a canonical structure when it was first founded and it was deprived of that canonical structure unjustly.” 11:00.
When you use the phrase “deprived … unjustly,” that phrase shows you are saying that the SSPX was
really deprived of its canonical structure. This is similar to the fact that, if someone unjustly deprives you of your car, it means that you
really and truly don’t have your car any longer.
You further emphasize your erroneous opinion (viz., that the SSPX is
really deprived of its canonical structure), when you add that the SSPX had this canonical structure “once upon a time.” This phrase “once upon a time” indicates you hold that the SSPX now lacks a canonical structure. In like manner, one could say that the
SSPX was faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre once upon a time.So we take it as plain that you think the SSPX no longer truly has its canonical structure. But your opinion is false. The truth is that the SSPX
still has its canonical structure
because Rome unjustly attempted to (but did
not really) deprive the SSPX of its status – but only in appearance.
You can see your error by understanding the words of Archbishop Lefebvre. In his prudential determination regarding how to act, when the conciliar church falsely and invalidly purported to “deprive” his Society of its canonical structure,
Archbishop Lefebvre invoked this principle: In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the
Faith, the primary reason for the Church. There is no law, no
jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith. Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, by Michael Davies, vol. 1, p.151,
quoting the 9-3-75 Letter to friends and benefactors #9. (6)
So, as Archbishop Lefebvre correctly reasoned, his Society was not truly deprived of its canonical structure, because law and jurisdiction cannot be used to harm the Faith and the Society which was supposedly “suppressed” entirely because it stood almost alone defending the Faith.
Reverend Dr. Boyd A. Cathey, a canon lawyer, made this same point when he analyzed the SSPX’s canonical case and publicly defended Archbishop Lefebvre at the time. Father Cathey concluded his analysis as follows:
[T]he multiple irregularities and the obvious failure to render
justice to Archbishop Lefebvre can only lead to one conclusion:
the Society of St. Pius X continues to enjoy canonical existence;
the measures taken against it and its founder lack validity. Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, vol. 1, p.450.
____________________________________________
(6). St. Thomas says the same thing in the context of what is true about all law, including all Church law.
Summa, Ia IIae, Q. 90.
.
Topic: A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX - 18 December 2013 (Read 22663 times)