.

Source:
Ecclesia Militans December 18th, 2013

Find PDF of TheRecusant Issue #12, Supplementary Issue, December 2013

(From linked Ecclesia-Militans website):




In April of 2013, Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX, gave a conference at St. Mary’s, Kansas.  The conference was entitled “Resistance to What?”.  It was an attack on the public resistance, offered by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson and several SSPX priests who have been or are on the verge of being kicked out of the SSPX, against the new direction of the SSPX championed by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay.  

As the title clearly states, Fr. Themann is of the position that nothing has substantially changed in the SSPX that would warrant a public resistance.  In response to this conference, the December 2013 Supplementary Issue of the Recusant publishes an excellent, thorough refutation of Fr. Themann’s arguments.  

We at the SSPX-Marian Corps Toronto now challenge Fr. Daniel Themann to respond to this refutation.

 

Father, since you seem so confident of your position, please do us the favour and defend your arguments against the wounds inflicted on them by this refutation.


.
.
.

........(My comments)........

It has been a busy Advent and Christmas, and unfortunately this topic is not very close to the spirit of Our Lord's Nativity.  

I would like to post the entire contents of this PDF here on CI but it's 34 pages long.  UUUGH.

It consists of page after page of excellent analysis of the highly defective presentation of Fr. Themann.  

Overall, it seems to me that this point-by-point answer to Fr. Themann's 2-1/2 hour presentation (which was distributed to SSPX faithful by snail mail in the form of a two-CD set which many Catholics threw in the trash, and to which perhaps few listened) is something well worth our study and reflection.  

I have seen several threads here in the SSPX Resistance forum that ask questions  ―  the answers to which are found here in this powerful Open Letter.  

And you can be sure that Menzingen is hoping everyone will IGNORE it, like they ignored Fr. Themann's presentation.  

We can easily disappoint Menzingen.

How about a discussion of the OPEN LETTER'S CONTENTS?


.

.

From the start, I would like to make the observation that any of the Resistance Catholics (all the saints of history resisted Liberalism) who have not been moved to make a detailed study of "Resistance to What?" because,   A)  it was 'too long' or,  B)  trying to read through it or listen to the CDs made them SICK, or,  C)  their prayer life, Advent and Christmas has been foremost in their minds, might be willing to take a quick look at this monumental Open Letter, because it quells the sickness you may feel with ready answers to the anomalies of Fr. Themann's verbose 'treatment' and therefore is much easier to read than the latter.

Furthermore, it seems to me a most apt topic for the New Year because it gets us started with an appropriate first step, on the first day of the New Year, in the right direction.


.

ii) never a principle of the SSPX. "Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!", Archbishop Lefebvre, Two years after the Consecrations.

Everything else fall apart...

If Rome accepted our Bishops and priests, there would be no discussion, nor any need for discussion post-facto, as it would be a fact. It would be automatic, and just happen. Poof! Like that.

I agree that Fr. Themann will not reply.  He would probably embarrass himself further if he tried.

.from p. 9+

[/b][/size]


Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours of signing it, as soon as he had some quiet in which to reflect.

He signed the protocol at 4:30 p.m., on May 5, 1988.  (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.554)

He then spent a sleepless night, during which he composed his retraction letter. He declared:  “Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night [of May 5,1998].”  
(Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)

[The] version [that Fr. Themann proffers] is far different from what Bishop Tissier says (above) in the Archbishop’s biography.  This is what [Fr. Themann says]:

     After he signed the May 5th protocol, Archbishop
     Lefebvre wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger the
     very next day. ... But in this letter to Cardinal
     Ratzinger, he does not reject the protocol. He
     simply adds one more provision. ...

[Then, speaking in the person of Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Themann says]:
     I don’t take away what I said in the protocol ...
     I ask for one more provision...

[Then, going back to his own person, Fr. Themann says]:
     He does not reject the May 5th protocol
     as such.  He insists on one additional condition to test
     the faith, the good faith of Rome.  (8:29–11:16)
     (emphasis added).


In this quote immediately above, [Fr. Themann says] repeatedly, that Archbishop Lefebvre “does not reject the protocol.”  But [Fr. Themann is] wrong.  Archbishop Lefebvre said he rejected the protocol (viz., his word was that he retracted his agreement to this protocol).  (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)

We [would really LIKE to] assume [that] you, Fr. Themann, are not claiming that there is a relevant difference between the words “reject” and “retract”.  Archbishop Lefebvre called his May 6, 1988 letter a “letter of retraction.” Id.

Is that consistent with your claim that “he does not reject the protocol,” Fr. Themann?

Is his “retraction” consistent with your claim that he said, “I don’t take away what I said in the protocol?”  Hear your words beginning at 8:29.


Further, on May 6, 1988 after he retracted his agreement to the protocol, Archbishop Lefebvre called the protocol “infamous.”  (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)  Do you think he did not reject what he called “infamous,” Fr. Themann?
 
You assert about the protocol that, on May 6, 1988, “He simply adds one more provision” which you also call “one additional condition.” Id.  But the truth is that Archbishop Lefebvre not only retracted the “infamous” protocol, but he gave an ultimatum to the pope.



Here is how Bishop Tissier recounts what
Archbishop Lefebvre did on May 6, 1988:  


    The following day, after Mass and Prime, he finished
    off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed
    to Fr. du Chalard at breakfast:

    ‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be
    taken to Cardinal Ratzinger.  It’s a little bomb.’

    It was a new ultimatum:  [Then Bishop Tissier quotes
    Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to Cardinal Ratzinger]:

        The date of June 30 was clearly given as a deadline, in
        one of my previous letters.  I have given you a file
        concerning the candidates.  There are still nearly two
        months to prepare the mandate ... The holy father can
        easily shorten the process so that the mandate can be
        sent by mid-June.
 
Page 11

        Were the reply to be in the negative, I would see
        myself obliged in conscience to go ahead with the
        consecration....
     (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555 (emphasis added;
     bracketed words added).)


Archbishop Lefebvre’s May 6, 1988 ultimatum was simply repeating what he had determined to do before May 6th.  In January, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre had already decided to consecrate three bishops.  (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p.551)

“On February 2nd, Archbishop Lefebvre confirmed the news:  ‘I am resolved to consecrate at least three bishops on June 30th, and I hope to have the approval of John Paul II.  But if he were not to give it to me, I would do it for the good of the Church and for the continuance of Tradition’.”  (Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p. 552 (emphasis added).)


On May 10, 1988, regarding the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre said “June 30th is the deadline. ... As I said on the television in Germany:

     On June 30, there will be Episcopal consecrations with or
     without Rome’s agreement.”  (Biography of Archbishop
     Lefebvre, p.556 (emphasis added).)

Note the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre repeated his ultimatum on television, shows that he was keeping the public informed about what he was doing.

So you see, Father Themann, your story is very different from the narrative in Bishop Tissier’s Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre.  What happened on May 5th, as Bishop Tissier explains, is that Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours.  He spent a sleepless night, during which he wrote his retraction of the protocol, which protocol he called “infamous,” later that day.  Then, on May 6, 1988, he renewed his ultimatum that he would consecrate at least three bishops (not one bishop, as you say) and that he would perform the consecrations on June 30th, with or without the pope’s permission.

Regarding the reason for Archbishop Lefebvre retracting his agreement to the protocol, you specifically say:

     [He] simply adds one more provision.  And I will say it
     was a practical provision.  In this letter, he says the pope
     must guarantee that we will have the consecration of a
     bishop by June 30th. (Disc 2, track 1, 9:00.)

The explanation you give regarding why Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind, is false.  

Whereas you say that Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind regarding the protocol because there was no promise of a bishop, read the words of Archbishop Lefebvre (below), who tells us that he withdrew his signature as a matter of principle, because Rome had not converted.


During his Episcopal consecration sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre explains his reason for changing his mind regarding the May 1988 protocol.  


...more later...
.

Neil, insults and comments that don't even make the grade of childish humor tell me all I need to know; you lack the intellect to spot and comprehend the fallacious argument.

There is a Catholic principle: submission to the Holy See and Archbishop Lefebvre followed this principle as far as he could. His refusal to submit to Rome's attempt at suppressing the society was an act of prudence. To have a "refusal to submit" as a principle would make the society no different than the orthodox or sedevacanists. Such a refusal can only be as an act of prudence where a higher principle is at stake.

I already gave a quote from the Archbishop two years after the consecrations "let them first make us such an offer!" which clearly shows he was open to the idea (which could not have been the case if "no agreement with unconverted Rome" was a principle). There's an old saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary references". None given in that article support this principle claim.

.

peterp, you hypocrite.  You incorrectly accuse me of insults when I was giving an appropriate response to your stupidity and blindness, then you turn around and attempt to insult me when you're not even capable.  

You wouldn't know humor if it bit you on the ankle.

The mountains of evidence and the objective facts that put the lie to this nonsense that Fr. Themann proffers are overwhelming.  Anyone who can't see it is just like the mind-numbed robots that followed Newchurch into the doldrums of the Newmass in 1969.  I was there, but you're probably not old enough.

This is 1969 all over again, and it shouldn't be a big surprise, as has been explained so many times.  

It happened in England in the 16th century.  

And it happened at the Last Supper when one left the room, having the devil in him.

.

Neil,

You were insulting ("Why are you still swinging?", "harassed from the peanut gallery");

You failed to give an appropriate response. Either you just can't comprehend it (i.e. spot the fallacious argument) or you're just blindly trying to defend the error.

You're attempt at humor isn't remotely funny, but then this isn't a laughing matter. It is very serious because, and Fr. Themann alluded to this, you are putting yourself outside the Catholic Church.

Let me try a third time to explain it in the most simplistic terms:

The society MUST, as a PRINCIPLE, want to submit to the authority of Rome - the fact that PRUDENCE has prevent them from coming to an agreement is immaterial - they MUST always want to submit. 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. And the society have always held this PRINCIPLE; when Rome calls we answer, it has never refuse discussions with Rome.

Now the author(s) of this article would have us erroneously believe that "no agreement without Rome's conversion" was also society principle (without citing any sources). 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.

Neil, I suggest you think about this carefully. To refuse to submit to the authority of Rome as a principle (not as a matter of prudence) makes one a schismatic.

“Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” This was a throw away comment apparently relayed by the Archbishop's chauffeur.

Here is the actual letter. It is not a letter of retraction:


Eminence,

Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.

Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed.

The date of June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.

I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.

Given the particular circuмstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.

In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop member of the Society.

The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.

The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops, transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.

In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.

† Marcel Lefebvre

Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle


http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-05-06.htm

The docuмents exchanged between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre were compiled by Fr. François Laisney (Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN). In the book writes "Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice. Archbishop Lefebvre did threaten in this letter, because, as he said, every step forward in the negotiation had only been obtained upon the pressure of such threats."

In the forward Bp. Williamson wrote "To these texts all that has been added is a narrative by Fr. François Laisney, Editor of the Angelus Press, to connect them in their sequence and to set them in their context, with a few footnotes to uncover the issues at stake from the standpoint of the Society of Saint Pius X"