Although its been analyzed by several other fellow Resistance priests and laity, here is a new analysis which might be helpful to our fellow Traditionalists in the pews who have been lulled to sleep by Fr. Themann's false arguments in his April talk in St. Marys:


http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/critical-articles/291-new-and-excellent-analysis-of-fr-themann-s-resistance-to-what-conference

Please share it with friends!

Although its been analyzed by several other fellow Resistance priests and laity, here is a new analysis which might be helpful to our fellow Traditionalists in the pews who have been lulled to sleep by Fr. Themann's false arguments in his April talk in St. Marys:


http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/critical-articles/291-new-and-excellent-analysis-of-fr-themann-s-resistance-to-what-conference

Please share it with friends!

Interesting:  

How does a member with just 5 posts have these stats:


Reputation: 32
(Likers: 2 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 5


Only two likers, but a rep of 22 likes?  (New members have 10 to begin
with, and likes count for one rep point each.)  That would be 11 for each
liker, but there have been only 5 posts.  So each like had to count for more
than two rep points, or else there has been a bonus of 12 rep points
added somehow.


.


.

.

The TrueTrad website says PLEASE SHARE WITH FRIENDS, so I
have downloaded the pdf file and uploaded it below for your
convenience, plus, it's better to be on two or more websites!  


The authors can be reached by email, but notice their email
address has two EXTRA periods in it:

Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com


This Adobe PDF file is 41 pages long (that's almost as long as
the material from Fr. Themann!!).



CLICK ON THIS LINK, BELOW, TO DOWNLOAD THE FILE DIRECTLY:

Great point:
 

Quote from: Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann

But regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s purported willingness to “recognize” the SSPX
“unilaterally”, didn’t it occur to you and to your superiors that, if it had been really
true that “Benedict XVI would recognize the Society unilaterally”, then there would be no need for the SSPX to make any proposals, negotiations and doctrinal
preambles? Didn’t this occur to any of you? If these supposed sources were true,
then the Society would not have to do anything! According to Bishop Fellay’s secret friends, Pope Benedict was (supposedly) seeking “no concessions from you; you will simply be recognized, as you are, unilaterally.” 23:19.

I agree. It's a very important observation.  

And this is a point within a larger context, a context which shows
its immediate and consequential application.  Here is the context:





Bishop Fellay’s Important Secret Friends in Rome Told Him a Story Which Could Be Plainly Seen from the Start, as Inconsistent.

You tell us that Bishop Fellay’s secret sources said that: “Benedict XVI wants to recognize the Society unilaterally.” 23:00. You add that: “it would be just like the freeing of the Mass”. First of all, the traditional Mass was not really freed, because it was neither truly abrogated nor truly restricted as Rome pretends (and thus, there was nothing to free). What the motu proprio did do, was supposedly reduce the restrictions but only for those using the traditional Mass for purely nostalgic reasons. More on that topic later in this letter.

But regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s purported willingness to “recognize” the SSPX “unilaterally”, didn’t it occur to you and to your superiors that, if it had been really true that “Benedict XVI would recognize the Society unilaterally”, then there would be no need for the SSPX to make any proposals, negotiations and doctrinal preambles? Didn’t this occur to any of you? If these supposed sources were true, then the Society would not have to do anything! According to Bishop Fellay’s secret friends, Pope Benedict was (supposedly) seeking “no concessions from you; you will simply be recognized, as you are, unilaterally.” 23:19.

If the SSPX needed to make an offer (such as the offer it made on 4-15-12), then Bishop Fellay’s secret sources should have been seen from the start as obviously wrong, when they told him that any “recognition” would be unilateral. If you say that the 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble [as Fr. Chazal calls it, the AFD] was not an “offer” but only a statement clarifying truth, then why withdraw a statement which clarifies the truth? Bishop Fellay says he withdrew the preamble on August 28, 2012. [7]

Nor did the errors in his doctrinal preamble cause Bishop Fellay to withdraw it, because he did not repudiate it, and the SSPX sent you to St. Marys to try to defend the preamble’s contents.


Summary of this section:

Bishop Fellay (and you) cannot have it both ways: either his important secret friends should have been seen from the start, as giving false information which Bishop Fellay should ignore, or there was no need for Bishop Fellay to make an offer, as he did. Either way, an uncompromising traditional Catholic would have been indifferent to their claims and would not have responded to Rome by bargaining. Instead, he simply would have said: “the pope can do justice (to the SSPX and Catholic Tradition) any time he wants to do so.”  

[7]
Cor Unum letter of Bishop Fellay, Easter 2013,
http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-note-cor-unum-mar2013


.