Essay #1:  Resistance to What? Introduction
A Response to Fr. Daniel Themann’s Lecture Piece by Piece.

By:  Fr. Don Rua, SDB

How happy I was to receive and listen to the talk of Fr. Themann’s concerning the crisis which the Society of St. Pius X is experiencing.  Finally there is a concrete statement concerning the principles by which the Society operates.  I want to thank him for his presentation and encourage him to enter into the essays which I will write in order to methodically come to the truth which determines the prudential action in the circuмstances in which we find ourselves.  Now let us consider a word about the talk’s presuppositions and definitions.

“Truth is first” initiates Father’s preamble and all must agree to serious and precisely define the truth which causes us to act.  The primary truth which is not stated in the address is the fact that “one must save one’s soul.”  This is the underlying truth in everything we say, think or do.  Our Lord remarks, “What good is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his immortal soul.”  This truth is a metaphysical truth as opposed to an intellectual truth or a physical truth.  It is a truth of the faith and so surpasses and encompasses all other truth.  

Truth is not romantic but serious.  Yes, Truth is serious for it is the word of God.  I am the Way, I am the Truth thus spoke Our Lord.  He, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the Truth incarnate.  This is serious because every word He spoke and every deed He performed draws us into union with the eternal truth.  Through a correspondence to eternal truth we can arrive at judgments that are clear and prudential.  Our judgments will follow the Truth which we hold.

Our judgments can be speculative, practical and prudential but they must be based upon a serious reflection of the truth and the circuмstances in which we live, move and have our being.  Hence speculative judgments which deal in the truths of the faith are non-negotiable (e.g. murder is a mortal sin; there are three Persons in the Blessed Trinity).  Judgments that are prudential and practical are determined by the circuмstances.

Father states: “Prudential truth is to say that within a given set of circuмstances, which is a reality, such and such a course of action is prudent.  It is the correct way to act in order to achieve what is good.  As concrete circuмstances change what is prudent changes as well.”  Here then is a key – circuмstances.  We must correctly assess the circuмstances in which a prudential judgment is made.  If then the circuмstances are not correctly assessed then the prudential judgment will be in error.  In his address Father will present the circuмstances as he views them which make the actions of the leadership prudential.  We will note that our assessment of the circuмstances may call into question the prudential judgment of the same leadership.  Hence keep this key in your mind – circuмstances help to dictate our prudential judgment.

Now the danger is exposed when Father tells us that “there is no faster way to get people at each other’s throats than to confuse a question of principle with a question of prudence.”  When one makes a prudential judgment one already knows the good (the principle) and now we must decide how to accomplish that good in prudence.”  Therefore the principle must be clearly presented as the good to be achieved.  If we find that the good to be achieved is not a good then we must contest it with a greater good.  Now we have two things to keep well in mind:  the circuмstances and the good to be achieved.

Finally we come to the last key in the introduction to the address:  “Remember a question of risk does not in itself make a course of action imprudent because any course of action involves some risk and so it is a question of balance weighing the risk with the good to be achieved.”  Third element for the discerning listener is the element of risk.  I took a risk in listening to this talk in order to achieve a greater understanding of the problem facing the Society.  Risk is balanced with the good to be achieved.  Keep in mind these three keys:  circuмstances, the good to be achieved, and the risk to be taken.

During the body of the address truth will fluctuate from eternal to physical, good will be defined as a response to the authority of Rome, circuмstances will be accepted as favorable to tradition and risk will be accepted for the good of regularization.  The great good is the legalization of seminaries, churches, schools, chapels and whatever else comes under the SSPX umbrella.  So our desire is to analyze this address from the perspective of eternal truth, which is our faith.  Is the risk that is being taken for the protection or the destruction of our faith?

Conclusion of Essay 1 – The Introduction.

ESSAY 3:  THE MEANING OF THE TIMELINE IN
FR. THEMANN’S ADDRESS.
By:  Fr. Don Rua, SDB

Our next “worry” as Fr. Themann calls it is the timeline which has not been outlined clearly and presents the faithful with doubts.  Returning to the Roman
Pilgrimage of 2000 in which a strong presentation of the traditional faithful impressed modernist Rome with the strength of the movement and consequently caused Cardinal Hojos to contact Bishop Fellay to discuss an eventual agreement.  In 2001 the General Council met and proposed two conditions to prove the sincerity of the Roman approach.  The two requirements were:
1) The liberty of the Tridentine Mass which was never abrogated; 2) the admission that the excommunications were null and void.  

Father remarked that Bishop Fellay stated that given “that Rome made the effort it is normal for the Society to take it with the seriousness it deserves.”  In order to assess this section it seems good to this author to summarizes Fr. Themann’s chronology and then to fill in the chronology with missing elements.  From those two lists the question will arise:  Why be selective and why not show the complete actions of Menzingen?  So we proceed to Fr. Themann’s chronology:

1) Jan. 2001 – General Council met and established two conditions for initiating a discussion with Rome. (cfr. Above)
2) 2006 – Election of Pope Benedict XVI – Tradition receives the Motu Proprio 2 years later freeing the Tridentine Mass – not a perfect docuмent but significant (Fr. Themann’s statement concerning the Society’s opinion).
3) Jan. 14th, 2009 – withdrawal of the decree of excommunication from the 4 bishops but does not mention Archbishop Lefebvre or de Castro Meyer.  Again the docuмent is:”not perfect but significant”.
4) 2009 – 2011 Doctrinal discussions take place under Bishop De Galleretta and other outspoken Society leaders.  Bishop Fellay could have chosen others who might “sweep the issues under the rug” but he didn’t.
5) Sept. 2011 Card. Levada invites BF to come to Rome “to make an assessment of these discussions and to consider prospects for the future.
6) Mid-Aug. Sources close to the Pope let BF know that the Pope wishes to recognize the Society unilaterally.  In other words, no concessions and the Society will be recognized as it is.
7) Sept. Bishop Fellay meets with Card. Levada and receives a doctrinal preamble and in the following month the superiors meet in Albano to discuss this preamble.  It is rejected.  The hermeneutic of continuity cannot cover up the Vatican II docuмents which contradict the previous Church teaching.
8) Jan. 2012 Bishop Fellay is asked to send a more detailed explanation concerning the unacceptable preamble.  He writes a more detailed explanation while holding to the first response – rejects preamble.
9) Bishop Fellay insists that the Society must be recognized as we are and in teaching as we do according to the principles that define us.  Unofficially, BF is told that the Society can continue to attack the errors of Vatican II and the new mass and yet be recognized canonically.
10) March, 2012 BF meets with Card. Levada who gives him a harsh letter which CL says has been approved by the Pope. This letter mentions an excommunication of the Society (threatens the Bishop) if the preamble is not accepted in the present form.  This will prove that the Society does not accept the authority of the Pope no matter what you say.  BF has one month to reconsider.
11)  Bishop receives the conviction that Rome does not think that the Society accepts anything that the Church has done since 1962.  Fr. Themann “says that this is a false impression and in April Bishop Fellay will submit a response to that impression and his letter is designed to indicate that the Society does recognize much good and consequently BF will be attacked for this attempt to shatter that impression held by Rome.
12)   The unofficial response from Rome is that the Pope accepts it.  Now go through the proper channels (i.e. Card. Levada and the Commission). It is sent to the Commission but again it is rejected and the Congregation of the Faith changes it despite the fact that BF said if you change one word we will not accept it.  
13)  Early June Bishop Fellay grants an interview with DICI to test Rome by attacking Vatican II as erroneous.  Pope has no problem saying that Vatican II has been abused but you cannot say it has errors.  This is the issue.  Bishop Fellay criticizes the new mass and the interview goes to the Pope via Card. Levada.  The Cardinal says to BF that he has no right to say that the teaching of the Church today is in opposition to what it said in the past.  Bishop Fellay answer that it is a fact.  The Cardinal response that you have no right and then hands him the revised text in which words were changed hence makes it unacceptable.
14)  Bishop Fellay writes to the Pope concerning this changed docuмent and the Pope then confirms that he approved the re-introduction of the objectionable material.  He also states three conditions:
A) That Rome has the authority to determine what is part of tradition and what is not.  This condition is true and part of the faith (Fr. Themann’s remark).  “It may be your job but does not mean that you get it right.”
B) Vatican II is an integral part of tradition.
C) The new mass is valid and legitimate.  Society has always said that the new mass is valid but not that it is good or legitimate.

15) July 2012 – The General Chapter condemns the three major errors of Vatican II in indirect terms.
16) Oct. 27, 2012 – Observatore Romano has an article stating that the Commission is still waiting for an answer from SSPX.  However, Bishop Fellay has stated three times that he cannot sign it.

This is the summation of the timeline given by Fr. Themann in his address and now we shall proceed to fill in the missing data.  

1. Normality – these are not normal times for Rome has “lost the faith” as the Archbishop pointed out to the Society years ago.  In “normal” times the Church focuses on its goal “to save souls.”  In abnormal times the Conciliar Church favors the temporal over the eternal.  Fr. Themann shifts the term “normal” from the eternal life to the temporal life and loses.
2. Motu Proprio is not only an imperfect docuмent but a deceitful ploy since it presents the new mass as the “ordinary” rite of the Church thus usurping the position of the only legitimate mass which is now consider the “extraordinary” form.  It weighs on the new mass over/against the Mass of the ages.
3. The Roman authority “lifted” (as opposed to repealing) the decree of excommunication.  From an illegal act on the part of the authority we are presented with another ploy which denigrates the bishops as well.
4. This doctrinal preamble runs contrary to the Archbishop’s warning that “the superiors form the inferiors; not vice-versa….We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5th to come to naught.” (Letter June 12, 1988)  
5. In Albano Bishop Williamson was left out of the proceedings and relegated to a position of silence.
6. The recognition that Rome offered to the Society was similar to what they offered La Barroux, Fraternity of St. Peter, Campos….
7. The harsh letter caused Bishop Fellay to cower whereas the Archbishop was ready to “lay down his life for the faith.”  Quite a difference in the leadership one might remark.
8. April 7th, 2012 Bishop Fellay received the letter of the three bishops begging him to stop this madness.
9. April 12th Bishop Fellay responds that these bishops have no faith and are favoring “sedevacantism”.
10. April 15th Bishop Fellay submits the Doctrinal Preamble as a compromise to Rome.  Here he does walk a fine line; we might say that he crosses the line in fear of the pseudo-authority of a modernist authoritarian mechanism.
11. May 11th CNS interview reveals the ambiguity in the Bishop’s statements.
12. June 8 – DICI Interview Bishop Fellay remarks that the SSPX has new friends of Tradition in Rome.  It is recognized that the Society would naturally fall under the local bishops.  This is not a trap by the Pope but an opportunity for the Society.
13. April 15th secret docuмent comes to light in March, 2013 and reveals that Bishop Fellay admits that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens” Tradition?  He also called the new mass valid and “legitimately promulgated”.  Thus the new mass can sanctify those who attend it.
14. July, 2012 – General Chapter presents the new principle differing from 2006 – which stated there should be no agreement without the conversion of Rome; but in 2012 the Chapter said: “we approve and determine an agreement without Rome’s conversion!”  In paragraphs 6 and 7 we find ambiguity rivaling Vatican II.  Six conditions are listed: a) Society “agrees to disagree” in order to make an agreement; b) exclusive use of 1962 Liturgy and retention of the current sacramental structure: c) one bishop offered the Society but from whom and from where? Now the desirable conditions (3) follow; d) Ecclesiastical tribunals first instance (but decisions could be overturned in second or third instance); e) placed under diocesan bishops (!?); f) Pontifical Commission (under whom?)
15. On Oct. 4, 2012 Bishop Williamson is expelled on the grounds of disobedience and fomenting rebellion.
16.  On October 29, 2012:  US District Superior, Fr. Rostand, in his Post Falls conference stated:  “Will recognition of the Society make the Society grow and influence the Church?  More to the point, that even to have to ask permission to the other bishops will become, over time, not a problem; it is a question of prudence.”(sic)
17. Finally, to date there has been no rejection, repudiation or correction of the main ambiguous statements from: a) CNS and DICI interviews; b) General Chapter statement and the Six Conditions; c) April 15, 2012 – Doctrinal Preamble
18.  Consider the manner in which the Society chastens those who in one way or another raises questions of the prudential policy change.  We can docuмent that priests have been expelled, silenced, punitively transferred.  Our faithful have been refused communion; have had their children expelled from their schools; seminarians have been indoctrinated in a false obedience and to desire a union with modernist Rome; priests and laity have been blackballed from Society property.  All this because the Society now desires to protect their new orientation in the name of unity.  Faith is no longer the principle of unity but has been subordinated to the prudential policy change.

Now why would one who is presenting the chronology omit the 18 salient points that fill in the SSPX story?  Could it be embarrassing to the record?  If these facts were presented to the people at large could they recognize the duplicity in the leadership?  Could they see that the priests of the resistance have a point to make?  Could they recognize the Communist-style of leadership which brooks no opposition and crushes sincere questioning priests and laity?  It causes this author to wonder and wonder and wonder.  What about you, Fr. Themann?

Don Rua
 

ESSAY #5:  FOURTH WORRY:  THE APRIL 15TH DOcuмENT
By:  Fr. Don Rua, SDB

In this fifth essay we will analyze the concluding worry presented in Fr. Themann’s address at St. Mary’s and then draw this work to its natural conclusion and our fervent desire:  to restore the Society of St. Pius X to its proper role during these Modernist times in which we are inundated.  

Fr. Themann has made the case that this docuмent is the reaction of Bishop
Fellay to a harsh letter which he received from Card. Levada and supported by the Pope himself.  It is a docuмent which “walks a fine line because it wants to correct the misconception that the Society has accepted nothing from 1962 to the present.”  Why should the Society apologize for proclaiming the Faith and for establishing the bulkhead of Tradition?  Instead of taking the defensive position against the demonic infiltration of the hierarchy, the Society should take an offensive position requiring the Roman structure to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Society is outside the Catholic Faith.  

Consider these words of paragraph 25 so carefully chosen by Bishop Fellay and let the faithful ask themselves if they believe this concerning the Pope and his opinions.  

“…his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.  His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (paragraph #25)

Recall now the “universal salvation” proclaimed over and over again by Pope John Paul II (Redemptor Hominis).  It fulfils this paragraph to a “T” and so if I dissent from his manifest mind and will am I acting in sin?  Have I lost my Catholic Faith?  The Popes in modern times have presented us with doctrines which are contrary to the Church’s magisterium of previous popes therefore to whom do we give our assent? It is for this reason that the Archbishop, realizing the total poisoning of the docuмents, said that no negotiations with Rome are possible because they have lost the faith. We cannot deal with the devil.  So let us offer no concessions.

Fr. Themann now in imitation of the modernist as historian tells us that the Archbishop signed the May 5th protocol therefore BF presents this docuмent without presenting the errors of Vatican II.  One difference is that the good Archbishop wrestled with this error in judgment throughout the night and wrote a retraction immediately on the following day.  We have not yet seen the Bishop Fellay’s retraction for any of the disastrous docuмents issuing forth from Menzingen.  

 Bishop Fellay had the audacity to write that the new mass is legitimate simply because the authority of Rome is the legitimate authority. Fr. Paul Kramer writes:  “I have completed a thorough revision of my most important work, A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism.  In this work I theologically demonstrate from the docuмents of the Church’s infallible Magisterium that the Novus Ordo Mass is contrary to Divine Law and that the Second Vatican Council’s doctrines on Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty are heretical.” (p. xii, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy)

Now if the Novus Ordo mass is contrary to Divine Law how can it be legitimately promulgated by any pope?  I would encourage Fr. Themann and the top theologians of Society to study the work of Fr. Kramer entitled “The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.”  There is no “context” in this world that can erase the error in this presentation offered by Bishop Fellay.

Where is the error in Bishop Fellay’s theology?  It is the ecclesiological model from which he draws his conclusions.  He considers the visible structure of the church to be the Conciliar Church.  In a previous essay we noted that Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre were correct to point out that the Catholic Church resides in the Faith.  We must worship in Spirit and in Truth.  Structures and buildings do not constitute the Church.  The Pope and officials in Rome may possess the structures but have lost the Faith.  

Years ago Canon Gregory Hess produced talks which put all the modernist nonsense in their proper perspective.  These reforms are all rooted in “pride and stupidity”.  For the Society to lower itself to the level of the modernist denies its very nature which is to preserve the holiness and dignity of the Catholic Church in its Faith and the holy sacraments.  For this reason the Bishops were meant to carry out the dispensation of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmations and were not designated for any territorial boundary.

In the Archbishop’s rejection of the May 5th protocol and his decision to act decisively in consecrating four Traditional Bishops he invoked this principle:
“The official link with modernist Rome is nothing against the preservation of the faith!”  (p. 559, Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier) We agree with the conclusion of Fr. Themann’s talk that we must unite the words of the great Archbishop with his actions.  His priority from the very conception of this conflict with Modernist Rome was to protect the Faith in its splendor and to hand it on to the future generations.  The priests of the resistance seek to adhere to this principle and now we conclude this reflection with some salient recommendations.

A FORMULA FOR TRUE UNITY AND STRENGTH.

We recognize that there are many holy priests who are confused by all that has taken place and by the resistance established by their priestly brothers, religious and laity.  In the resistance we have experience the wrath of Bishop Fellay through district superiors and house priors.  We have been ridiculed, refused absolution, removed from any premises belonging to the Society and put out on the street with nothing but our breviaries and cassocks. We have witnessed religious thrown out of their monasteries, Carmelite nuns forced to seek a new home, children removed from their schools, fear fostered in parishes and schools.  We ask why this persecution when we agree with the recent and beautiful letter of Bishop Fellay.  We have taken this stance to preserve the Faith placing any canonical structure as secondary.  Hence we will continue steadfastly and boldly while calling to our friends and brother priests to hear our solution.  

“Unto to the angel of the church of Ephesus write:  ‘These things saith he, who holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks:
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:  And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted.  But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity.  Be mindful therefore from whence thou are fallen:  and do penance, and do the first works.  Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.” (Apoc. 2:1-5)

Dear Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Nely and all other superiors,

You have fallen from your former love and have been deceived by the Father of all lies who resides now in Rome. Repent and recognize the height from which you have fallen and the sins which are now committing while Rome degenerates and destroys the faith.  The resistant priests are your allies and now our powers must unite in order to bring back the confidence of the Faithful.  Hence we propose:

1. That Bishop Fellay correct the false ecclesiological principle under which he has thrown the Society into confusion.
2. That Menzingen apologize to those who warned the flock of the dangers of the modernist poison seeping into the Society.
3. That the current leadership humbly remove themselves from all offices of note in order that the priests of the Society may elect a new slate without prejudice.  
4. Recall Bishop Williamson and offer him the deepest gratitude for his fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
5. That the Faithful be offered a clear scriptural and spiritual plan for their souls in the crucial days coming our way.
6. A restoration of the priests of the resistance to their good name and a sincere apology for the manner in which they were treated.
7. That a clear statement of the Society’s preservation of the Faith over any structure be issued to the world at large based on the principle that the salvation of the soul outweighs the entire world.

Respectfully submitted by Fr. Michael Rua, SDB

Thanks for posting

Excellent commentary.  Who is Father Rua?  Where is he located?

Marsha

As far as I know there are no strictly "traditionalist" Salesians around, however,

I think Fr. Voigt is a Salesian.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

As far as I know there are no strictly "traditionalist" Salesians around, however,

I think Fr. Voigt is a Salesian.

I wasn't clear enough.  I'm happy to hear that Fr. Voigt might be a Salesian.

What I was trying to say is, there is no GROUP of Salesians (plural) around
that is strictly traditionalist.  

There are Benedictines, Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Norbertines,
and maybe others.  I have noticed that Catholics are eager to know right
away what order a group of trad priests is, or monks or nuns.  

I have not heard of any group of trad Salesians (plural).   Have you?  

Maybe it's time for one to get started!

Salesians have good roots, it's just that Modernism has wormed its way
into the ranks of so many groups, including theirs.

Quote from: Marlelar

Excellent commentary.  Who is Father Rua?  Where is he located?

Marsha

The fact that he signed "don Rua" probably means he is in Italy, and/or is Italian.

Don Bosco is still called Don Bosco by his friends.  

And Padre Pio is still called Padre Pio by his friends.  

Old traditions die extremely slowly, and some live forever.