.


So the council says that this (false) “right” to religious liberty is entirely unlimited as long as society does not erupt in violence!

Instead of being “very, very limited,” [50.a] it is the same very broad “right” espoused by the Freemasons in Article 10 of the French Revolution’s 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man:  “No one can be molested for his opinions, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.”


In the 10-31-12 SSPX priests’ newsletter, Cor Unum, the SSPX tried to explain away Bishop Fellay’s statements on religious liberty by telling its priests that:

       Bishop Fellay had the intention of making them [viz., Catholic
       News Service, who was interviewing him] understand that true
       religious liberty is much more limited than they think and that
       it does not involve a right to error. (51)

Do you [Fr. Themann] really believe the SSPX’s explanation here?  Bishop Fellay says, “The Council is presenting a religious liberty ...”. Do you think he really meant “true religious liberty?”




Father Themann, we have merely made a small start in presenting the vast catalogue of evidence (from the SSPX’s own mouth), answering your question: “Resistance to What?”

We have only scratched the surface of the evidence which we could give, and it is as plain as day that the current SSPX has been slowly weakening for a long time.

We limit ourselves to one more example.  This one is from Bishop Fellay’s 6-8-12 DICI interview, in which he makes many scandalous and poisonous statements.  

Bishop Fellay says that he “would like to hope that ... Vatican II belongs to Tradition.” (52)  Saying this, Bishop Fellay avoids telling the essential truth:  that Vatican II does not belong to Catholic Tradition.  Instead Bishop Fellay “hopes” it does!  Any true traditional Catholic knows that Vatican II is a “counter-syllabus” and is the French Revolution in the Church.  Bishop Fellay’s “hope” that Vatican II is traditional, is like “hoping” that Martin Luther’s teachings are completely orthodox – we know it is a false and vain hope.


You Falsely Deny that SSPX Priests are being Muzzled

You were asked this question:  “Has there been any official edicts from the superior general for the Society not to talk about certain sensitive types of matters?” Disc 2, track 2, 49:00.

And you responded: “People have actually asked me that and the answer is ‘no’, of course not.” Id. [52.a]

Many, many times your superiors have given their priests directives which muzzle them against the increasing liberalism of the SSPX.  At the end of this letter, we enclose one of countless examples which might “refresh your memory.”  This example is a 6-7-12 letter from U.S. District Superior, Fr. Rostand, discussed below.

This 6-7-12 email letter arrived right before Bishop Fellay’s 6-8-12 DICI interview would be made public.  This interview was packed with liberalism and compromises from beginning to end.  Bishop Fellay knew there could be a strong reaction from some of his

______________________________
[50.a]   [As +Fellay eagerly asserts in his interview with CNS with much feigned unction (which captures the attention of women, apparently)]

51.    http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/component/content/article/81-all/true-arguments/243-menzingen-s-revealing-10-31-2012-internal-letter?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czo4OiIxMC0zMS0xMiI7fQ==

52.    6-8-12 DICI interview at  http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/


[52.a]    Fr. Themann does not specify whose answer this is (he says, "THE answer is..." indicating that he could be unwilling to say that it is HIS answer, but rather it could be an answer he was TOLD to give), but it likely would SEEM to be the answer he would have received from his superiors, when he had asked them, "What should I tell them when they ask this question about priests being muzzled?" (Presuming he had asked such a question) In the next 2 pages the possibility that Fr. Themann was not personally given such directives is explored, however, there is much more to the story............

.

(from pg. 27):

You Falsely Deny that SSPX Priests are being Muzzled

You were asked this question:  “Has there been any official edicts from the superior general for the Society not to talk about certain sensitive types of matters?” Disc 2, track 2, 49:00.

And you responded: “People have actually asked me that and the answer is ‘no’, of course not.” Id. [52.a]

Many, many times your superiors have given their priests directives which muzzle them against the increasing liberalism of the SSPX.  At the end of this letter, we enclose one of countless examples which might “refresh your memory.”  This example is a 6-7-12 letter from U.S. District Superior, Fr. Rostand, discussed below.

This 6-7-12 email letter arrived right before Bishop Fellay’s 6-8-12 DICI interview would be made public.  This interview was packed with liberalism and compromises from beginning to end.  Bishop Fellay knew there could be a strong reaction from some of his

more anti-liberal priests.  Therefore, the districts contacted their priests to make sure they were muzzled.

Three days before the 6-8-12 interview [on June 5th], Fr. Rostand had a conference call with his priors to organize them to muzzle their priests.  (See the 6-7-12 Rostand letter [found on page 31 of this issue], below.) (53)  Then Fr. Rostand followed up with his priors by email letter, reminding them to keep a short leash on their priests. Id. [This "short leash" directive is contained in the exhibit e-mail on p. 31.]

Fr. Rostand’s letter gives a few “reminders” to his priors and tells them to “communicate these reminders to your priests.” Id.  Fr. Rostand cautions his priors that his “reminders” are for the priests only. Id.  He reminds his priors that his “reminders” should neither be disclosed to laymen nor published or posted on the internet. Id.  

Fr. Rostand reminds the priors that no priest is permitted to prepare any formal written article connected to the situation in Rome. Id.  These “formal communications” are “reserved to the General House” in Menzingen.
Id.

However, Fr. Rostand tells his priests they should speak about the SSPX’s situation with Rome but should only “speak generally” [53.a] and should repeat what is contained in the “public communications by the superiors.” Id. Fr. Rostand reminds the priors that “if a priest is unsure of what may be said/should be said, then that priest should contact the District House for further information” about what to say. Id.  (emphasis added)

Fr. Rostand reminds the priors that they should not give their “own opinions” and they should “avoid bitterness and undue criticism of our brother priests.” Id.

Fr. Rostand tells his priests that:

        The charity of respect for, and loyalty to, our lawful
        superiors, demanded by the virtue of obedience, means
        allowing them the opportunity to present and explain
        things at the opportune time. Id.

Lastly, Fr. Rostand reminds his priests of the SSPX rules for preventing the sharing of information by the laity. He says:

  ∙     Beware recording/publishing of sermons, etc., which can
          easily be used against us. (54)

∙     Remind the faithful that they are not to record or publish
          (or even simply pass along to a friend via the internet)
          without your express consent.

∙     Remind the faithful that this is not an arbitrary decision, or
          one designed to keep sermons hidden, but rather exists
          to prevent the spread of discord, and the fomenting of
          a revolutionary spirit. Id.

Now Fr. Themann, because you are not a prior, perhaps you have never seen this 6-7-12 letter before, and perhaps you have never heard about the similar district directives to the priors.  Perhaps you have naively thought that your own superior was the only one muzzling his priest-subordinates.  Because of your non-superior status, you really were not in a position to speak with knowledge about an edict passed down by the superior general, through the district superiors, to the priors, and then to the regular priests like you.


__________________________
53.     See, the analysis here:  http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-with-bp-fellay/bishop-fellay/bishop-fellay-s-dici-interview

[53.a]     [This EDICT that Fr. Rostand doles out by e-mail, that his priests should only speak in general terms regarding the SSPX-Rome situation:  Fr. Themann is doing JUST THAT (see footnote 52.a) throughout this "Resistance to What?" diatribe.  Whether his complicity is knowing or innocent is for him to decide, and for his judge to pronounce.  Any of us who know a fence-sitter SSPX priest, we ought to ask him: "Were you informed by your superior that you must only speak in general terms regarding the situation between Rome and the Society?"  A more pointed question would be, "Were you encouraged to be vague or ambiguous in describing the SSPX-Rome dealings?" Be sure not to explore the latter question until first you test the waters with the former question.]

54.     One example of this tactic of the current SSPX, is at your conference in St. Marys where the faithful were forbidden to record your conference. Disc 1, track 1, 1:20.  Was the current SSPX afraid that the recordings of the laity might contain inconvenient material edited out of the official SSPX recording?  If not, why does the SSPX care, if the laity make their own recordings of a free conference which would be distributed free, as a 2-CD set?


.

.

Consequently, Fr. Themann or any other SSPX priest, would be literally "obedient" by answering any questions about this exhibit e-mail from Fr. Rostand by making a vague reference to how we should not pay any attention to 'Internet rumours'.

Notice, he shouldn't identify the e-mail as an 'Internet rumour', because that would be disobedient!  

Bishop Fellay (the subtle bishop!) never has (and probably never will) exemplified what he means by 'Internet rumour' because he does not want to be responsible in the future for having made any such specific claim.  Like any liberal politician, he strives for ambiguous words so as to leave himself an 'out' in the future.  


.

.
I forgot to add the footnote #55 after this:

(from page 29)
Cardinal  Ratzinger  recognized  that  gradualism  is  the  key  to  avoiding  a  resistance. [54.a] Quoting and citing him, the Remnant summarized his opinion as follows:

       the  imposition  of  the  Novus  Ordo  upon  the  faithful  
       in  a  mere  six months was a great mistake. Cardinal
       Ratzinger believed it should have taken  at  least  ten  
       years.   Why?   Cardinal  Ratzinger  knew  that  a
       fundamental  change  on  the  scale  of  introducing  a  
       new  Mass  must  be gradually  revealed  to  the  faithful  
       over  a  long  period  of  time  if  they were to eventually
       accept it. The New Mass being imposed practically all at
       once over  six  months  was  not  enough  time.  This  
       rapid implementation  led  to  many  leaving  the  Church  
       and the formation of resistance groups such as the SSPX. (55)

Cardinal  Ratzinger  is  correct.   The  slower  the  revolution  moves,  the  fewer  people  will react.   The  SSPX  revolution  has  been  moving  slowly  for  many  years.   For  example, GREC began only a couple of years after Archbishop Lefebvre died. It was only when the  SSPX  got  impatient  in  2012  and  tried  to  move  too  fast,  that  it  encountered  open resistance. The SSPX has learned to be more patient since then. (56)


Use of SSPX Internal Docuмents

Multiple SSPX priests disclosed the three SSPX internal docuмents used above, because of the deception they contain.  We hold that the justness of their revealing these deceptive docuмents  (and  us  using  them  here)  is  similar  to  Pope  Pius  IX  and  Pope  Leo  XIII commanding the publication of the  Alta Vendita  private papers of the freemasons, for the good of the Church.

Unlike  your  own  approach  to  prudence,  we  are  acting  on  principle,  in  matters  of prudence.    Here are the principles we used when publicly disclosing these three internal SSPX docuмents. We hold the principle that private docuмents should generally remain private, just like a person’s particular sins should generally remain hidden.

However, there is a superseding principle which applies here and in the case of those two good popes’ publication of the freemasons’ private papers. That superseding principle is that the privacy of papers should not be used as a cloak of darkness to assist in subverting souls.

This  is  like  the  superseding  principle  that  a  person’s  private  sins  must  be  disclosed  on some occasions,  e.g., if it is the best way you have to prevent a  child molester  from being hired as your young nephew’s piano teacher, for private lessons. So, if you and the SSPX leadership don’t want SSPX internal docuмents revealed, then tell the truth, especially on matters having a significant effect on many souls!


A Final Word About Your Conference

Because you talked so long (2 ½ hours!), our letter was unavoidably long. We addressed many  of  your  points  in  this  open  letter,  attempting  to  help  the  faithful  and  correct  the scandal  you  have  caused.   We  certainly  have  not  addressed  all  of  your  errors  but  we addressed as many as we did to give the faithful a basis for assessing whether they should consider you a suitable guide and whether they should consider you and the SSPX worthy
of their trust.

Again,  you can contact us at  Father.Themann.Answered@gmail.com  and  we  would be glad to discuss this further.

We will pray for you; please pray for us!

Yours truly in Christ.


_________________________________
55.      Remnant, The Ides of April, posted April 10, 2012, http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0415-dupuy-ides-of-april-sspx-rome.htm [Note:  Historically, the SSPX has always been the Resistance!]

56.      See, e.g., http://www.therecusant.com/grec-book-review

[56.a]    The Resistance was born of the Menzingen-denizens trying to advance the revolution TOO FAST.  Just as Ratzinger said about Paul VI's Novus Ordo agenda, that he tried to make it happen too fast, and if Paul VI had gradually brought it in over a 10-year period then +Lefebvre and other reactionaries would not have risen up with their Resistance at that time.  


.