“ [Thanks to the doctrinal discussions with Rome] we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council” … and that: “The Pope says that the Council must be put within the great Tradition of the Church… These are statements we agree with, totally, absolutely.” (CNS, May, 2012)

At around eight minutes into the second video, Fr Themann says that the conciliar Church and the Catholic Church are one and the same, the conciliar Church is simply a way to refer to the hierarchy infected with modernism.

You continue to represent the true Church, the Catholic Church.
I think you need to be convinced of this: you really represent the Catholic Church.
I don’t say there is no Church out of us, it’s not about that. But recently, we are told that it was necessary that the tradition enter into the visible Church.
I think a very, very serious mistake is committed here.
Where is the visible church? The visible church is recognized by the features that have always given to visibility: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (this is not the visible Church, but the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are?
Clearly we are who preserve the Unity of the faith, which disappeared from the official Church.
One bishop believes in this, the other not, faith is different, their catechisms contain abominable heresies. Where is the unity of the faith in Rome?
Where is the unity of faith in the world? It is in us, we who preserve it.
The unity of the faith held in the whole world is the Catholicity. Now this unity of faith around the world no longer exists, practically, there is no more Catholicity.
There will soon be as many Catholic churches as bishops and dioceses. Everyone has their way of seeing, thinking, preaching, making his catechism. There is no catholicity anymore.
Where is the Apostolicity? They broke with the past. They do not want to know any more of the past before Vatican II.

See the Pope's Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei adflicta of 1988] that condemns us: "the living Tradition, it is Vatican II". It is not necessary to refer to before Vatican II which means nothing. The Church carries the Tradition with her from century to century. What happened, happened, it disappeared. The whole Tradition is in the Church of today. Which is this tradition? What it is linked to? How is it linked with the past?
It is what allows them to say the opposite of what was said before, intending, at the same time, to keep Tradition by themselves.
This is what the Pope [John Paul II] asks us: “to submit to the living tradition.” We would have a “wrong” concept of tradition, because for them, Tradition is living and therefore evolutionary.
But this is a modernist error: the holy Pope Pius X in his encyclical "Pascendi" condemns these terms of "living tradition”, “living Church", "living faith", etc.., In the sense that the modernists understand it, that is, of  the evolution that depends on historical circuмstances. The truth of Revelation, the explanation of revelation, depends on historical circuмstances.
Apostolicity: we are united to the Apostles by the authority. My priesthood comes from the Apostles; your priesthood will come from the Apostles. We are the children of those who gave us the Episcopate. My episcopate descends from the saint Pope Pius V and for him; we go back to the Apostles. As for the apostolic faith, we believe the same faith as the Apostles. We do not change anything and we do not want to change anything.
Then the Holiness. We are not going to do compliments or praises to us.  If we don’t want to consider ourselves, let’s consider the others and let’s consider the fruits of our apostolate, the fruits of the vocations, of our religious and the fruits of Catholic families. The good and holy Catholic families germinate thanks to your apostolate. It is a fact, nobody denies it. Even progressive visitors of Rome stated the good quality of our work. When Mgr Perl said the sisters of Saint Pré and Fanjeaux that in bases like this it will be necessary to reconstruct the Church, it is not, regardless, a small compliment.
All this shows that we are the one who have the features of the Church visible.
If there is still a visibility of the Church today is thanks to you. These signs are not already in the other.
There is no longer in them the unity of the faith, now it is the faith which is the basis of all visibility of the Church.
Catholicity is the [mark of the] faith the one in space.
Apostolicity is the [mark of the] faith the one in time.
Holiness is the fruit of faith, as embodied in the soul by the grace of God, by the grace of the Sacraments.
It is completely false to consider us as if we were not part of the visible Church. That's incredible!
It is the official Church the one that rejects us, but not us who reject the Church, far from that. On the contrary, we are always united to the Roman Church and even the Pope of course, the successor of Peter.
I think we must have this conviction to avoid falling into the errors that are now spreading.
Of course, it could be objected: "Is it necessarily necessary, to be out of the visible Church to keep the soul, leaving the society of the faithful united with the Pope"?
We are not, but the modernists who leave the Church.
As to say "leave the Church Visible" is to be wrong, assimilating official Church to the visible Church.
We belong to the visible Church, the society of the faithful under the authority of the Pope, because we do not reject the authority of the Pope, but what he does. We recognize the authority of the Pope, but when he uses his authority to do the opposite of that for which it has been given, it is clear that we cannot follow him.
Therefore, is it necessary to leave the official Church? To some extent, yes, obviously.
The whole book of Mr. Madiran "The Heresy of the Twentieth Century" is the story of the heresy of the bishops.
It is therefore necessary to leave the bishops’ environment, if you do not want to lose the soul.
But that's not enough, as it is in Rome where the heresy is settled. If the bishops are heretics (even without taking this term in his canonical sense and consequences) is not without the influence of Rome.
If we move away from these people, is quite the same way as people with AIDS. There is no desire to catch it. Now, they have spiritual AIDS, infectious diseases. If you want to save your health, you need not to go with them.
Yes! Liberalism and modernism were introduced at the Council and within the Church. The revolutionary ideas and the Revolution, who were in the society, went on to church.
Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI], on the other hand, does not hide it: They adopted ideas, not those of the Church, but those of the world and they consider their duty to make them enter the Church.
But the authorities did not change one iota their ideas about the Council, liberalism and modernism. They are anti-tradition, Tradition as it should be understood, as the Church understands it. That does not fit their conception. Theirs is an “evolving” concept. They are therefore against this fixed tradition in which we stand.
We believe that everything the catechism teaches us, comes from Our Lord and the Apostles, and that there is nothing to change.
For them, no, everything is evolving and evolved with Vatican II. The current term of “evolution” is Vatican II.
This one is the reason for which we cannot link with Rome.
Whatever happens, we must continue as we have done, and the Good Lord shows us that following this route, we fulfill our duty.
We do not deny the Roman Church. We do not deny their existence, but we cannot follow their directives. We cannot follow the principles of the Council. We cannot relate.
I realized the desire of Rome to impose their ideas and their way of see. Cardinal Ratzinger always told me "But Monsignor, there is only one Church, it is not necessary to make a parallel church."
Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear.
When he explicitly said to us: "Obviously, if this protocol [of 1988] is granted to you, you must also accept what we do, therefore, in the church Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet it will be necessary also to say a new mass every Sunday " …
You see he wanted to lead us to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible since it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to end the Tradition.
They do not grant anything for appreciation of the traditional liturgy, but simply to cheat those to whom they give it and to diminish our resistance; to insert a wedge in the traditional block to destroy it.
This is their policy, their conscious tactics. They do not make a mistake, and you know the pressures that they exert...