“For a Society priest when he uses this term ‘the Conciliar Church’, he means the
Church, the structure of the Church, the hierarchy of the Church in so far as it is infected with modern errors. The Conciliar
Church. When a sedevacantist uses that term he means a different thing
from the Catholic Church: The Conciliar Church is a different structure, a different thing
from the Catholic Church. So if you will, when the Society says 'Conciliar Church' they emphasize 'Conciliar' and when the sedevacantists say it, they emphasize 'Church,' as in a different church."
--Fr. Theman, 16 Apr 2013, "Resistance to What?"
“Conciliar Church” was coined by Cardinal Benelli in a letter to ABL—and ABL used it BOTH ways—not just the one way dictated to parishioners of St. Mary’s by Fr. Themann. This absolute rejection of sedevacantism, of seeing the “conciliar church” as a “separate thing” is at the heart of the ralliement, the “re-integration”* of the SSPX in the “official” hierarchy of the Church (which they are not even really saying is happening, but if it were happening, it would be okay…). ABL did not reject the idea of the conciliar church as being something separate (“they separate themselves from the catholic church,” he said). Themann is playing a semantical game, just like he does with “truth”—speculative and prudential (ala brian mccall’s lawyerly-style rip of an eleison comments). He insists that a practical agreement is not a violation of principles but rather a matter of prudence. How is it more prudent to place the SSPX under the authority of the “conciliar church” in 2012 than it was in 1988 (or why is it no longer prudent today—or wait, what day is this?)?
*[Fr. Rostand, Against the Rumors]
“And it’s very important in our efforts to judge properly to not stop at the level of words. We have to understand what the meaning of the words is.”--Fr. Themann
By “we,” of course, he means us. It is up to us to adapt what we “thought” we knew to what we now “know” the SSPX wants us to think.
Here’s what we thought we knew: ABL was not looking for recognition like Pfluger, Fellay and their flunkies are. ABL was looking for a sign—and he wasn’t getting it. Fr. Themann says ABL took back his signature (on the May 5th protocol) because he didn’t believe he would get a bishop. True, he didn’t believe he would get a bishop—but this was not the only reason he took back his signature. He knew these churchmen could not be trusted: they had separated
themselves from the Catholic Church (by embracing the errors of V2 and the modernism underlying it). Themann states that it is the position of the SSPX to see the “ultimate problem” of today as stemming from V2. (And the modernism underlying it—what of that?—not specific enough?). Yet, Fellay says in his doctrinal declaration that he is willing to interpret V2 in the “light of tradition.” (After all, ABL said this at one point too!) In his interview with CNS, Fellay states with half a laugh and a big smile that he really does believe that very few people actually know what the council said about religious liberty. (Or is that not fair of us—taking him out of context?).
So the churchmen teach a new faith, but the hierarchy stands? Bp. Williamson already addressed this issue in an Eleison Comments, which Fr. Laisnay idiotically criticized.
To speak metaphorically (but, I hope, not romantically!) the structure is not just on fire, it's an inferno. Who rushes into an inferno in hopes of setting up shop? No one. Or do the priests of the SSPX think they are firemen going to put out the fires of the conciliar church? Well, if they do, I’m sure they will put the fires out prudently. When pious sounding boys raised by sweet mamas put on cassocks, how can they be anything else but prudent?
Fr. Beck and his little boys in black are tolling the bells of St. Mary's. Listen. The SSPX is dead.