“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.

Zzz:

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...''  

But this is the only point which the pro-SSPX apologists want to make, viz. that ABL took back his signature because he knew he wouldn't get a bishop, and a bishop was all he really required from the Vatican.  But, as Zzz says, a bishop was not the only reason.  In fact, it was far from the only reason he took back his signature.  
 

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?

It's rather amazing how this word 'prudent' has made its way back into the lexicon.  In 2009 and 2010, "prudence," or imprudence, was used in describing bp. Williamson's  perceived lack of discretion.  Now we hear "prudence" used as the word might apply to making a practical deal with Rome, so that in the end, working very prudently from within we can help the Romans return to tradition

Fr. Beck and his little boys in black are tolling the bells of St. Mary's.  Listen.  The SSPX is dead.

If not dead, at least on life supports.  

http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/the-visibility-of-the-church-archbishop-lefebvre-s-conference-to-?page=1&commentId=5691517%3AComment%3A96266&x=1#5691517Comment96266

Thank you for that, Tele.  I wish all the priests of the SSPX would read, or re-read, it and ponder.  

The SSPX is dead.

Not dead but I am inclined to believe, it has served its purpose. God has other plans for Tradition. There is nothing really of difference between the SSPX and the FSSP. With their liberal slide, I can't see how SSPX priests can still tell laity not to attend the Indult or 'approved' Mass.

Bp. W's 'loose association' avoids the pitfalls of creating yet another institution which ends up having a life of its own. The hostile response to the Council would ultimately fail in unity because there were different levels of commitment to the prospect of being estranged from Rome long-term. So much of the Society is now wedded to the desirability of a regularisation regardless of doctrine to the point of it displacing the preservation of the priesthood as its principle goal. After forty years the organisation assumes a more comfortable position in a hostile world. But it jealously guards its territory from rivals as its survival right or wrong is all important.    

If the SSPX recognises the 1968 Rite of Holy Orders as valid, what priesthood is it preserving? Concerning Bishop Williamson's "loose association" it seems that most Resistance priests are following his advice. They have not joined Fr Pfeiffer's more formalised organisation. What is needed however, is a centralised clearing house for funds.

Believe me; having spoken to fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko they definitely prefer a real organization and it WILL be necessary with the coming Seminary in September...Eventually we'll have to organize as many parrishes as possible  :pray:into the SSPXMC. There's a Church for sale in York, SC I wish I could buy it for them and have Fr. Hewko here every weekend..

I have been foolish to have involved myself in the SSPX. I am well aware I am being shunned.