Open Letter to Fr. Daniel Themann


Extracts from TrueTrad

We have listened carefully to your April 2013 conference given at St. Marys, and which the SSPX sent to the faithful on its mailing list, as a free two-CD set, accompanied by a long written summary of your talk. In this present letter, through which we respond to your conference, all citations refer to disc 1, track 2 unless otherwise noted. We are aware of many priests and laity who have pointed out errors and crucial omissions in your conference. We join our voices to theirs, attempting to mitigate the confusion your conference has caused.

Your False Explanation Regarding Matters Of Prudence [.....]

Because your position hinges on what prudence is, and because you made two serious errors showing you misunderstand this virtue, your conference was
completely inadequate as an explanation of the SSPX’s recent conduct. However, we regret that this fact does not end the errors you made during the conference nor the harm you are doing. Below, we continue our open letter.......

Bishop Fellay’s Important Secret Friends In Rome Told Him A Story Wwhich Could Be Plainly Seen From The Start, As Inconsistent.[.....]

But regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s purported willing ness to “recognize” the SSPX “unilaterally”, didn’t it occur to you and to your superiors that, if it had been really true that “Benedict XVI would recognize the Society unilaterally”, then there would be no need for the SSPX to make any proposals, negotiations and doctrinal preambles? Didn’t this occur to any of you? If these supposed sources were true, then the Society would not have to do anything! According to Bishop Fellay’s secret friends, Pope Benedict was (supposedly) seeking “no concessions from you; you will
simply be recognized, as you are, unilaterally.” 23:19.

The SSPX’s Explanations Are Inconsistent, Regarding The Current SSPX’s Willingness To Negotiate A Purely Practical Agreement With Rome

Archbishop Lefebvre made the following clear reply:

Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a
dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me; but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a new dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being put in the position where I was during the [May 1988] dialogue. No more.

I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree
with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of
Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.
Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, pp. 223-224 (emphasis and bracketed date added)

Bishop Fellay Continues To Be Ready To Make An Agreement With Unconverted Rome, If He Considers The Terms Favorable [....]

Bishop Fellay Accepts Many Conciliar Errors In Lumen Gentium Ch. 3 [....]

Your Failure To Accurately Address How Making A Deal With Rome Would Affect The Local Bishops’ Power Over The SSPX [....]

On another occasion, Bishop Fellay indicated that the new mass is good when used under the “strictest” conditions. The SSPX quoted Cardinal Canizares as saying:

On one occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just came from an
abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he
did ”... The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.

We leave aside that Bishop Fellay apparently attended a new mass, despite the duty of all Catholics to avoid all sacrilege! In this statement quoted by Cardinal Canizares, Bishop Fellay says that, if Archbishop Lefebvre had seen the new mass celebrated strictly, then he would not have taken “the step that he did”. This “step” must refer either to founding the SSPX or opposing the new mass. What Bishop Fellay necessarily implies is that Archbishop Lefebvre was reacting against particular abuses occurring in the celebration of the new mass and that Archbishop Lefebvre would not have otherwise considered it necessary to found the SSPX (or to oppose the new mass), if only the new mass would have been celebrated without abuses. In other words, Bishop Fellay is indicating that Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered the new mass acceptable in its “strict” form!


Full Article