Resistance to the Liberalism of the Neo-SSPX
-
$10.95
- Product Code: B-RLNS
- Availability: In Stock
| - + |
Resistance to the Liberalism of the Neo-SSPX
A Public Rebuttal to Fr. Themann’s Conference “Resistance to What ?”
This dynamic presentation is an excellent public rebuttal to Fr. Themann’s Conference, which was widely distributed among SSPX priests and faithful, adding to their confusion, entitled “Resistance to What?” Fr. Themann’s talk is purported to be the final word on the controversy. Not by a long shot. In this Open Letter to Fr. Themann, the author rips apart his arguments, one by one, in a well presented refutation of its many defects. “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. We hold that Bp. Fellay’s attempt to make a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome is not the SSPX’s chief problem, but is a symptom of the SSPX’s problem. The problem itself is the continual liberalizing of the SSPX over time…Your entire talk hinges upon the (false) absolute division you make between ‘questions of principle’ and ‘questions of prudence’…The truth is that all questions of prudence are questions of principle applied to particular circumstances…” Another must read if the SSPX is to be saved from its otherwise imminent ruin.
“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…”
“We hold that Bishop Fellay’s attempt to make a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome is not the SSPX’s chief problem, but is a symptom of the SSPX’s problem. The problem itself is the continual liberalizing of the SSPX over time.”
“Your entire talk hinges upon the (false) absolute division you make between ‘questions of principle’ and ‘questions of prudence.’ … The truth is that all questions of prudence are questions of principle applied to particular circumstances… In your conference, you say that circumstances freed the SSPX from Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle [i.e. no agreement with unconverted Rome], apparently (in your view) leaving the SSPX free to do whatever it chooses to do. But prudence requires that we always act according to principle…
“You (and the current SSPX) have accepted the Conciliar Church’s error that there is something wrong with the SSPX’s status… The truth is that the SSPX still has its canonical structure… The SSPX already enjoys the same canonical structure it has had since its earliest days. Thus, there is no canonical structure it could seek from Rome – since the SSPX has this structure already! Nothing is lacking except for Rome to convert [as the archbishop and the Old SSPX always maintained]…
“Cardinal Ratzinger recognized that gradualism is the key to avoiding a resistance… Cardinal Ratzinger is correct. The slower the revolution moves, the fewer people will react. The SSPX 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 [i.e. deceptive, masquerading its liberalism and concealing its extraneous objectives] since then.”
“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.”
Tags: Resistance to the Liberalism of the Neo-SSPX, Books
