Here is a 5 part essay responding to Father Theman’s well publicized lecture:
In response to a question posted at this link:
Sean Johnson offers this summary of the crisis:
1) There is not going to be a deal only because Our Lady prevented Rome from accepting Bishop Fellay’s scandalous doctrinal declaration;
2) However, the 2012 General Chapter Declaration still stands as an open invitation to the Romans as official SSPX policy;
3) And despite the Talleyrand spin represented in Bishop Fellay’s March, 2013 “Letter to Friends and Benefactors,” in which he seems to be talking traditional again, it is only because he does not perceive a deal to be possible at this time, because of ROMAN disinterest;
4) That 2012 GC declaration mutated the traditional position of the SSPX in dealings with Rome, and gave the green light to a merely practical accord, despite the persevering modernism in Rome;
5) Effectively, this places legal unity over doctrinal integrity;
6) The same General Chapter also produced 6 merely practical (and limp) conditions which, if met, would stand as surrender terms to Rome;
7) All of this is still on the table, but wait…..there’s more!
8) We have also seen, finally, the degree to which Bishop Fellay was willing to go in order to get legal recognition in his scandalous April-2012 doctrinal declaration, in which, among other things, he accepts that Vatican II is traditional (?!?), and all of that garbage must be accepted as traditional…even the heretical Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae;
9) So he accepts that heresy is traditional, in this particular instance;
10) He then writes a letter to BXVI, explaining his commitment to pursuing the path of a practical accord at the expense of considerable opposition within the SSPX, but vows to plow forward.
11) There is therefore a perpetual trust issue in place, so long as his administration remains in power.
12) We have his own words as the source of this distrust, and his own words acknowledging his revolutionary activity as a cause of division, which he dishonestly seeks to deflect to Bishop Williamson (for failing to go along with the revolution?);
13) Menzingen cannot ignore the existence of Bishop Williamson, because the latter is a thorn in their side by continuing to point out the truth; an embarrassment to the lie that is attempting to be justified (just as the SSPX used to be a sign of contradiction to Rome and the false doctrines of V2);
14) They are so afraid of his existence, they feel it necessary to build a new seminary at considerable (and unnecessary) expense, just to escape the ghost of Bishop Williamson in Winona;
15) If there is a new formation of priests (SSPX-SO), it is necessary to preserve the apostolate of the original SSPX, to come to the aid of souls caught in a state of grave spiritual necessity; to preserve a valid priesthood; to preserve the integral corpus of Catholic doctrine; to warn the faithful about the slow-drip poison coming from Menzingen which endangers all these things; this latter is not possible within the framework of the neo-SSPX;
16) And that in itself is justification enough to found a new order which will allow priests to continue to faithfully serve God’s Church.
PS: With regard to the denial of Holy Communion: The neo-SSPX would say that it is justified in denial of Communion to notorious and public sinners. They would be correct. Problem is when they equate public resistance to the weakening of Faith and leftward drift in Menzingen as public sin. I do not know enough about specific instances to apply the rules to the individual cases to opine whether withholding has been justified or not.