http://sedevacantist.com/considerations.html

Some Considerations For Non-Sedevacantist Clergy

“For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal and walk you not according to man?”1


In the present crisis of religion there is much scope for misunderstandings which can unnecessarily create friction between members of the Mystical Body. The following considerations are presented in order to suggest that one particular cause of discord need not be so.

This unnecessary cause of discord is the anti-sedevacantist attitude displayed by some members of the SSPX clergy. This attitude is rooted in misunderstandings, which it is the aim of this paper to address, in the hope that thereby peace may be fostered amongst the faithful. I ask that you consider what is written here. I beg this of your charity, which seeks not her own, but rather looks to the good of others. The good which I have in view is that brethren may dwell together in that unity which is the bond of peace. And this good can only be achieved if each of us considers the others' views respectfully, and furthermore if we are able to speak robustly to each other, without inordinate human respect.

“Those that come together into this house are united with gladness, according to what is asked from the Lord in the psalm, to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of one's life. Whence in another place also it is made manifest, that among the saints there is great and desirous love for assembling together. 'Behold,' he says, 'how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.'”2

By way of summarising what is to be presented, the considerations are as follows:

    Holiness is not infallibility. Nor does it guarantee great knowledge.
    “Sedevacantists” are taught by Pope Paul IV.
    Likewise, “sedevacantists” are taught by Pope St. Pius V.
    The apostolic constitution cuм ex apostolatus guarantees all of the faithful the right to reject papal claimants that they judge to be heretics.
    Pride is not manifested by those who flee danger, but rather the opposite.
    “Sedevacantists” are not, per se, dangerous to the flock. Some sedevacantists are dangerous, as are some “sedeplenists.”
    If “sedevacantism” is responsible for disasters like Palmar de Troya (which I do not concede) then by the same logic “sedeplenism” is responsible for the disaster of the Fraternity of St. Peter.
    “Sedevacantists” are not guilty of usurping authority or illicitly “judging” by rejecting Karol Wojtyla, for it is clear from cuм ex apostolatus that what we do is perfectly justified.
    It is not scandalous to employ rough terms to describe Karol Wojtyla, and cuм ex apostolatus instructs us to treat heretics such as Wojtyla as “warlocks and publicans,” among other things.
    Archbishop Lefebvre was not “anti-sedevacantist.”
    It is far from proved that the SSPX was “sent” by the Church. The SSPX was “sent” by Montini, who subsequently “unsent” it.



    It is perfectly reasonable for men who owe their orders, and perhaps even their faith, to the late Archbishop Lefebvre, to regard him as a sure guide in this crisis. Thus they will hold fast to the judgements that he formed about various disputed matters, and will regard his views as superior to their own attempts to make sense out of the mess we see around us. This, as stated, is perfectly reasonable, even praiseworthy in that it is compatible with great humility. However, it is far from obvious that the SSPX is the divine response to this crisis of religion, and that therefore all Catholics ought to regard Archbishop Lefebvre's views as the best available. Firstly, his is not the only fruitful apostolate, unless we are materialists and therefore judge all things by numbers alone. Secondly, Archbishop Lefebvre could well have been one of the greatest saints to have graced this earth, and yet been entirely wrong about matters of the gravest importance. History furnishes numerous examples of such things, one of which is St. Cyprian's opposition to the truth on Baptism. He was a saint whilst he was wrong, and he died a martyr for Christ still believing his error to be the truth. And yet he is one of the greatest saints in the calendar. Thirdly, there are numerous authorities of far greater weight than the late Archbishop whose teachings simply cannot be reconciled with his own position. Several of these are Doctors of the Church. For these reasons, and others, it is manifestly unreasonable to maintain that those who choose a different (sound) position to that proposed by the Archbishop, are therefore to be regarded as dangerous or in any way bad Catholics. We may be terrible Catholics, but this is not because we differ with the SSPX on the nature and extent of this crisis of religion. Nor is our position to be regarded as bad based on the fact that we differ with the Archbishop.

    Let us now consider some further points which support the claim that the “sedevacantist” position is soundly Catholic. None of these is a proof in itself that the “sedevacantist” position is true. No, the proof of that has been presented in other places. These considerations are aimed merely at establishing that “anti-sedevacantism” is indefensible.

    Firstly, we “sedevacantists” are taught by Pope Paul IV, who has addressed the precise situation Catholics face today, in the apostolic constitution cuм ex apostolatus. That is, the situation in which a heretic claims the papacy. Is there any papal docuмent which supports the recognition of a heretic 's claim to the highest office in the Church? No. There is no papal bull or encyclical which states that in the case of a heretic claiming the papacy the faithful must accept his claim unless and until the senior clergy reject him. In fact, there isn't even a papal docuмent which instructs Catholics to accept a doubtful pope unless and until he is proved to be a false claimant. A doubtful pope is no pope, as the theologians and canonists openly and clearly teach, and there is no papal instruction to the contrary. Is there any reason why we are wrong to be taught by Pope Paul IV? By whom else ought we to be taught instead?

    We “sedevacantists” are also taught by Pope St. Pius V, who issued the bull Inter multiplices for the sole purpose of re-confirming the above-mentioned bull of Pope Paul IV. Is there some reason why we should disregard Pope St. Pius V?

    cuм ex apostolatus lays down perfectly clearly that all may refuse communion with a heretical claimant to the papal office. Even laymen. cuм ex apostolatus explicitly states that any and all persons who would have been subject to such an heretical claimant, be they members of any of category of Church members, including the laity, may safely reject the usurper. It seems clear to us that the pope has spoken – the laity have a right to reject Karol Wojtyla's claim to the papacy. Is this incorrect? Did Paul IV mean that the laity must only follow instructions from the clergy in these matters? If so, why did he not say so?

    It is unfair to accuse “sedevacantists” of pride, merely because they reject the claims of Karol Wojtyla. Is it proud to insist on being taught by Pope Paul IV and Pope St. Pius V, of glorious memory? Are laymen proud who flee the wolf, despite the woolly disguise which partially hides his coarse, black, coat? Are we proud because we do not trust ourselves to sift the good from the evil; because we trust not ourselves to stand in the evil day? In brief, does a proud man run away, or does he remain in danger, thinking himself strong against temptation? I am not asserting that the SSPX adhere to Karol Wojtyla because of pride. I think that adherence to Karol Wojtyla can be perfectly compatible with humility, and often is. I am merely saying that we may be filled with pride, but we do not prove it by running away from danger.

    Are “sedevacantists” dangerous to the flock? No. Certainly some “sedevacantists” are dangerous. As are some SSPX followers, including some SSPX priests. The fact is that around the world hundreds of “sedevacantists” assist at SSPX chapels, and in only a few cases have individuals caused serious angst to the SSPX. Likewise, numerous SSPX priests are “sedevacantists” themselves, and seem not to have created any great difficulties with their fraternity. This is a personal assessment, but I think that the SSPX attitude to the “sedevacantist” position is a self-perpetuating source of difficulty. Attacking “sedevacantism” is asking for a response from “sedevacantists.”

    “Anti-sedevacantism” is fed by various examples of evil which are unfairly laid at the feet of “sedevacantists.” One such example is Palmar de Troya, in Spain. Palmar de Troya is not an example of “sedevacantist” activity. Palmar de Troya is an example of men following a false pope. The situation at Palmar de Troya is parallel to that in the New Church. In both cases men have accepted a false pope, and in both cases this has led to multiple errors, some grave and some less grave. In both cases this has been the result of a failure to consider the teachings of the (true) popes, and the consequent failure to apply these teachings to the facts. And if Palmar de Troya is to be regarded as a “sedevacantist” aberration, then the Fraternity of St. Peter is, likewise, an SSPX aberration. The disastrous creation of the Fraternity of St. Peter is undoubtedly the fruit of the acceptance of Karol Wojtyla's claim to the papacy. The problem with seeking such examples of evil fruit is that evil fruit is everywhere, and the actual causes are often difficult to identify accurately.

    Are “sedevacantists” guilty of judging that Karol Wojtyla is a heretic when he is really only a mistaken Catholic? Do men gather figs of thistles? No. Nor do Catholics preside over New Religions. In any case, Pope Paul IV clearly fails to share the difficulty of the SSPX in identifying heretics. He tells us that that we (even laymen) may reject and avoid any papal claimants who have previously “deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these.” Nor is there any sign whatsoever in cuм ex apostolatus that Pope Paul IV was only referring to heretics who had been judged by the Church, and not to those who try to remain recognised as her members. In fact, Paul IV's words are utterly incompatible with such an idea, for he refers separately to those who “shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.” Those convicted of heresy are in a distinct category from those who are detected as heretics, and both groups are to be rejected and avoided - not just those who have been convicted, as the SSPX maintains.

    Do “sedevacantists” scandalise other members of the faithful by referring to Karol Wojtyla disrespectfully? Pope Paul IV teaches us that we are permitted not only to withdraw from such a heretic , but that we may regard such heretical “popes” as “warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.” Has our language been any stronger than Pope Paul IV's? Likewise, Paul IV instructs the Church not only to avoid those who display a heretic al mindset, but also to deprive them “of the sympathy of all natural kindness.” Are we to think that Paul IV lacked charity, and instructed the Church to be uncharitable? God forbid! Surely this is instead to be explained as a way of making the flock safe and ensuring that by just chastisement the erring might be brought to repentance.

    Was “anti-sedevacantism” the position of Archbishop Lefebvre? No. The Archbishop enjoyed excellent relations with numerous “sedevacantists.” He was the recipient of a great deal of funding from “sedevacantists.” His own published views were clearly not “anti-sedevacantist” and in fact as he approached the end of his life he became less distant from the “sede vacante” position, and made numerous statements which openly suggested that he himself might conclude that Karol Wojtyla was not in fact the pope. “Anti-sedevacantism” is a feature of the post-Lefebvre SSPX, and is not a faithful representation of the Archbishop's position. The Archbishop did not want his clergy to be (openly) “sedevacantist.” I have seen no evidence that he castigated the faithful for adhering to that position. The distinction might seem fine, but there is a real reason for it. The SSPX is a fraternity of secular priests. It is not a religious congregation. The faithful who assist at its chapels are not its members. The Archbishop formed the judgement that the SSPX clergy (i.e. the members of the SSPX) had to be united in their public position on the crisis. Imposing this “unity” on the faithful was not part of his agenda, at least as far as his public words and actions indicate. What he seems to have aimed at was a position which was sufficiently ambiguous so as to keep open the possibility that “rome“ would approve of his organisation, whilst allowing him to avoid the entire Vatican II revolution. Whether his policy was good or bad, effective or ineffective, is open to debate. But it was not “anti-sedevacantist.“ It was “non-sedevacantist.“

    Is it true that the SSPX was sent by the Church, while other priests and priestly groups have been set up by individuals? Giovanni Montini “sent” the SSPX (for a probationary period). Then he “unsent” the SSPX, in a letter written in his own hand and addressed to Archbishop Lefebvre. If Montini was pope, then the SSPX has been shut down by the Church. If Montini was not the pope, then the SSPX was never sent by the Church, if “being sent” requires papal approval. I can't see how the SSPX is any different in this respect from various other groups and individuals. And in fact the SSPX is inferior in this respect to various traditional religious and clergy who did receive explicit ecclesiastical approval prior to the Revolution, and who are still functioning. One such example is Fr. Robert McKenna, O.P., and the convent of Dominican nuns who rely on his ministrations. They are “sedevacantists.” There are obviously other ways of being authorised by the Church than explicit papal approval, but if there are not then the SSPX appears to have a very shaky claim to ecclesiastical approval.


There are many other considerations which could be presented on this matter. Considerations relating to the Great Western Schism; to the nature of heresy and how it is known; to various historical precedents which provide guidance on how Catholics are to react to heretics claiming authority in the Church. But I think that these should suffice to prove that whatever the truth about Karol Wojtyla, it is not at all obvious that those who reject his claim to the papacy are for that reason uncharitable and proud.

St. Pius X sought to restore all things in Christ, chiefly by ensuring purity of doctrine and fostering devotion to the Holy Eucharist. These two means addressed the twofold bonds of unity of Holy Church – Faith and Charity. By cultivating these two supernatural bonds between each and every Catholic, and between us and our Divine Head Jesus Christ, the holy pontiff sought to strengthen and extend the Mystical Body, so that the world would be supernaturally renewed. In attempting to follow in his footsteps, we the children of St. Pius X, must also pursue this same true course. We too must defend the faith by promoting true doctrine and exposing false teachings. And we are likewise called to do whatever is in our power, no matter how little, to foster the bond of charity without which we are nothing, and without which even the most perfect faith is in vain.


“Glorious Pope of the Eucharist St Pius X who didst seek to restore all things in Christ, obtain for me a true love of Jesus so that I may live only for Him. Help me to acquire a lively fervour and a sincere will to strive for sanctity of life, and that I may avail myself of the riches of the Holy Eucharist in sacrifice and sacrament. By thy love for Mary, mother and queen of all, inflame my heart with tender devotion to her.

“Blessed model of the priesthood, obtain for us holy dedicated priests and increase vocations to the religious life. Dispel confusion and hatred and anxiety and incline our hearts to peace and concord, so that all nations will place themselves under the sweet reign of Christ. Amen.”


The question of whether or not Karol Wojtyla is the pope is not a matter of faith. Nor has it been judged by Holy Church. Therefore it belongs to that class of things which, while important – and vitally so – are “legitimately disputed.” The saints instruct us how we are to behave when we differ over such matters.

Of St. Cyprian, St. Augustine says, “putting on the bowels of humility through the moving influence of his discourse, if, in common with the Church at large, I entertain any doctrine more true than his, I will not prefer my heart to his, even in the point in which he, though holding different views, was yet not severed from the Church throughout the world. For in that, when that question was yet undecided for want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed from those of many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great moderation, that he would not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any stain of schism, a greater strength of excellence appeared in him than would have been shown if, without that virtue, he had held views on every point not only true, but coinciding with their own.” (St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 5.)

I appeal to “non-sedevacantist“ clergy that if you cannot grant that we might be right, that you at least consider that it is perfectly possible to be both good and wrong.

In the mean time, we shall do our best not to be both right and bad.

John Lane
Feast of St. Pius X, 2001


Footnotes:
1. 1 Cor. 3:3.
2. Firmilianus, Bishop of Caesarea, �The Ante-Nicene Fathers� Vol. V, p. 390.

Stubborn,
Referring to the Apostolic Constitution cuм Ex Apostolic Officio of Pope Paul IV, you asked:

Why is it that those who promote sedevacantism never read the whole Bull?

So I ask:
How do you know “that those who promote sedevacantism never read the whole Bull?”
Have you asked them all – every last one of them?
I know full well that you haven’t.
So right from the start you pose a rhetorical question that is founded upon a rash judgement. Poor show!

But what about you -- have YOU read the whole Bull, or at least the small part that you attempt to quote?

I don’t mean an English translation of it; I mean the Latin text.
If you had done so, you would have spotted the fact that you are relying upon a faulty translation to promote your anti-sedevacantism.

That’s not a good start, is it?

Do you still think you are sufficiently well-read to go head-to-head with John Lane in this matter?  

Stubborn,
Referring to the Apostolic Constitution cuм Ex Apostolic Officio of Pope Paul IV, you asked:

Quote

Why is it that those who promote sedevacantism never read the whole Bull?

So I ask:
How do you know “that those who promote sedevacantism never read the whole Bull?”
Have you asked them all – every last one of them?
I know full well that you haven’t.
So right from the start you pose a rhetorical question that is founded upon a rash judgement. Poor show!

But what about you -- have YOU read the whole Bull, or at least the small part that you attempt to quote?

I don’t mean an English translation of it; I mean the Latin text.
If you had done so, you would have spotted the fact that you are relying upon a faulty translation to promote your anti-sedevacantism.

That’s not a good start, is it?

Do you still think you are sufficiently well-read to go head-to-head with John Lane in this matter?  

First off, I was referring to the OP, not every sede in the world. The link in the OP makes the false claims that sedevacantism is taught by Pope Paul IV and Pope St. Pius V, additionally, nowhere does "the apostolic constitution cuм ex apostolatus guarantee all of the faithful the right to reject papal claimants that they judge to be heretics" not sure what you read but I put the truth in bold and colored the pertinent text in the color red, word for word from cuм Ex Apostolic Officio showing the pope cannot be judged by anyone in this world - sounds like this John Lane fellow - and those who believe him - use their own interpretation of  cuм ex apostolatus.

I have no rash judgement, all I am doing is pointing out what  cuм ex apostolatus says - now you and other SVs may not care too much for that - and for the record, neither do I, but it says what it says and whoever chooses to skip over that part cannot plead ignorance after having read what I bolded in red from cuм ex apostolatus, the part I pointed out is not my own opinion, unlike the post you wrote.

You seem to think I made it up or something. And fwiw, from all the sources I have checked, the translation is accurate. Here, look for yourself: http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html

Now instead of you fabricating more unfounded and opinionated accusations against cuм Ex Apostolic Officio, why not show what you think is the correct translation to show the error of the translation that I posted - until then, your argument is not with me, it is with a supposed faulty translation of the Apostolic Constitution.

As for going head to head with anyone on this subject, well, if *you* will not accept what is written as the truth, what chance would I have with John Lane? Aside from that, this subject is about as futile as going head to head with someone about BOD vs EENS - nothing but a giant waste of time most of the time.

FWIW, the reason I point out the pertinent text is because I missed it myself the first few times  I read cuм Ex Apostolic Officio 20 years ago - and I did not realize I missed that part until I actually read the whole thing. It says what it says.

I don’t mean an English translation of it; I mean the Latin text.

I think I found the Latin text, but I'm not sure if it is entire.

From Cardinal Gasparri's monumental Codicis Iuris Canonic Fontes, Vol. I Concilia Generalia - Romani Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, (Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947), Pt. II, no. 94, here is the Latin text of Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV cuм ex apostolatus (15 February 1559):

I have a feeling you just don't like me even one tiny bit!

No, I'm actually rather fond of you, as I am of the rest of the people here.  I just like to keep you on your toes. :smile:

I have a digital copy of what I believe to be the complete Latin text of cuм ex apostolatus officio, but I regret to say that I do not have to hand a reference for its source. The Latin text that you have posted is completed by three articles containing what I would call routine administrative details. I post these below. I suppose that they are omitted from the Fontes for the obvious reason that they do not strictly speaking constitute sources of Canon Law. John Daly's translation of the complete text is here

Thank you so very much for this.

I too supposed that the omitted matter was irrelevant to the Canon for which the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV was one of the sources.

Perhaps the source for that text was something like the Magnum Bullarium Romanum a Pio IV usque a Innocentium IX printed at Lyons, France, in 1673, or some other later tome like the Bullarium Romanum Seu Novissima et Accuratissima Collectio Apostolicarum Constitutionum which had various editions.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htm

Has the English / Latin side by side - -both look to be identical to what both I and Hobbledehoy posted.

 

Stubborn,

The opening post in this thread carries the text of (and a link to) an article written and published by John Lane, under the title:“Some Considerations For Non-Sedevacantist Clergy”.

The article addresses the “unnecessary cause of discord” resulting from “the anti-sedevacantist attitude displayed by some members of the SSPX clergy.”

You, apparently wishing to perpetuate this “anti-sedevacantist attitude”, have barged in with a wild accusation against sedevacantists. In response to my objection to this you back off a bit by saying:

First off, I was referring to the OP, not every sede in the world.

So you now indicate that you were referring ONLY to Mr Lane when you asked “Why is it that those who promote sedevacantism never read the whole Bull?”. But your excuse does not stand up to examination: in that question you referred to “those [Note the plural!] who promote sedevacantism”. Obviously, “those” must refer to more people than just Mr Lane.

Even so, on what grounds do you think that Mr Lane has “never read the whole Bull”?

You then went on to quote what you claim to be “the beginning of cuм ex apostolatus”. In fact, what you quoted was a very small part of an ENGLISH TRANSLATION of cuм ex apostolatus -- and it wasn’t even the beginning of it!

But whence came this translation?
So far as I know, there is only one English translation of cuм ex apostolatus that is readily available on the Web at the present time. The same translation can be found on several different websites, but they all appear to have originated from the one that is owned by ... Mr John Lane!

This is the same John Lane whom you have the nerve to accuse of having "never read the whole Bull”!

The translation was done by John Daly who, in case you didn’t know it, is a good friend of Mr Lane and, like him, holds to the sedevacantist position. Is Mr Daly another of those whom you so boldly accuse of having “never read the whole Bull”?

In self-justification, you go on to say:

The link in the OP makes the false claims that sedevacantism is taught by Pope Paul IV and Pope St. Pius V...

No it doesn’t! Nowhere in the article does Mr Lane claim that “sedevacantism is taught by Pope Paul IV and Pope St. Pius V...” Therefore, if anyone is making a false claim here, it is YOU.

In fact, in various places in the article, Mr Lane says:

... “Sedevacantists” are taught by Pope Paul IV. Likewise, “sedevacantists” are taught by Pope St. Pius V.

... Firstly, we “sedevacantists” are taught by Pope Paul IV, who has addressed the precise situation Catholics face today, in the apostolic constitution cuм ex apostolatus.

... Is there any reason why we are wrong to be taught by Pope Paul IV?

... We “sedevacantists” are also taught by Pope St. Pius V, who issued the bull Inter multiplices for the sole purpose of re-confirming the above-mentioned bull of Pope Paul IV.

It is obvious that, contrary to what you assert, none of these extracts say that “sedevacantism is taught by Pope Paul IV and Pope St. Pius V”. If you think otherwise, then I recommend you make an early appointment with your optician.

But to come to my point, which is this: you appear to believe that you know and understand the Papal Bull cuм ex apostolatus sufficiently well to be able to quote it against sedevacantists, when, in fact, the source of your knowledge of what is contained in the bull derives from the very sedevacantists whom you accuse of having "never read the whole Bull”. How is the pupil able to teach his teacher?

Strictly speaking, the bull, by its nature, is not doctrinal but legal. It expresses a law, being partly ecclesiastical law and partly divine law. It is written in legal language. Its legal nature is evident from its construction. Each article, however lengthy it may be, constitutes an unbroken assembly of ideas which can tax the attention span of those of us who are not trained and practiced in the interpretation of legal texts. So for the sake of our better comprehension, Mr Daly has not produced an exact translation of the Latin text, but rather he has broken it down into bite-size chunks. And lest we should lose track during the reading of it, he has even repeated the phrase “by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity”, which he puts between square brackets to indicate that this is his own interpolation, and not part of the original text. The fact is that the Latin equivalent (hac nostra in perpetuum valitura constitutione) appears only once in the original.

So, what I am trying to get over to you is that this translation should be treated for what it is (viz: an aid to understanding) and not as if it had just come verbatim from the pope’s escritoire with the ink still wet. The following illustrates my point:

The given translation includes the phrase “...the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ ...”, and if you had been alert, when you copied and pasted the phrase into your post, the words that I have underlined would have struck you as being a bit odd. What is the distinction in this phrase between “God” and “our God”? Why “our God”, but not “our Lord Jesus Christ”?

Now before you even think of answering that this is a reference to the Holy Trinity, let me tell you that it is purely and simply a TRANSCRIPTION ERROR (but not your transcription error, I might add).

The Latin text has the phrase “...Romanus Pontifex, qui Dei, et Domini Nostri Iesu Christ vices gerit in terris...”, which, rendered as literally as practicable, comes out as:
“...the Roman Pontiff, who governs on earth in the places of God and of Our Lord Jesus Christ...”
And as you will see, the phrase “God and” appears here only once, and not twice as in the given translation. In fact, the error in the given translation is rectified simply by removing the second occurrence of the phrase “God and”.

Now, I am not trying to make a big issue of this transcription error from a semantic point of view. I am not necessarily questioning the validity of Mr Daly’s translation. But I am criticising your sloppy methodology. I am pointing out that you have unquestioningly copied and pasted a piece of Mr Daly’s translation and presented it as if it was “word for word from cuм Ex Apostolic Officio” (your very own expression), when patently it is not!

Regretfully, you have attempted to falsify Mr Lane's article, thus introducing "an unnecessary cause of discord", which is exactly the sort of thing that Mr Lane's article is aimed at eliminating. Shame on you!