CathInfo.com

Refutation #1 from Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted by Sean himself many times against whom he calls “Pfeifferites”:  

Archbishop Lefebvre: Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass. (Letter of May 9 1980) [II]

Major Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre could not have said those who feel obliged can fulfil one’s Sunday obligation at an NOM if it was always a mortal sin.
Minor Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre did say exactly that.
Conclusion: Ergo, it is not always a mortal sin.

Sean Johnson asked me a while ago to try to write a rebuttal or refutation of his “As we are” book. While I accepted the challenge, before we go into it, I want to make a few preliminary observations.

First, the strength: congratulations to the author, because the book is a commendable effort to outline in a detailed way the principal objections of the Resistance to the Society’s leadership.

Second, the weakness: hardly anywhere in the CCCC will you see a clear statement of what the author’s own positions are on the crisis, much less any theological proof of them whatsoever.

Brief Rejoinder to #1: Change (New Mass Participation Sinful or Not?)

First, Sean again does not say what he believes or does not believe regarding this. Second, Sean implies a blatant non sequitur in claiming “Clearly the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest attending the Novus Ordo is sinful”. Let Sean himself answer: Does he believe attending the NO is sinful?

Here's why it is a non sequitur: At most, what follows is that the SSPX does not necessarily believe each person in each NO is subjectively guilty of mortal sin. That is all that can be reasonably and logically inferred from the two questions presented in the new edition, "Have you received Holy Communion in the hand knowing that it leads to Sacrilege and loss of faith in the Real Presence?Have you attended and actively participated in non-Catholic religious services?" Nothing more.

Third, here is the explanation of Fr. Scott, from the Society website: “Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecuмenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.”

Refutation #1 from Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted by Sean himself many times against whom he calls “Pfeifferites”:  

Archbishop Lefebvre: Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass. (Letter of May 9 1980) [II]

Major Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre could not have said those who feel obliged can fulfil one’s Sunday obligation at an NOM if it was always a mortal sin.
Minor Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre did say exactly that.
Conclusion: Ergo, it is not always a mortal sin.

Refutation #2 from Bishop Williamson, quoted in the resistance Recusant publication:

Bishop Williamson:“I’m sure you ask yourselves ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase. And you and I have no right before God to look down our noses and to write off these Catholics as though they’re just trash.”[III]

Major Premise: Bishop Williamson clearly teaches sanctifying grace passes ex opera operato to some Catholics at some NOMs
Minor Premise: But it is de fide that sanctifying grace cannot pass ex opere operato to those dead in mortal sin. (instead, that would constitute an additional mortal sin)
Conclusion:  Therefore, it is heretical for Sean to claim (if he believes what Bp. W says, as he says he does) that everyone at every NOM is sinning mortally (if he wants to claim that –as his “change” implies).

Refutation #3 from the Council of Trent, and from Sean’s own usage of the canon:

Sean’s opinion: “A.  As acknowledged by Archbishop Lefebvre.  Calling a sacrament a bastard (which pertains to its legitimacy, not its validity) doesn’t mean it doesn’t confer grace to well disposed recipients.  If you deny Trent, you are a heretic.”[IV]
 
The same conclusion can easily be seen to follow. If grace passes to well disposed recipients, it is not ipso facto always and in every situation a mortal sin, by Sean’s own admission. Then, Fr. Scott is right and the supposed reason for rebellion does not stand.

A Fourth Refutation from theological reason alone without any authority presents itself:

Major: What is in itself a cause of grace being conferred cannot at the same time also be a mortal sin. Minor: But, as admitted by Sean, a valid sacrament administered to Catholics, like Holy Communion at an NOM, is a cause of grace being conferred. Conclusion: Therefore, it is not at the same time always a mortal sin.

I note in passing that every statement of every authority is explained if going to an NOM is a venial sin in some cases, as Rev. Fr. Peter Scott, with sublime theological reasons, explains in precise detail.

I challenge Sean to do two things instead, (1) first, catalog a list of statements which can be unambiguously and clearly marked, “proximate to heresy”, “erroneous in faith” etc. I doubt you will find even one. (2) Second, try to prove in some way these positions (if you could prove them to be at least erroneous in faith) have been imposed upon the lay faithful in any way.  This certainly has not been done. At most what has been shown is that the SSPX leaders made some prudential mistakes.

If Sean wishes to respond to this rejoinder here, he can do so. Matthew can decide if he wants this to go ahead. I may respond further if necessary. At the least, this has started a conversation which imho is important and necessary. But it would ideally be carried on in a different way, and without leading to unnecessary breaks among our Priests. Already, the Resistance has seen further breaks among itself, that can’t be denied. From the fact that Sean himself and many others see no problem in continuing to attend SSPX chapels (and it is good that they do so, but it would be more consistent if they limited themselves to respectfully asking some questions to SSPX authorities) it clearly is not the case that the SSPX is in any way a danger to the Faith of most people. Rather, it continues to build up and edify most of the million odd Catholics who continue to assist at its Holy Masses.

It’s probably best, if Sean wants to go ahead with his challenge here, that it be just him and me on this thread.

Sources, References and Links for Further Reading:

[I ]http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm
[II] https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
[III] https://www.therecusant.com/bishop-williamsons-teaching
[IV] https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/'no-honest-catholic-should-attend-an-sspx-mass'/15/