Sean wrote in with a response to Henry04's rebuttal:


It was brought to my attention that someone posting as "Henry04" claimed to rebut two items in my article:
 
Firstly, it is claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre's 1990 comments (during his address to priests at Econe) disprove my contention that the Archbishop changed his prudential precondition for the acceptance of a practical accord after the 1988 episcopal consecrations, to the conversion of Rome.
 
Secondly, it is claimed that it would be impossible (or at least too vague a criteria) to know of what any such "conversion of Rome" would consist.
 
I would like to offer a couple comments on these rebuttals:
 
1) Firstly, I find the "blind spots" quite interesting, as the entire article Henry04 quotes from stands as a giant-sized indictment of Bishop Fellay's current orientation, highlighting the blatant contradictions in policy between Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen.  One would have thought that this article would have been avoided like the plague, by one trying to demonstrate a consistency between the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen.  
 
I encourage all CI readers to read it in entirety here: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm
 
2) Secondly, regarding the following quote from this article which Henry04 thinks refutes my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to entertain a practical accord after 1988 (and which he also cites Bishop Williamson as supporting):
 
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so."
 
Incidentally, Fr. Daniel Themann offered this same rebuttal in private correspondence a couple years ago.
 
Comments:
 
A) Archbishop Lefebvre is clearly dismissive of the idea.  Note the incredulity regarding the suggestion, indicated by the exclamation mark after the words, "let them first make us such an offer!"  
 
B) In other words, the Archbishop is not indicating his openness to the possibility (however far-fetched it seemed at the time), but rather expressing his astonishment, contempt, and dismissal of the idea (i.e., "Well first...).
 
C) The correctness of this interpretation is corroborated not only by the 1988 and 1991 Fideliter quotes provided in the original post, but also from quotes within this very address Henry04 is quoting from:
 
In all three accounts, the Archbishop makes it plain there can be no deal with unconverted Rome (Including this one from the article cited):
 
"I received a few weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, yet another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi:
 
'Well Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way [i.e., practical accord]?  I replied, 'You must change, come back to Tradition.  It is not a question of the liturgy, it is a question of the Faith.'"
 
So much for Archbishop Lefebvre's alleged willingness to accept a practical accord in 1990.
 
3) Regarding Henry04's second objection (i.e., that it is not possible to judge when Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently to declare that Rome has converted):
 
Firstly, perhaps unwittingly, Henry04 is indicting Archbishop Lefebvre with imprudence for having set a benchmark or standard which can never be measured or ascertained.
 
Secondly, in all three articles (i.e., The two Fideliter articles from the original past, as well as the article cited above, which Henry04 is citing from), it is pretty clear that in Archbishop Lefebvre's estimation, the conversion of Rome entails it's movement away from the doctrines of Vatican II.
 
For example, in the 1988 Fideliter interview:
 
"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.”
 
And again in the 1991 Fideliter interview:
 
"All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy."
 
And finally, in the 1990 Address to Priests cited by Henry04:
 
"Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point.
 
 and a couple sentences later:
 
"We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." (Citation above)
 
Therefore, for Henry04 to attempt to introduce some kind of vaguery into the question as to what constitutes "the conversion of Rome" strikes me a disingenuous, in light of the consistent post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre:
 
When Rome corrects Vatican II in light of tradition (and not according to the bogus hermeneutic of continuity), Rome will have converted.
 
This was the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre, per the quotes and articles above.
 
So why is Menzingen departing from this path?  
 
Because they have lost supernatural faith in the eventual restoration of the Church.  This is what lies beneath all the shenanigans, and their working toward a practical accord (or more likely, a so-called "unilateral recognition" after sufficient compromise has assured Rome of the SSPX's new found harmlessness).  
 
But in pushing the pace ahead of Providence (which only 3 1/2 years ago rejected the last attempt at a naturalist solution), a chastisement of tradition, rather than a new springtime, will be the result.
 

Unfortunately Mr. Johnson writes much but addresses very little, I would suggest the "blind spots" are with him.

1) What he fails to see is this absolute pre-condition, that is, to refuse a priori any agreement with Rome, it matters not one bit how many quotes he can provide, rather, all that is required is for me provide one, single contrary quote to demonstrate the this absolute pre-condition of the Archbishop he advances is false. I have such a quote and he knows it. Further, he sets a straw-man fallacy, I never wrote the Archbishop was willing to accept a practical accord in 1990, only that he was willing to consider the hypothetical one presented to him.

What Mr. Johnson also fails to grasp is that the more quotes he produces, the stronger mine becomes since it is against this back-drop of quotes that the question was asked. In other words the seemingly unyielding comments of the Archbishop led to the question the subtext of which is your excellency, are you really saying you will not come to an agreement with Rome under any circuмstances.

It is worth pausing here to consider another quote of the Archbishop made 18 months earlier:

”I would have indeed signed a definitive accord after signing the protocol if we had had the possibility of protecting ourselves effectively against the modernism of Rome." (Fideliter 68, March 1989)

So the Archbishop had previously considered the possibility of an agreement if there was sufficient protection for the Society (viz. local Bishops etc.) and therefore understood the question being asked. The Archbishop answered the question “let them first make us such an offer!” – he would consider it, a comment he could not have made if the pre-condition was absolute. Now the mere fact that he gives reasons why Rome wouldn’t do it has no bearing on the matter, rather, the fact that he was willing to consider it amply demonstrates that the alleged pre-condition is not absolute. Case closed Mr. Johnston.

Perhaps Mr. Johnson would prefer to examine the original French text that has no exclamation mark: “On me disait hier : « Si Rome acceptait vos évêques et que vous soyez complètement exempt de la juridiction des évêques… » D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.”. The text will simply not stand the translation Mr. Johnston wants to give it.

Suffice to say that the Archbishop clearly entertained the idea and Mr. Johnson’s ‘interpretation’ cannot be sustained. The correct understanding is that given by Bp. Williamson “let them first make us such an offer, then we’ll think about it.”

Furthermore, one must ask would the Archbishop really have painted himself into a corner with no room to manoeuvre? It really would have gone against all his diplomatic instinct and experience. In any event his biographer, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, didn’t think so:

Archbishop Lefebvre always sought to take advantage of favorable occasions to renew the connection with Rome and obtain the return of our canonical approbation. (Letter from January 6, 2014)

Plus there is the alleged conversation between Bp. Tissier de Mallerais and Father Jean, OFMC:

I remind Bishop Tissier that in Fideliter n°66 Archbishop Lefebvre had said: “I will set out my conditions, etc”. And Bishop Tissier answered me, I have his letter dated 11th September 2013, “He did say it, but he would not have done it”.

What Mr. Johnston wants everyone to believe is that this absolute pre-condition, which would have been incredibly profound for the Society, was never explicitly expressed by the Archbishop, or promulgated by the Superior General or written into the Society’s statues, but has to be inferred from a few docuмents while ignoring all the rest of the Archbishop’s works. This simply isn’t rational.

2) I’m not sure why Mr. Johnston considers my final paragraph as a second objection i.e. not possible to judge when Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently to declare that Rome has converted. What I wrote was this “I would ask the conversion from what to what, how is it to be judged and by whom? What are the concrete steps you want to see executed?” I did not suggest it was not possible to ‘judge’. I asked specific questions which Mr. Johnston avoided answering.

Mr. Johnston did write the following “When Rome corrects Vatican II in light of tradition”. Well OK, but how and by whom? Allow me to elaborate.

One of the comments in this thread suggests the repeal of Vatican II by the Pope. Neil Obstat claims “The Pope could do this…”. Playing devils-advocate I’ll say that Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council, legally convened, with deliberations, votes, and declarations. I claim the Pope does not have the power to repeal a Council (I’m sure everyone here would make a similar claim if Pope Francis attempted to repeal Trent). If there’s a claim that it was only a pastoral Council, I reply with it still reaffirmed existing dogmas.

So this is what I’m looking for Mr. Johnston. The practical steps that Rome will have to go through in order for you to judge that they have ‘converted’. Start with the Council docuмents, then the N.O. Mass, N.O. saints etc., what does Rome need to do? And given Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided, what various opinions are/are not deemed acceptable, who gets to judge? And you need to be careful or you could be requesting things (like the example in the previous paragraph) that my not be possible.

A final note, Mr. Johnston writes “Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently”. This implies a complete conversion is not required for an agreement, only a ‘sufficient’ conversion is required. How is this to be measured?

A final note, Mr. Johnston writes “Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently”. This implies a complete conversion is not required for an agreement, only a ‘sufficient’ conversion is required. How is this to be measured?

I believe if you analyze +Lefebvre's actions and quotes at the time of the 1988 Protocol negotiation and the episcopal consecrations, you can determine that he had a simple test. That being, if Rome grants the SSPX Bishops, that would be sufficient to determine that She was Catholic enough.  On the eve of the consecrations, according to +Tissier, he stated that he would immediately postpone the consecrations if a signed guarantee of an August '88 consecration from the Pope arrived.

Then again, when asked about his rebuke of the French Monastery for accepting a Protocol identical to his, his reply was that it was not the same in that they were not guaranteed a bishop.

Hey Henry, let's keep it simple.  is the soup no longer poisoned?

Hey Henry, let's keep it simple.  is the soup no longer poisoned?

There's more poison than ever. What do you propose to do?

Quote from: wallflower

If I follow you Henry, your argument is that no matter how many times ABL said he had realized that a purely practical agreement with unconverted Rome was not an option, that isn't what he really meant? The lack of an exclamation point in French print proves that? So all the priests and faithful who have cut their teeth on this principle for the past two decades were merely mistaken?

Do you realize that even if he had said and meant "let them make us such an offer and we will think about it" it STILL =/= "let's make this and that change to be more palatable so then they will make us such an offer"?

Why do you think ABL knew they would never make such an offer while +Fellay and others think/believe/hope/pray/prepare for the possibility? Because Rome has changed? Because the Society has changed.

Wallflower, no you do not follow me. This is not about Archbishop Lefebvre actually coming to an agreement with Rome, but whether or not he would have considered the one posed by the questioner (a hypothetical one). The very act of considering one – irrespective of whether or not it is dismissed – renders Mr. Johnson’s absolute pre-condition false. That is all.

Ok that I understand. I guess I still don't see the finality of such an argument but thanks for clarifying.

.

Something rather prominent is being ignored in this exchange.  It was ABL's great concern, and what literature scholars call "conflict", that his resistance to the errors of Vat.II and the wayward path of Newchurch could become a real basis for him and his Society to be in schism.  He wanted no part of schism.  Nor did he want his Society to appear as a Parallel Church.  This latter motive is why he didn't want the Superior General to be a bishop -- because it could make the Society appear to have a pope-replacement figure at the helm. (So what of +Fellay:  he effectively avoided this problem by steering the Society toward Newrome thus avoiding the appearance of opposition and "Parallel Church!")

In order to avoid accusation of Parallel Church! and Schism!! ABL said certain things at certain times that may have seemed a bit out of place, and in retrospect might be taken to mean that he was some way in favor of the new Rome (post Vat.II).

ABL had a lot of forces pulling at him, and the path he took was his best shot at holding fast to the Traditions that he had received, while facing an unprecedented crisis in the Church.  He recognized the problem that Vat.II was and there can be little doubt that he wanted to do something about that, but since he was not Pope and he did not have the support of other bishops, what could he do against the monster Vatican II?

It seems he did what he thought was the most prudent thing, which was to raise up new priests who would be trained to carry on the tradition ABL had received, so as to weather the great storm, for if he had attempted to do battle directly with the monster Vat.II, there was a risk of failure, a risk he was not willing to take.  It would seem that his years of continual prayer gave him the fortitude to do what he did, but not the power and zeal it would have required to overturn the monster Vat.II.

There were priests who attempted to encourage him to do battle directly with Vat.II and for whatever reason he declined.  But there remains solid proof of how weak the foundation under this false council always has been, and it seems to me it's just a matter of time before the winds and rains come to wash away that foundation of sand under the false council, and great shall be the fall thereof.

One of the comments in this thread suggests the repeal of Vatican II by the Pope. Neil Obstat claims “The Pope could do this…”. Playing devils-advocate I’ll say that Vatican II was a valid Ecuмenical Council, legally convened, with deliberations, votes, and declarations. I claim the Pope does not have the power to repeal a Council (I’m sure everyone here would make a similar claim if Pope Francis attempted to repeal Trent). If there’s a claim that it was only a pastoral Council, I reply with it still reaffirmed existing dogmas.

We have had exactly 20 unequivocally valid Ecuмenical Councils of the Church before 1962, ALL of which had key components in common.  Trent is one of those and it is just as solid as any of the other 19.

The same cannot be said of Vatican II.

Now, a Council is not a Sacrament.  However, in regards to sacraments, there are three things that must be true for the sacrament to be valid:  1) Form  2) Matter and 3) Intention.  If any one of those is not present, the sacrament is invalid and does not confer sanctifying grace.  That is to say, it does not enjoy the protection of the Holy Ghost.  

Set aside 1) and 2) for a moment and consider 3) Intention.  If you have a Mass where everything appears fine, the candles are lit and the linens are white and the altar boys kneel in reverence while the Priest raises the host, and so on -- if the Priest does NOT intend to do what the Church does in the Consecration and has no intention whatsoever to confect transubstantiation of the Eucharist, the effect will be that no Sacrament takes place, and all the faithful who line up for Holy Communion will in fact receive a wafer of bread but not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.  Whatever graces they receive via their good will and desire is another topic, but they receive objectively nothing from the host that is placed on their tongues, other than the physical nutrients of the wafer's ingredients, wheat flour and water.

While an Ecuмenical Council is not a sacrament, still, it comes to the Church as a most prominent reality the purpose of which, like a sacrament, is to confer grace to Holy Mother Church and the faithful therein.  The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls, and both the Sacraments and the true Councils must be directed toward that end.  Anything called "a sacrament" that is implemented and designed so as to take away salvation from souls is not a true Sacrament and any Council that does so is not a true Council.  

There is more but this post is already too long.

.

Playing messenger boy some more.


Greetings Fr. Xxxxxxx-
 
Hope all is well with you.
 
I recognized your arguments instantly from our private correspondences of 2013.
 
As I am not able to view Cathinfo directly, I am hoping you can send me your rebuttals personally.
 
I'm sure you still have the address?
 
If not, I still have yours.
 
In any case, if you send them, I will be sure to address them in my book (notice of which will be released in the next 5-10 days on this website).
 
Semper Idem,
 
Sean Johnson

Is it Fr. Laisney?  That was my first instinct when I read the rebuttal.