2) "A deal [with Rome] is what we want."
That this opinion flies squarely in the face of Archbishop Lefebvre's prudential precondition for an accord (i.e., the conversion of modernist Rome back to the Catholic faith) is sufficiently demonstrated above (particularly if you click the links and read the entire interviews, which I spared you in this email, as it will be lengthy enough as is).#1 has already been rebutted.
But what Mr. Johnson confuses here is the desire for an agreement (viz. a principle) and the prudent act of accepting (or not) an agreement. It is obvious that the Society is in an irregular status: owning various properties, sending priests into dioceses without the local ordinary’s approval, the operation of supplied jurisdiction to validate some sacraments etc. Hence a desire for regularisation within the hierarchy must be a principle, but it is prudence that dictates whether any proposal is accepted. "A deal with Rome is what we want” - not at any cost to be sure – but it is what the Society has always wanted in principle, Mr. Johnson simply doesn't understand this.
Mr. Johnson propounds some “super” pre-condition that he (wrongly) attributes to the archbishop. He does not define it in concrete terms; he cannot (for one thing he lacks the competency) we’re just given a fluffy ‘conversion of Rome’. He does not define what a ‘conversion’ is - from what to what - or even the competent authority that will make the judgment. So what we have in reality is not a ‘prudential precondition’ since it undefined and limitless, but a pre-condition which amounts to a principle of no agreement with Rome under any circuмstance; they must join us - just like the Orthodox. This is, essentially, schism. Further, if Rome is not the Catholic Church (as her ‘conversion’ is required) then the refusal of any agreement cannot be a ‘prudential precondition’ since one could never seek an agreement with a false church under any circuмstances, therefore it must be a matter of principle, and yet the Archbishop did make an agreement with this false church.
Mr. Johnson now changes direction and advances the allegation that the Society has changed, but this too is easy to disprove. It has already been shown that the Archbishop was never against a practical accord if the Society could be sufficiently protected:
”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)
And this ‘protection’ was always a corner stone of any agreement. A comment on this very quote before the current round of SSPX/Rome discussion began appeared in the French district monthly publication ‘Notre Dame d’Aquitaine’ (March 2006) which confirms this:
Un accord qui ne suppose aucune concession doctrinale, ni sur la Messe ni sur le Concile, n’est durable qu’avec une véritable protection à Rome et contre les évêques.
Mr. Johnson thinks 2002 to be a good year for Bp. Fellay. Well here is the bishop, or should I say a summary of a conference he gave that year at St Michael's School, England (6 May 2002) and appeared in the SSPX GB District Newsletter (‘Further Negotiations with Rome’, June/July 2002):
His Lordship then summarized the content of his meeting with Cardinal Castrillon on 29 December 2000, during which the Cardinal suggested a personal prelature for the Society (like Opus Dei). Bishop Fellay said that if the Society were to enter into such an arrangement, it would still be obliged to fight against modernism, liberalism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He also raised the recent treatment of the Society of St Peter as a reason for not trusting the Vatican, and its official policy of not attempting to convert the Old Catholics or the Orthodox.
The Bishop also gave an account of his five-minute meeting with the Pope, in which the latter expressed his happiness about the negotiations.
On his return from Rome, Bishop Fellay called a meeting with all the traditional Catholic bishops (including Bishop Rangel). It was decided that the bishops should request the lifting of the (false) excommunication, and permission for all priests, throughout the world to say the old Mass. This would remove the pretence that the old Mass had been abrogated, make it very difficult (if not impossible) to abrogate it in the future and would cause many graces to flow into the Church because of the increased celebration of the old rite. The answer from Rome to this request was that "Basically, the Pope does agree that the old Mass has never been abrogated and that all priests have the right to say it" but the request was refused because some of the older secretaries (of the Curia) "think that it would be an insult to Pope Paul VI and all the work that has been done for the new liturgy."
In this reply, Rome signaled that it was not prepared to defend the old Mass and so, Bishop Fellay decided to suspend further discussions.
…
Despite the breakdown in the discussions with Cardinal Castrillon, Cardinal Ratzinger has invited Bishop Fellay to doctrinal discussions. Although the Bishop felt that these might be more interesting, there would still be the difficulty of using words like 'truth', 'infallibility' and so on, that have come to mean different things for those in today's Vatican.
So there we have it. Over thirteen years ago the same practical agreement was on the table and Bp. Fellay was considering it and the only sticking point was the refusal of Rome to publically acknowledge that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated – he had secured it exclusively for the Society – but he knew that this crisis in the Church is bigger than just the Society; he wanted unrestricted use and access for all clerics and all the faithful. He refused to budge. Bravo Bishop Fellay!
So the same deal was offered in 2002, but where were all the objections then? I dare say a large chuck of those in the Resistance did not attend an SSPX chapel at that time (the editor of ‘The Recusant’ did not), but they believe themselves to be the authority on what the Society and her Superior General wanted and always wanted.
The Society always considered practical agreement put forward by Rome but she could never do this if there existed some super pre-condition; if Rome had agreed to publically state the old Mass had never been abrogated in 2002 there would have likely been an agreement.
This is more than sufficient to rebut Mr. Johnston’s 2nd point.
Topic: Response to an SSPX Priest - by Sean Johnson (Read 15807 times)