Author Topic: Response to an SSPX Priest - by Sean Johnson (Read 15847 times)

Ekim · « **Reply #35 on:** November 24, 2015, 05:36:13 PM »

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

Henry4 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 24, 2015, 05:48:29 PM »

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.

Henry4 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 24, 2015, 05:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

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?

Henry4 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 24, 2015, 05:55:59 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Quote from: Henry4

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?

Well, to begin with they could stop participating in pro-homo events and fumigate the 'lavender mafia'. That would be an impressive starting point, I think.

Do you actually believe there has been any improvement in Rome since ABL made their conversion a necessary condition of rapprochement?

Has there been a time in the history of the Church where there has been no scandal? I came across a quote from Bp. Williamson which I think apt: "If, by some miracle, Pope Francis rang me up next week and said: “Your Excellency, you and I have had our divergences, but right now I am authorizing you to found a society. You go right ahead for the good of the Church." "Holy Father, can I have that in writing? Do you mind if I come to Rome and get that with your signature?" "Yes, of course." "Allright, then I’d be on the next plane to Rome. I’d be on the next plane to Rome!"

So if Bp. Williamson is still willing to deal with Pope Francis, that's fine by me too.

wallflower · « **Reply #39 on:** November 24, 2015, 06:02:12 PM »

Quote from: Henry4

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.