The SSPX has changed!

Not only is the SSPX heading for a full merger with the Modernist Rome of Vatican II, but countless changes have already occurred - past tense. The SSPX has already contradicted its former self, and compromised on its former position in many ways. This isn't about what the SSPX might do; it's about what THE SSPX HAS DONE over the past 7 years. Here is a book (almost 400 pages) detailing the evidence to prove this assertion. Relying mostly on official and trusted sources, if this book doesn't convince you that the SSPX has taken a hard U-turn back to Conciliar Modernist Rome, then nothing will!

https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/As-We-Are-101-Compromises-Changes-Contradictions-of-an-SSPX


Here is part 2 of a rebuttal by Sean Johnson.

Here is the intro. For the rest of the rebuttal, download the PDF attached to this post. You have to be a CathInfo member to download/view attachments, but CathInfo membership is A) anonymous and B) free

UPDATE 1/5/16:
You need to scroll down a few posts, to get the updated version of the PDF. There was a mistake/typo in the original version, which Sean corrected.


[That which follows is a substantial excerpt from a much larger, yet-to-be-released work. It has
been extensively edited and reformatted for forum compatibility. It (in combination with an
annotated version of Part I) will also soon be available as a stand-alone professionally published
booklet, at the cost of production. As with all my work, no rights are reserved, and copyright is
expressly waived by the author. Proper attribution, where appropriate, is appreciated.]
Response to an SSPX Priest (Part II):
Damage Control
By
Sean Johnson
1/4/16
INTRODUCTION
Shortly after my article, “Response to an SSPX Priest,” appeared on Cathinfo, it elicited an
anonymous response from one writing under the pseudonym “Henry4.” 1 As was the case with the
anonymous response to my rebuttal of Fr. François Laisney’s letter, “Striking Contrasts,” there is
strong evidence to suggest (though not prove) that “Henry4” was sent to Cathinfo (or was
already monitoring) for the purpose of attempting a rebuttal, and that both rebuttals were the
work of the same person.
What is the evidence that might suggest this?
Firstly, “Henry4,” in his rebuttal, seems to display a familiarity with the French language (as
was the case with the anonymous response to the rebuttal of Fr. Laisney’s letter, in which several
indicators of French heritage/culture are detected), as he produced a quote for comparison from
that language from the French Society journal Fideliter. Certainly, the mere fact of familiarity
with French does not indicate one was sent by another to offer a rebuttal. But let us combine this
interesting fact with the next piece of evidence:
Secondly, “Henry4” had no previous posting history on Cathinfo: His only response/responses
were to my article, and his membership on Cathinfo began only a couple days after my article
posted.
Thirdly, “Henry4” has made no subsequent posts on any other topic in the seven weeks that
have passed since his initial rebuttal. 2
Fourthly, textual criticism also indicates a strong coincidence of opinion between the distorted
interpretation of Bishop Williamson’s June 1, 2014 Post Falls, ID (USA) conference/comment(In which it is erroneously alleged by “Ennemond”/Jacques-Regis du Cray on another forum
that, since Bishop Williamson is allegedly open to a practical accord with Rome, His Excellency
ought not be opposing Bishop Fellay for his openness to the same 3 ), and the same argument
made against my article by “Henry4.”
Fifthly, the same argument against the length of my rebuttal to Fr. Laisney’s letter, “Striking
Contrasts,” is again to be found in “Henry4’s” rebuttal to my article, “Response to an SSPX
Priest” below.
In light of all this, it seems reasonable and probable to conclude that “Henry4” was either already
monitoring Cathinfo for content particularly damaging to the new orientation in Menzingen, or,
that the article was brought to his attention by another for the purpose of eliciting a “damage
control” response.
Lest one find the suggestion outlandish, it should be observed that Fr. Olivier Rioult (USML)
alleges that precisely such a function is already exercised (primarily in the French-speaking
world, but also in the English) by Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray (a former member of GREC).
Writing under various pseudonyms such as “Ennemond” and “Come de Previgny” for venues
like Fecit, Forum Catholique, Credidimus Caritati, Fideliter, La Porte Latine, Rorate Coeli, etc.
Fr. Olivier Rioult writes of him, “He is the voice of his master, the Abbe Lorans,
communications officer of the Fraternity.” 4
More than this, I was personally told by a US District official during a private meeting in the
summer of 2013 that forum threads are sometimes brought to his attention by parishioners, and
in such cases he may follow them if there is reason.
Is “Henry4” Jacques-Regis du Cray (alias “Ennemond,” alias “Come de Previgny”)?
Or, is “Henry4” some other party exercising a similar function?
Who knows?
The question is interesting, as it would speak to motive. But more important than the identity and
motives of “Henry4” are the arguments advanced in his rebuttal.
In order to place the following argument of “Henry4” into proper context, it is first important to
know what precipitated his rebuttal (which will follow below in entirety):
I had been told (verbally) that a rebuttal to my article had appeared on Cathinfo by an
anonymous poster writing under the pseudonym “Henry04” (Note: My mistake in the spelling of
“Henry4’s” pseudonym explains his deliberate misspelling of my name as “Mr. Johnston” in the
response that follows), who was claiming that a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1990 Econe
“Address to Priests” disproved my contention that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to consider a
practical accord after the 1988 consecrations.

Shortly after my article, “Response to an SSPX Priest,” appeared on Cathinfo, it elicited an anonymous response from one writing under the pseudonym “Henry4.”

As was the case with the anonymous response to my rebuttal of Fr. François Laisney’s letter, “Striking Contrasts,” there is strong evidence to suggest (though not prove) that “Henry4” was sent to Cathinfo (or was already monitoring) for the purpose of attempting a rebuttal, and that both rebuttals were the work of the same person.  What is the evidence that might suggest this?  Firstly, “Henry4,” in his rebuttal, seems to display a familiarity with the French language (as was the case with the anonymous response to the rebuttal of Fr. Laisney’s letter, in which several indicators of French heritage/culture are detected), as he produced a quote for comparison from that language from the French Society journal Fideliter.

"Henry4", hmmm?  I wonder if there are records in in the CathInfo database (or its back-ups) docuмenting a "Henry1", "Henry2", and a "Henry3" as past members?  Why "4"?   The chosen nom-de-Internexus reminded me of this person:

Henry IV 
King of France and Navarre, [the Calvinist Protestant[##]] son of Jeanne d'Albret and Antoine de Bourbon, b. 14 December, 1553, in the castle of Pau; d. 14 May, 1610.  He began his military career under [the Calvinist Protestant Admiral de Coligny and, from 1569, played a decisive part in the [French] wars of religion as head of the Protestant party.  By the death of the Duke of Anjou, in 1584, Henry of Bourbon [i.e.: the future Henry IV] became heir-presumptive to the crown of France. [....]   When, on 2 August, 1589, by the death of Henry III, Henry of Bourbon definitively inherited the royal crown, he had on his side the Protestants, the politiques, who belonged mainly to parliamentary and Gallican circles, and finally many Catholics who entreated him to become a member of the Catholic Church; against him he had the Guises and the League supported by Philip II of Spain and Pope Gregory XIV. [....]  Henry IV had declared on several occasions that he would never embrace Catholicism for merely political reasons. "Religion is not changed as easily as a shirt", he wrote in 1583. [....]  Henry IV [...] did not dare, through fear of the [Calvinist Protestant purported] reformers and the parlementaires, to allow the publication of the decrees of the Council of Trent in France.

Fascinant, n'est ce pas?  Taking the name of what I assume was the first Protestant king of  France.  In the period of French history in which the infamous "Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre" occurred in Paris (24 August, 1572), and spread to the French countryside.  Catholic readers should not be surprised that "it has been the subject of knotty historical disputes."[##] 

I offer no speculation on how the above applies to the topic at hand, but the coïncidences are waaay too strong for me to ignore.

-------
Note #: G. Goyau, 1910: "Henry IV".  Cath. Encyc.  <www.newadvent.org/cathen/07225a.htm<.  I deleted original asterisk appended to 1 name above, because that reference-mark has no antecedent in the article.

Note ##: G. Goyau, 1912: "Saint Bartholomew's Day".
Cath. Encyc.   <www.newadvent.org/cathen/13333b.htm<.  Any sensible reader should have no difficulty expecting that the prestigious competing encyclopedia named after the original Anglican island reported this event quite differently to posterity.  Thus an excellent example of when & why a truly Catholic Encyclopedia is valuable--if not outright necessary--for Catholics (a religiously motivated endorsement, not a commercial advertisement).

Sean updated the docuмent; apparently he made a typo of sorts (which made him sound unintentionally heretical!) So here it is:

Sean Johnson is an intelligent writer and I have always enjoyed, and mostly agreed with, his comments and posts. His Response to an SSPX Priest I and II were so complete and succinct a summation of what has happened to undermine the SSPX that I have copied them off. They are especially valuable because it is difficult to remember all of the monkey business that has been going on in the Society. There is one point that has been brought up before, however, that I don't agree with entirely. That is regarding his take on Bishop Tissier's current attitude on an agreement. This quote of Bishop Tissier, "preparing himself" for an eventual agreement, does not necessarily mean that he is going to go along with it. I think we are all preparing ourselves for an eventual deal. And while I have often gotten the impression that many resistors are dying for it to happen, there are many of us who have loved the Society almost from the beginning and who, if a deal is struck, will feel sick and sad because they feel they are being betrayed by an old and most trusted friend of the bosom. No, even worse, by the last remnant of the Church that they clung to in the wake of the disaster that was Vatican II.

Much is made of +Tissier's move from France and his separation from the French priests, but does he not have a telephone, a fax, a computer or simply pen and paper? Are we to believe that his mails are completely monitored and censored? No, I cannot believe that he has been entirely cut off from France and knows nothing. Even Father Hewko and Father Pfeiffer were allowed to visit him. I have not heard that there are armed guard that surround him at the many functions he attends. And what of his wonderful January 1st sermon of last year? He said "we" would never make a deal with Rome. Many interpreted the "we" to mean the SSPX. To me, it just meant he himself and using the "royal" we which is common to bishops. I am fervently hoping that he is actually following in the Archbishop's footsteps by not doing anything until it is absolutely necessary. I don't think that given a choice, even +Williamson would have left of his own accord before he had to.

Lastly, how are we supposed to have confidence that these "impeccable priests" unnamed, or "witnesses" have understood what His Excellency has meant to say? I don't question Sean Johnson's honesty in the least, only his confidence in the reliability of priests at this particular time when so few appear completely reliable. I think for the time being, we should judge Bishop Tissier by the rules laid out by Sean Johnson himself. We were not there when he supposedly said what he is quoted as saying and we have heard with our own ears what he said in his January 1st sermon and which is consistent with what he has been saying for the last several decades. So for me, I will wait and pray very hard for him, for all of the present and former Society priests and for all of us.  

Here is the latest version of the docuмent (from Sean).

I'm not going to remove the old version this time.

So now Mr. Johnson moves into top gear: why write a single sentence when you can write a dozen paragraphs? I’m not sure why he feels the need for this unless he thinks there’s a relationship between an intelligence quotient and a word count or an inane belief that a longer response is a stronger response. He would do well to practice less is more.

But the fact that he can’t nail his argument in a few succinct sentences and needs twenty odd pages to address what is essentially two sentences uttered by the archbishop is enough to tell any reader the man is trying to imbue a false understanding. The quote and its context is, like the author of it, rock solid which explains his protracted work in an irrational and futile attempt to dislodge it.

It is rather telling that Mr. Johnson begins by trying to ascertain my identity. Why? Is his argument so weak that he needs to advance some guilt by association fallacy or other ulterior motive? Further, yes I did spell his surname incorrectly on a number of occasions, however it was spelt correctly at least five times – once correctly and incorrectly in the same paragraph – yet Mr. Johnson immediately throws the accusation of deliberately misspelling, in other words, of deliberately insulting him. Could it not simply have been the failure to proofread since there are other misspellings (and grammatical errors) too? Mr. Johnson’s default position appears to be one of bad faith.

Well, his new line of attack is derived from an SSPX article How to Interpret Archbishop Lefebvre which itself is taken from a book by Fr. Celier. The charge now is that: (1) the quote is out of context; (2) the author’s thoughts have evolved; (3) the quote is incoherent with the author’s other writings.

This amounts to a complete surrender by Mr. Johnson of his previous line of argument and an admission that the Archbishop’s words must be taken as read.[1] He doesn’t event attempt a defence (he can’t for one thing) but rather than admitting to error Mr. Johnson now chooses a new tactic: to endeavour to show the quote needs to be disregarded. And how does Mr. Johnson intend to do this? By (wrongly) applying a method advocated by an SSPX priest he had previously accused of being a modernist precisely for suggesting one ought to use this method to interpret Archbishop Lefebvre![2] Yet another position abandoned by Mr. Johnson! Still, one must be grateful for small mercies.

So back to the novel at hand. The rebuttal is straightforward. Despite its length Mr. Johnson’s protracted paper has few relevant objections, but I’ll answer them together with many of the irrelevant ones. I’ll matchup with his section headings and will keep it short; it won’t need converting to a PDF.


#1. Context. Mr. Johnson simply doesn’t understand context. The context Fr. Celier is referring to are the conditions and circuмstances that surround some event.[3] Hence an off the cuff or throw away comment (“If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! …”) and an official letter (“Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol …”) do not have the same weight and giving undue weight to the former leads to a false understanding (e.g. of what occur on 6th May 1988). This is what is meant by putting a quote in its context.[4]

The fact that Mr. Johnson falls at the first hurdle with such a glaring howler immediately leads one to suspect his competency. Has he ever written an academic paper, thesis or dissertation? Has he ever undergone training in reading and discerning like most academic institutions provide their graduates before they embark on their research degrees? Being able to read and discern something or someone, to understanding primary sources, secondary sources, patterns, exceptions, due-weight, authorities, context - and when to use them all - are useful skills; I would suggest Mr. Johnson learn them.

The context of the quote, then, is a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre to priests at the Seminary in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990 (i.e. over two years after the consecrations).

The conference concerned the future of the Society and focused on questions [5] which the laity may ask the priests about what is happening in the Society, particularly with regards to relations with Rome [6]. It is not as Mr. Johnson falsely claims “Whether relations with Rome are ended.”; he has misread the source.

What Mr. Johnson has done is iterate through the content in an attempt to advance and promote a (false) context. This is pretty shoddy work, Mr. Johnson. I digress, but if you’d have done this in a research degree the committee would have torn it to shreds, in fact your mentor wouldn’t let it get that far; I’m afraid your competency is in tatters. Really can you name one philosopher of language who this context is derived from content? The mind boggles.

In view of Mr. Johnson’s folly little else really needs to be said on this section but I will address a couple of other points:

It is extraordinary that when Mr. Johnson’s screed finally reaches the quote in question there is an attempt to show it’s taken out of context (a legitimate technique)[7] but not realizing this he consigns the argument to a footnote (#15) when such an argument should be in the main body of the docuмent. Things such as this only confirm his lack of competence. But anyway I’ll address it; this is the preceding (and following) text:

What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place!  "Et omnia restituet"  - "and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.
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. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want.

Mr. Johnson claims “ Neither do the last words “at the moment” give Henry4’s contention any wiggle room. Henry4’s contention is that, in the quote which immediately follows, it evinces that, at this time, Archbishop Lefebvre was open to considering an hypothetical accord. But the quote I have just provided above in this footnote says the exact opposite. Can one interpret the words “there is no chance of a practical accord” as evincing an openness to the same?” (Answer: Yes. Because he knew why, at that time, it would be impossible for Rome to make such an offer and he gives the reason in the following nine sentences - which are conveniently ignored).

Any reading of this text can only yield this understanding: The archbishop is uncertain about the future and barring a miracle there is no chance of an agreement at present but he is not opposed in principle to the possibility of an agreement in a more favorable future. He then follows up with another question (“But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops’ jurisdiction?”) and he answers it: first noting that Rome were far from doing such a thing, but if they did, he would consider it. He then goes on to explain why they won’t: Rome do not want the creation of a Traditionalist Fortress with bishops (Mr. Johnson ignores this). Note the Archbishop not only answers the question but spends the next nine sentences explaining why Rome won’t offer such an agreement.
 
Finally Mr. Johnson suggests that I sense insufficiency in the quote and so need to find another post-1988 corroborating quotation (“I would indeed have signed a definitive accord after signing the protocol if we had had the possibility of protection from the modernism of Rome.”). This is false on both counts. The whole purpose of using it (viz. context) was to show that “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.” In other words I preempted any puerile line of argument from Mr. Johnson that the Archbishop hadn’t sufficiently understood or given enough consideration to the question (hence the fact that the quote is post-1988 is immaterial).
 
But even so, Mr. Johnson’s line that Archbishop Lefebvre was purely reminiscing and had no bearing on what he thought at that time is doubtful to say the least. The interview took place less than six months after the consecrations (December 1988) a low point in relations with Rome and yet no hint that he would no longer consider such a proposition. On the contrary, the common understanding of this quote is that he would: Fr. Celier thinks so – or does Mr. Johnson not think he practices what he preaches in regard to reading the Archbishop?[12] I even provided a quote from a French District publication of March 2006 [12] (i.e. before the current round of discussions) to show that understanding. And as Mr. Johnson readily accepts quotes of Fr. Rioult, here is his understanding of that quote, “… even after June 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre has not renounced the possibility of a practical agreement with Rome provided certain safeguards to protect tradition are met.”[13]


#2. Evolution. Mr. Johnson is really quite disingenuous to suggest I do not accept that the Archbishop’s thought could evolve over time and as circuмstances changed; in fact that is one of the (unjust) criticisms the Resistance level against those who hold such a view. What Mr. Johnson doesn’t grasp is that these interpretive criteria are not mutually exclusive, rather they work together to give an authentic interpretation rather than pitting one against the other.  

Conveniently Mr. Johnson omits a fourth criterion of Fr. Celier: In the intellectual order, one can rather conveniently classify minds as being either “systematic” or “pragmatic” (without any pejorative sense in either case). … [Archbishop Lefebvre] belongs without a doubt in the category of “pragmatic minds …”

It’s easy to find examples of the Archbishop’s pragmatism:
1) The 1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre – Yet, rather than provoking Rome and to avoid confrontation he downplays it (almost to the point of a complete retraction) when questioned about it: “I recognise that my ‘ declaration’ is an exaggeration ...” and “I wrote them in a moment of indignation provoked by what the Visitors had said.”[11]
2) In July 1987 Archbishop Lefebvre said to Cardinal Ratzinger, “Eminence, even if you give us everything–a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries–we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them” – Yet, he spend the next ten months working with Rome to come to an agreement.
3) "The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs ..."[12] – Yet, the Archbishop came to an agreement with these anti-Christs and signed the May 5th Protocol. How could one in conscience sign a deal with anti-Christs, but he did.
4) "It's over. The talks between Rome and ourselves are over."[13] – Yet on the eve on the consecrations he said, "I would postpone the consecrations until the day that Rome selected if they would give me permission today to consecrate."[14]
5) “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 to talk.” – Yet when asked what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction? he answers: “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 Mr. Johnson sets up a straw-man fallacy; I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think the Society’s relations with Rome changed after the consecrations. But he would have everyone believe that the Archbishop’s position evolved into an absolute one; one that would be fixed and unalterable and binding on future Superior Generals. Such a position would have been profound for the Society, yet was never explicitly expressed by the Archbishop, or promulgated by the Superior General or written into the Society’s statutes, no it all has to be inferred from a few comments. This simply isn’t rational and goes completely against the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre to bind himself (and his successors) to a priori prudential judgments about circuмstances the details of which could not be known ahead of time – which by definition would not be a prudential judgment at all.

There is an adage which is relevant here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary references . In other words the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded and Mr. Johnson’s quotes simply don’t make the grade. As an example “I think I can say that I went even further than I should have.” simply reads as the Archbishop in retrospect place too much good faith on the part of Rome and may be ought to have called of discussions earlier; there’s nothing explicit here about no agreement until Rome’s conversion and making it binding on the Archbishop’s successors.


#3. Coherent. This mountains of quotes from the Archbishop post-1988 right up until his death line of Mr. Johnston is ridiculous. The reality is this: After the consecrations the Archbishop retired. He appeared very little in public, and a little over two and a half years later was called to his eternal reward. This so called ‘mountain’ consists of a few select quotes from a mere five sources.[15]  

The fact that Mr. Johnson focuses on a few select quotes (which don’t actually say what he wants them to say) and ignores all the other works of the Archbishop is itself demonstrates a failure to accord a personal intention to be intellectually coherent. Coupled with the fact that he also excludes Fr. Celier’s fourth criterion of Fr. Celier (the intellectual order) and a comprehension of context that is an utter fiasco he seeks to create an artificial and misleading hypothetical reconstruction of what Archbishop Lefebvre would have done today if he had still been alive.

Notice also that Mr. Johnson does explain the quote, he just happily states it’s out of tune. Doesn’t give reason why the Archbishop mentioned the question, or why he gave such an answer, or why he goes on to discuss why Rome would do such a thing. He can’t even suggest it was off the cuff; I’ve already blocked that avenue. No we’ve all got to forget about it and pretend the words were never uttered.


Bishop Williamson quotes
As if we needed another example, Mr. Johnson’s displays yet more ineptitude in his understanding of context. He takes both quotes of Bishop Williamson, bundles them together and claims:

The argument being made by supplying these quotes is that they allegedly demonstrate that, just as Archbishop Lefebvre was open to considering a practical accord with unconverted Rome in 1990 (i.e., after 1988), so too is Bishop Williamson open to considering a practical accord in 2014.

This is completely false. The first quote, used in my rebuttal to him (which was referenced), is Bishop Williamson giving his understanding of the Archbishop’s quote, i.e. providing an authoritative secondary source to show a correct understanding of a primary source – Mr. Johnson doesn’t grasp this but it’s pretty basic stuff in scholarly writing. The second quote, in response to ‘1st Mansion Tenant’, was my understanding of a primary source (Bp. Williamson) and concluded that he was still willing to deal with Rome.

The two quotes are not the same in either context or content. This renders Mr. Johnson’s stretched out spiel on Bp. Williamson’s quotes meaningless, but I’ll make a couple of points:

The first quote can be watched and listened to here: (2’58” – 3’18”) and Bp. Williamson upholds the common understanding of the Archbishop’s quote:

In other words, what if Rome offered you a sweetie-pie solution? Answer: firstly, the Romans are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer, then we’ll think about it.

Nothing more needs to be said on this; it speaks for itself.

The common understanding of the second quote of Bishop Williamson (whether by DICI, Sedevacantists, posters on CathInfo, or other ‘Trad Fora’ [16]) was that he was willing to deal with Rome if the Pope asked something of him. Contextually speaking His Excellency is indicating that a hypothetical conversion hadn't taken place. When you have to ask somebody to guarantee something with their signature it is a tacit suggestion that there is the potential for deception, and also indicates a position of vulnerability on the behalf of the individual who requests signed guarantees.

But, as Fr. Pfeiffer noted, he always leaves himself an escape route and if that’s what Bp. Williamson intended, fine, but it only leave one starring at the elephant in the room: If the Roman Pontiff asked something of him (and it wasn’t a ‘political trap’ or a danger to the faith for that matter – and how could starting seminary be a danger) would he obey? If he answers “yes” then Q.E.D. If he answers “No” then how does he differ from a Sedevacanist? In fact I would suggest such a position is worse. Theological opinion is divided over whether a Sedevacanist is schismatic; subjectively they believe Francis is not the pope and consequently behave as if there is no pope. But to believe Francis is pope and yet behave as if there is no pope, where does that leave one?


Bishop Tissier de Mallerais quotes
I think it funny that Mr. Johnson in a failure to read and understand a given source makes more work for himself. Hence, his disregard of “Fideliter #66” (November/December 1988), one that he references in his docuмent (so he knows about it), results in yet another page of irrelevance.

Finally we come to the ad hominem fallacy against Bishop Tissier de Mallerais section. An official biography is one written with the help of the subject or with the support of the subject’s family. The author has access to private papers, has agreement from the subject’s family members, and, in this case, permission from the subject’s estate (viz. SSPX). This is an authorised biography even if the Archbishop didn’t explicitly give approval. I suggest Mr. Johnson research the term, but I completely understand his reason for wanting to downplay it, as an authorised biography it has weight.

In addition to the alleged statement to Fr. Jean, OFM (11th September 2013) I also provided another statement from Bp. Tissier de Mallerais which was published. [17] Here it is in its entirety:

If Archbishop Lefebvre was above all a man of faith and wisdom, he possessed a healthy dose of pragmatism, as Fr. Aulagnier so well discerned in his Tradition without Fear. Out of natural sagacity and a supernatural disposition to follow the ways of Providence, Archbishop Lefebvre always sought to take advantage of favorable occasions to renew the connection with Rome and obtain the return of our canonical approbation. Father did not fully understand our founder’s pragmatism. What he might have added, is that this pragmatism always failed in the face of conciliar Rome.

So, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais acknowledges Archbishop Lefebvre’s pragmatism just Like Fr. Celier mentioned in his #4 criterion:

… he was in the first place a man of action, rather than an armchair “intellectual”. He belongs without a doubt in the category of “pragmatic minds” …

Again Mr. Johnson shows ignorance in differentiating primary and secondary sources, context, and is being intellectually dishonest towards Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. In the Rivarol interview the bishop states “Abp. Lefebvre said since 1984: "one does not place oneself under an authority when that authority has all the powers to demolish us." And I believe that that is wise.” Yet he knows four years later the Archbishop did try to place himself under an authority. In other words, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, being a ‘systematic’, believes this project of "officialization" of the SSPX leaves [him] indifferent. We have no need of it, and the Church has no need of it and that the irregularity [of the SSPX] is not ours, yet he acknowledges the pragmatism of the Archbishop even if that pragmatism always failed in the face of conciliar Rome.

The fact that Bp. Tissier de Mallerais may personally be against this pragmatic approach with Rome it has no bearing on his judgment on what the Archbishop would do. This is just more fallacious reasoning on the part of Mr. Johnson. Further the bishop knows that we [SSPX bishops] have no “leading role” in the Society, per se, we simply submit to the Superior General. It is the Superior General role to deal with Rome.

To have one SSPX bishop stationed in the Americas is not unusual; there has been one since the consecrations (until expelled in 2009). It just happens to be that Bp. de Galarreta doesn’t speak English.


Conclusion
There are many things that are still objectionable and false in Mr. Johnson’s article. For example, that Bishop Williamson’s apparent opposition to a practical accord in 2001 prevented one, when in fact, he himself acknowledges the reason was Rome’s refusal to liberate the Tridentine Mass.[18] I could go on but these are side issues and this is already too long.

Simply put, Mr. Johnson does not understand context. He has misapplied Fr. Celier’s method (which actually aren’t his but standard principles when reading a source) which, I think, is due to his inexperience in writing scholarly articles. He has also demonstrated a lack of understanding in referencing (primary and secondary sources) and inability to read a source dispassionately – he (or anyone else), can prove this to himself: find a person well versed in writing scholarly articles and unconnected with tradition, and ask for his reading of the quote. I guarantee they’ll say the same thing very unlikely but if Rome made such an offer the Archbishop would be willing to consider it.

In the end, Mr. Johnson runs away from the quotation of the Archbishop; he’s scared of it. His only line now is it’s out of tune so dust it under the carpet because the reality is too much to bear. This is a known condition: cognitive dissonance theory.[19] As I wrote in the beginning “the quote and its context is, like the author of it, rock solid” and Mr. Johnson, through all his reams of rhetoric hasn’t moved it one bit.



[1] Mr. Johnson’s previous rebuttal contented that the exclamation mark noted incredulity and the words “Well first” denoted contempt and dismissal.
[2] http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19062&min=4&num=3
[3] See http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/context #1
[4] Fr. Celier wrote: It is methodologically sound to begin by situating each text in its context. A private letter in which a lack of restraint and freedom of expression prevail must not be judged with the same criteria as an official communication to someone in authority. A sermon given right after a dramatic event cannot possibly have the same tone as a speech given several years after the event. A text that has been reworked for publication is different from a sketch in which the ideas are tossed off hastily, etc.
[5] Questions such as: Are relations with Rome broken off? Is it all over? When will the crisis come to an end? Are we getting anywhere? Isn't there a way of getting permission for our liturgy, for our sacraments? It's a pity we are divided why not meet up with them? But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?[/u]
[6] Concerning the future, I would like to say a few words on questions which the laity may ask you, questions which I often get asked by people who do not know too much about what is happening in the Society, such as, "Are relations with Rome broken off? Is it all over?
[7] See http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/context #2
[8] http://catholicapedia.net/Docuмents/cahier-saint-charlemagne/docuмents/C1022_Celier-mai-2008+LHR_32p.pdf
[9] http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/gironde/bulletin/ndaquit9.pdf
[10] http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/2091
[11] Examination by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, March 3, 1975
[12] Archbishop Lefebvre: Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987
[13] Archbishop Lefebvre: Recommendations to the 4 bishops-elect, June 12, 1988
[14] Archbishop Lefebvre on the eve of the consecrations: Marcel Lefebvre, Tissier de Mallerais, 2004
[15] Fideliter issues: November-December 1988, July-August 1989 & January-February 1991, Econe Conference, Switzerland on September 6, 1990 and Spiritual Journey, 1989
[16] For example, see http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1666, http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=7477.0, http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quo-vadis-Resistentia
[17]http://laportelatine.org/district/ecoles/activitesecoles/ecoleStJoseph/seignadou/Seignadou2014_03.pdf
[18] http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/update-and-history-of-sspx-contact-with.html
[19] See http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/01/cognitive-dissonance.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

So, six months later and there is still no response from Mr. Johnson. The silence is deafening. And, of course, there won’t be a response; his hope lies in the belief that readers have short memories and will have forgotten his glaring and embarrassing howler.

Mr. Johnson would have to turn a whole branch of language philosophy on its head with his ‘context is derived from content’ parody and proceed to destroy one by one the works of language philosophers like Reichenbach and Kapan. He simply doesn’t have the skill or competency to even begin such a task and, of course, he would be kicked off even the most elementary philosophy course if ever tried to propound his crass “theory”.

What are we to make of all this? The answer is simple. Mr. Johnson realizes his error and consequently his failure to spin a false understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words. The words must be taken as read.

Now, if Mr. Johnson was true to his chosen avatar on another forum – one that carries the word ‘veritas’ – and his claim to be a Dominican, the same order as St. Thomas Aquinas, then he should have no problem admitting his error and seek to correct it. But he will not. His hope is for it to slip under the radar and have it go unnoticed. Why? Because he knows the ramifications: If the Archbishop in a conference to his priests two years after the consecrations answered one of the questions regarding a deal with Rome with let them first make us such an offer! then it is clear that the Archbishop was willing to at least consider an agreement with Rome if favourable conditions presented themselves, and consequently this ‘validates’ Bishop Fellay’s dealings with Rome. And, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais noted late last year:

Archbishop Lefebvre has never posed as a condition of recognition by our new Rome, Rome abandons errors and conciliar reforms. Even if he said something like that to Andre Cagnon in 1990, he never would have done, because it had never been its policy, strategy with modernist Rome.

Case closed, Mr. Johnson.