Quote from: John_Lane

The Resistance priests are, of course, instructing their laity to cease assisting at Mass at SSPX chapels. So, what we have here is a pungent example of hypocrisy.

A good point that not many wish to tackle.

Again, less than perfectly accurate.

If you're going to place the statements of a particular Resistance priest above the others, you'd only perhaps be reasonable in selecting statements from Bp Williamson.

For the record, the bishop has told us to "at least internally take to the hills" and "keep watch". He does not say that one must not attend SSPX masses.

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: John_Lane

The Resistance priests are, of course, instructing their laity to cease assisting at Mass at SSPX chapels. So, what we have here is a pungent example of hypocrisy.

A good point that not many wish to tackle.

Again, less than perfectly accurate.

If you're going to place the statements of a particular Resistance priest above the others, you'd only perhaps be reasonable in selecting statements from Bp Williamson.

For the record, the bishop has told us to "at least internally take to the hills" and "keep watch". He does not say that one must not attend SSPX masses.

Bishop Williamson's difference of opinion with Fr. Pfeiffer in this regard is well known.

The better question is what % of Resistance priests agree with Fr. Pfeiffer and what % agree with Bp Williamson. Unless someone has an answer to this, it's dishonest to apply to all Resistance priests one position or the other.

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: John_Lane

The Resistance priests are, of course, instructing their laity to cease assisting at Mass at SSPX chapels. So, what we have here is a pungent example of hypocrisy.

A good point that not many wish to tackle.

???????I'm personally acquainted with four Resistance priests.  Only one has said, "It's better NOT to attend SSSPX Mass."  Another has said, "Go, if you wish, but use extreme caution."  The
third told me, "You're under no obligation to hear a Modernist Mass." Number four wrote, "Stay away only if you have reason to fear for your faith."  He personally believes "Fr. X. is no modernist."  None, even the most vocal, has forbidden me,  threatened to withhold sacraments, or has even asked me where or if I heard Mass when no Resistance Mass is available.

 :incense:FYI, Priest #4 was Bp. Williamson.  The others I cannot name because it was in the Confessional.

 :incense:FYI, Priest #4 was Bp. Williamson.  The others I cannot name because it was in the Confessional.

You can name them. Only the priest is obliged to keep confessions secret. You can name them.

Quote from: John Lane

I have also been informed of a rumour running about Europe that "one third of the parishioners from Jolimont have left for sedevacantism." It's true that some parishioners from Jolimont have left for the so-called Resistance. None of them are sedevacantists. The reason I mention this silly rumour is that it highlights the fact that sedevacantism and the Resistance have nothing in common. Sedevacantism is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning. Enough said.

I must say, I have lost a bit of respect that I had for John Lane after reading that last paragraph. Maybe I had him on a pedestal he didn't deserve to begin with? Maybe I didn't read enough of his posts, or enough of his *recent* posts.

Here I thought he was charitable, prudent, dignified, lofty, etc.

Why the ad-hominem and near-childish gratuitous assertion?

You realize, John, that "quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur". What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied. I have just as much right to say, "The Resistance is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning."

I'm very disappointed by this blatant "rah rah" for Sedevacantism.

What can I compare it to? An obese American man with an IQ of 90 watching the War in Iraq on his TV; he suddenly stands up (knocking over a can of cheap lite beer) and pumps his fist while shouting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" as he watches a Smart Bomb blowing up an Iraqi building.

I'm sure that he can do better than that to promote Sedevacantism, if that's his aim.

I have to add to this.

1. He basically says, "I asked Bishop Fellay and he denied it. Therefore it is not true." Um...no. That doesn't follow. Only if the "minor" in your syllogism is "Bishop Fellay cannot mislead, deceive, or lie." Sorry, I don't consider that a "given". I therefore deny your unspoken minor.

2. He says, "She wasn't there. Father didn't say that". But you could say something like that, and be completely truthful, even if she had Father's words 99% correct. Maybe she left off a "the" or other insignificant word. You don't post what Father ACTUALLY SAID, so we are allowed to assume she was substantially correct. It's not logical or even likely that she would make something up like that out of thin air, unless your unspoken minor is "Resistance supporters always lie, have defunct spiritual lives, and are the agents of satan." Again, I deny your gratuitous assertion, in this case an unspoken minor argument in your syllogism.

3. Anyhow who thinks John Lane is some kind of Truth Department or "Mr. Facts" needs to have his head examined. Sure, he might make a good show of things on his forum's Rules page, but the fact remains that his whole position is suspect. He attends SSPX Masses and goes out of his way to defend the SSPX even as it begins to embrace Modernist Rome and/or Modernism. The SSPX is clearly selling out and the evidence for that is legion. And yet he insists on defending them even though he's a ...Sedevacantist? Sorry, but that doesn't pass my smell test.

I don't care what his forum's rules say or claim; each of John Lane's statements will be taken as it stands, on its own, just like those of any other CathInfo poster would be.

And when I do that, I must say, I'm not impressed.

Logic lesson (for those interested):

In any argument, formal or not, you have what is called a SYLLOGISM.

A syllogism has a MAJOR, MINOR and CONCLUSION.

The major is the more universal of the statements; the minor applies it to a particular. The conclusion is drawn from those two statements when combined together. When drawing a conclusion, it must be LOGICAL. If it is not logical, you have committed a FALLACY.

MAJOR - Men are pigs.
MINOR - Matthew is a man.
CONCLUSION - Therefore Matthew is a pig.

In this example, you would take issue with the Major. The logic is flawless, and the minor is also completely true. This is a bad argument because of the bad Major.

How about an example with a bad Minor:

MAJOR - Men should serve at Mass.
MINOR - Sally is a man.
CONCLUSION - Sally should serve at Mass.

In this case, the problem is with the Minor. Sally is not a man, but a woman.
The Major and logic are both flawless.

What about this one:

MAJOR - The Catholic Church is the true Church.
MINOR - Fr. Pfeiffer is a Catholic Priest
CONCLUSION - Butter is better for you than margarine.

In this example, the LOGIC is flawed. Specifically, the logical fallacy of "Non Sequitur" or "it doesn't follow".

SIX PAGES !! And we still don't know what was, or was not, correct of the original post! The reported "eye witness" has not yet witnessed as to what was heard; he merely stated that some such words were "not said." I know we are all hoping that someone else actually heard the sermon, and reports on it. The big intro, about calumny however, seems, at this point, a bit overblown.

Hello I’m new here so please be gentle.
The John Lane’s post came to my attention only just yesterday and today I “wasted” my precious time to read it at this and other forum.
I was present when Fr Johnson gave the sermon that Sunday and it is correct nothing was said in that Sunday sermon regarding the resistance (if we are talking about the proper sermon for Sunday mass, sorry for technicality), BUT!!! There’s always a but, before the sermon Fr Johnson gave a short speech regarding the resistance.
I am that person who told that lady in John Lane’s post the content of Fr Johnson’s speech and she did ask my permission to tell others.
So please give me some time (a day or two) and I’ll let you know to the best of my memory what was said that day.
So watch this space, God Bless