John Lane post at John Lane’s exclusive forum:
He recalls what was said so far and posted my post from here to my surprise or so he can pick on it.

Post:
There are only a couple of disagreements over fact between John Bieganski and me.

I was at Ascension Thursday Mass tonight. After mass I asked Fr. Johnson to clarify a couple of things for me. I didn't tell him why. I asked him if he had said in his second sermon/speech on the Resistance that the Resistance supporters are not welcome at Jolimont or that they would be refused the sacraments. He looked at me with surprise and said "No, that's exactly what I didn't say! I was careful not to say that!" OK, then how about when you said that they would have to make reparation. What did that refer to? "I said that if they wanted me to consider myself as their priest they would have to come and see me and tell me, and that I would tell them they had to make reparation, and that it would be public." So you didn't say anything about humiliating them? "No, of course not." I asked him what he had in mind regarding reparation and he said that since they had signed a public declaration he intended to ask them to write a letter saying that they had changed their mind and that they wanted their name removed from the Declaration, and that they send a copy to him, Fr. Fullerton (District Superior) and Bishop Fellay. He added that he hadn't even intended that they should denounce the Resistance, just that they say they had changed their mind and no longer wanted to be publicly associated with it.

As a matter of fact I was still at the church when I spoke to John Bieganski on the phone the second time, so afterwards I went back in and asked Fr. Johnson whether he had said that they must apologise to him. He said "No." I said, are you sure? He said yes, he was sure. Not that it matters - the report in The Recusant didn't allege that, but John had read his proposed post to me over the phone, and we argued about this point of fact. I maintain that Father didn't demand an apology, and he knows his own mind and didn't intend to demand an apology, so I think that settles that.

Let's go back to the post in The Recusant. The readers of that newsletter were told that Fr. Johnson "used a recent sermon to attack those who had signed the AustralAsian Declaration." Well, we can agree to disagree over whether he attacked the signers of the Declaration. He told them they were foolish for doing so, and no doubt that was felt keenly by those who had done so. Next element - "saying that they needed to be humiliated" - no, he didn't say that and nothing he said or had in mind amounted to humiliation. Anybody who knows him would be aware of what a softy he is, and the idea that he would demand that others suffer humiliation is beyond belief. Anyway, he denies it. Next, "and do public penance" - well, we've seen what he actually said and now also what he meant by it. Changing one's mind and retracting one's name from a list is hardly penance, even if it would constitute a weak kind of reparation for damage done. And finally, "before they would be allowed back to Mass and the sacraments." This simply wasn't said, and indeed was carefully avoided by Fr. Johnson. And it is the headline and the heart of the "report" in The Recusant, the very thing the editor picked out of the earlier report and re-published. And it's also why I decided to refute it.

The policy of the SSPX is to ignore the resistance and not to refuse the sacraments to people who get caught up in it. The rare exceptions to this policy only serve to prove the rule. If the policy were otherwise we'd see examples all over the world, but we don't. The Resistance have been accusing the SSPX of having a policy of refusing the sacraments to concerned faithful for two years now, and the allegation, or prophecy, has yet to be verified. Maybe they should come up with a new line.

John, you're still a friend and when you want to go through the Declaration in detail I'm available to sit down with you and do so. It's all complete rubbish, every line of it.

_________________
In Christ our King,


Here is what I can say to that :

"I said that if they wanted me to consider myself as their priest they would have to come and see me and tell me, and that I would tell them they had to make reparation, and that it would be public."
I don’t want nothing from them and I have nothing to give to them was said somewhere in those lines as well as come to see me and apologize.

I asked him what he had in mind regarding reparation and he said that since they had signed a public declaration he intended to ask them to write a letter saying that they had changed their mind and that they wanted their name removed from the Declaration, and that they send a copy to him, Fr. Fullerton (District Superior) and Bishop Fellay. He added that he hadn't even intended that they should denounce the Resistance, just that they say they had changed their mind and no longer wanted to be publicly associated with it.

Looks like John Lane doesn’t remember what was said that day as he went to Fr Johnson for memory refresh and Fr Johnson’s memory is also in question as often he does forgets things.
As to public reparation one could only speculate to its requirements as we are not a mind readers John! and Fr did not go into details that day and I wasn’t going to see him either.
A person at whom the speech was address to will understand/interpret it differently then the person who is not involved don’t care, their name is not on the list or then again another person who might be in favor of neo-SSPX or sedevacantist.
When talking to other parishioners not involved they said that it was strong and harsh.
I always liked Fr Johnson and these comments where more of a shock to me then to others but I can not change what I have wrote as I said it was as true as I can remember.

John your write in one of your posts: “Why do they not reply with, "Oh, good, I'm relieved that this isn't the case!" or something like that?”
Well, maybe they would if you let them join your forum.


And as I said The Truth Will Prevail In The End
God Bless
Polak

PS: John you still my friend and can call me anytime.
I might one day visit Fr Johnson
 

John Lane post at John Lane’s exclusive forum:
He recalls what was said so far and posted my post from here to my surprise or so he can pick on it.

Post:
There are only a couple of disagreements over fact between John Bieganski and me.

I was at Ascension Thursday Mass tonight. After mass I asked Fr. Johnson to clarify a couple of things for me. I didn't tell him why. I asked him if he had said in his second sermon/speech on the Resistance that the Resistance supporters are not welcome at Jolimont or that they would be refused the sacraments. He Recusant didn't allege that, but John had read his proposed post to me over the phone, and we argued about this point of fact. I maintain that Father didn't demand an apology, and he knows his own mind and didn't intend to demand an apology, so I think that settles that.
 

Question: Why did John Lane need to ask Fr Johnson if he had said those things, when John lane said that he was at the sermon?
Don't tell me you fell asleep John, that damage control excuse won't go over very well either. :pop:

What you are saying is that individuals need to say what they mean, clearly, concisely.
The whole of this account suffers from heresay ambiquity. Any two people can hear the same thing and come away with divergent opinions as to what was said. Get a clear recording or a written docuмent that can be verified before storming the internet.
And beyond that, is this really an important issue to helping the Church's struggle against the barbarians? This is typical of the constant pursuit of teapot tornados that is all too common in the resistance so called.

Regardless, you have made some good points Neil.

...is this really an important issue to helping the Church's struggle against the barbarians? This is typical of the constant pursuit of teapot tornados that is all too common in the resistance so called.

Anyone who understood the geographical isolation of Perth within Australia would not call it a teapot tornado. Unless the loss of possibity to have the benefit of the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments of the Church is neither here nor there. This exacerbates such alleged petty tyranny.

Neil Obstat said:

Lane doesn't want anyone posting on his forum who can accurately represent the side that Lane wants to attack.  He wants an accurate image of his own subjective reality on his own website.  To him, this is 'truthful'.  He's comfortable ignoring anything notwithstanding to the contrary.

It is my personal experience that sedevacantists who publicly propagate their position 'as a private opinion' share John Lane's subjective reality in that they exhibit the same intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with them.    A good  pro-resistance forum has two moderators that arbitrarily delete specific posts posing simple questions that challenge their 'subjective reality'.

.

Can you describe for me the difference between subjective reality and private opinion, donkath?   Do you think there is any difference, or, do you think they are two different terms referring to the same thing?

Or, are you more comfortable in explaining how you feel about it?

.

I wrote:

No that is not what I am saying!  I meant the opposite. My idea of a 'good' forum is one that allows free discussion between members without interference from anybody providing the rules are kept.  I consider a forum to be 'not good' if it allows its moderators to decide arbitrarily to delete posts should posters adopt an opposing opinion to the moderators themselves.

If a decision has to be made to delete posts, or ban posters, it should be made solely by the administrator when he has taken the trouble to view the posts themselves and decide that perhaps the moderator is at fault.  In my case, the posts were immediately deleted; the administrator condemned the post without knowing what it said because his mods had deleted it.

New information has come to hand revealing that the moderators were not responsible for deleting my posts.

donkath, do you know who deleted your posts, and how can someone who isn't a moderator do that?

In every forum there is only one person who has more control than, and over, the moderators.