Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ambrose on May 27, 2014, 09:33:06 PM
-
The following was posted by John Lane on the Bellarmine Forums, May 27, 2014:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&p=16638#p16638
My attention has been drawn to the following:
Australian neo-SSPX: more unjust threats
-
Fr. Shane Johnson, Western Australia, used a recent sermon to attack those who had signed the AustralAsian Declaration, saying that they needed to be humiliated and do public penance before they would be allowed back to Mass and the sacraments.
Source: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_rec ... y_2014.pdf
I was present and heard the sermon to which this refers. I also happen to know that the lady who produced the summary above was not at mass that day. She had decided two weeks earlier no longer to attend the SSPX chapel at Jolimont. So the above is not the testimony of a witness. She is repeating hearsay, and The Recusant is publishing that gossip further afield. It was already abundantly clear that the Resistance has no concern for accuracy about facts, or indeed truth in any realistic meaning of that term, but this latest is a useful reminder.
This purported summary is false. Fr. Johnson did not say these things. Further, I discussed the situation with Fr. Johnson and I know what his actual policy is. For the record, his policy is that those who have decided to attack the SSPX but still feel that they desire to take the goods of the Church from Fr. Johnson will not be refused (i.e. Holy Mass and the sacraments will not be witheld from them). Anything beyond this is commentary.
If anybody in Western Australia wishes to dispute this, call Fr. Johnson and ask him instead of further misrepresenting him.
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. "That rotter Fr. Johnson is taking away the Mass that my priests say that I must never attend!" Except that he isn't. You could not make this stuff up.
On another note, I was also shown the following text:
A priest of the Resistance writes:
“Father Angles was seen [recently] at the Congregation for Religious in Rome, during one of his absences from Ireland. He was in clergyman, and his physique left no doubt that it was him. An employee of this congregation affirms that it was to determine the future status of the Society. As Father Angles is the canonical adviser of Bishop Fellay, I do not see how [Bishop Fellay] can say that no negotiation, public or secret, is going on with current Rome.”
One of the faithful also asserts that a person from Ireland, very close to Fr. Angles, stated in 2012 that this priest was very busy preparing for the future canonical status of the Society.
So I asked Bishop Fellay if there is any truth in this. He replied and said that no, there is no truth at all in it. There is no negotiation or work on any agreement or canonical structure. Fr. Angles is not working on anything like this, the entire story is unfounded rumour. Don't expect the Resistance to admit that it got this wrong. That never happens.
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.
-
Well, that's painting with a pretty broad brush.
Precisely because the Resistance is a loose confederation, it is not really possible to accuse them all of having a callous disregard for truth.
Certainly, there have been many unfortunate misrepresentations of fact disseminated by those affiliated with the Resistance, and that is regretable.
But I would not tar the whole lot of them as John Lane does, for the imperfections of some.
-
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 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.
How can he be promoting sedevacantism if he is attending N-SSPX Masses?. He also believes everything Fellay tells him, perhaps its because Fellay is telling HIM....?.
He doesn't accept every applicant on to his forum so let's not give this man too much space here.
-
Well, that's painting with a pretty broad brush.
Precisely because the Resistance is a loose confederation, it is not really possible to accuse them all of having a callous disregard for truth.
Certainly, there have been many unfortunate misrepresentations of fact disseminated by those affiliated with the Resistance, and that is regretable.
But I would not tar the whole lot of them as John Lane does, for the imperfections of some.
Very good point.
Just like you can't generalize "All traditional Catholics" or "everyone on CathInfo". Sometimes a group is just too large and diverse to make any meaningful generalizations.
Why not generalize the average American? How many of us fit the "average American" description? I rest my case.
-
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.
How can he be promoting sedevacantism if he is attending N-SSPX Masses?. He also believes everything Fellay tells him, perhaps its because Fellay is telling HIM....?.
He doesn't accept every applicant on to his forum so let's not give this man too much space here.
There is no contradiction to attending a Mass said by a Catholic priest in error about the status of the Antipope and holding the position of sedevacantism.
Artificial distinctions such as SSPX or "NSSPX" are not found in Canon law.
-
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.
It seems to me that he is justly angered by the recent calumny against Fr. Johnson, a priest who did not deserve such ill treatment.
-
It seems to me that he is justly angered by the recent calumny against Fr. Johnson, a priest who did not deserve such ill treatment.
I don't know that I would conclude that from this post of Mr. Lane's.
The truth likely lies somewhere in between the two statements. I've seen people put forth some very fact-based evidence on either side of the SSPX-Resistance issue, but this is far from that.
While the person publicizing this statement of Fr. Johnson's might not have been present, someone obviously was. While it is a possibility, I doubt very much that this accusation was pulled completely out of thin air. Mr. Lane fails to tell us what Fr. Johnson did say, and so all we have even after his statement is that the words attributed to Fr. Johnson are not 100% accurate. How close to the truth are they? Of course we'll never know, but Mr. Lane doesn't even put forth his version of the statements.
Whether or not Fr. Johnson would actually refuse Sacraments to Resistance supporters has very little to do with what he will or won't say in order to discourage or scare away those individuals from the SSPX Mass.
What you have here doesn't amount to much more than 'he said', 'she said' and neither side seems to have a ton of credibility going for them.
-
It is soothing to the soul to hear Mr. Lane's calm, reasoned words refuting the hysterics of certain Catholics in "the resistance".
You really shouldn't post such things when I have liquid in my mouth!
Yes, it's the height to reasonableness to assert that you know the personal convictions (sede or not) of every single person who has left your chapel in the past 2 years.
:rolleyes:
-
It is soothing to the soul to hear Mr. Lane's calm, reasoned words refuting the hysterics of certain Catholics in "the resistance".
You really shouldn't post such things when I have liquid in my mouth!
Yes, it's the height to reasonableness to assert that you know the personal convictions (sede or not) of every single person who has left your chapel in the past 2 years.
:rolleyes:
It seems to me that some in the resistance are more reasonable than others. It also appears to me that Mr. Lane is referring to the unofficial "leaders" of the resistance, and not every person affiliated with it.
I have absolutely no problem with Catholics going to SSPX or not, as SSPX do not operate parishes, only private chapels. Catholics have no obligation to attend private chapels with masses said by vagus priests.
The same can be said of all current mass centers, so I am not picking on SSPX.
If a Catholic chooses to receive sacraments from one priest or another that is his choice, as he has no canonical obligations to any private organization or chapel or priest.
-
It is soothing to the soul to hear Mr. Lane's calm, reasoned words refuting the hysterics of certain Catholics in "the resistance".
You really shouldn't post such things when I have liquid in my mouth!
Yes, it's the height to reasonableness to assert that you know the personal convictions (sede or not) of every single person who has left your chapel in the past 2 years.
:rolleyes:
:laugh1:
-
While the person publicizing this statement of Fr. Johnson's might not have been present, someone obviously was.
This is true. Someone was present and can personally verify what was said in the sermon in question:
I was present and heard the sermon to which this refers.
-
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.
Yet you cannot see, or perhaps admit, that people lose respect for this "Resistance" for the same reasons.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
While the person publicizing this statement of Fr. Johnson's might not have been present, someone obviously was.
This is true. Someone was present and can personally verify what was said in the sermon in question:
I was present and heard the sermon to which this refers.
Will you be asking him what Fr. said?
-
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.
-
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.
I think the seal of confession restricts priests only ( not that i want to know who it was).
-
: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.
-
:incense:FYI, Priest #4 was Bp. Williamson. The others I cannot name because it was in the Confessional.
FYI, the "seal of confession" only applies to the priest.
You can publish your own sins and/or the priest's words of advice (and the penance he imposes) in a bestselling book if you wish.
-
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.
-
:tinfoil: :dancing-banana:
Sorry, but I don't generally discuss my Confessions, even if it is permitted! Those who know me well enough IRL can probably deduce which priest gave which advice. So long as priests are human, they'll not agree on everything. It doesn't credit or discredit the Resistance just as most disagreements don't negate the value of any religious foundation. There have been saintscwho did not agree on who was the Pope. St. Robert Bellarmine and another, whose name I cannot recall had this problem. No doubt it confused the faithful, nonetheless, the test of time saw both men canonised. At my Particular Judgement, God will ask whether I kept the Faith, not whether I followed Fr. Pfeiffer or Bishop Williamson!
-
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".
-
While the person publicizing this statement of Fr. Johnson's might not have been present, someone obviously was.
This is true. Someone was present and can personally verify what was said in the sermon in question:
I was present and heard the sermon to which this refers.
Will you be asking him what Fr. said?
No. I'm really not very interested in the issue. I just note that he says he was present at the sermon in question and denies that the remarks attributed to the priest was said by him. I just don't think that a second hand (at best) report of what was said should be considered to be as reliable as a first hand report that the previous report is in error.
Obviously, someone was present at the sermon or it wouldn't have been given. But we shouldn't believe remarks attributed to the priest from hearsay when an eyewitness says the remarks were not spoken.
-
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.
-
Enough is enough! This thread should be shut down and those interested in the issue should continue it directly with John
I don't see where he says what Fr. Johnson actually did say.
But, nonetheless, in case anyone thinks that I'm personally speaking with Bp Williamson and relaying private advice, you're mistaken.
The quotes I attributed to him were from an EC column. I've never spoken with the good Bishop.
-
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
-
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
Thanks Polak, am interested in what happened and of-course John Lanes damaged control reply.
Yes, when ever we here from the neoSSPX now-days we have to look for a but and invariably find it, sad to see but so true.
-
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.
This purported summary is false. Fr. Johnson did not say these things.
It's quite probable that nothing was said at all about this issue in question. Father probably just gave a sermon about faith and morals as he usually does. If Father didn't say what was attributed to him and John Lane has spoken with Father elsewhere and has gotten the actual policy, what difference does it make what else Father said during the sermon?
-
This is my story and please bear with me as English is my second language:
After posting here my promise of letting you know the content of Fr Johnson’s speech I went on to register at Ballarmine forums run by John Lane as I was going to post there first. Couple of hours later I have received a phone call from the man himself as we have been friends for a long time. He asked me few questions and who posted “my post” here as he though it was my wife, yes with Polak as a username, of course it was me I said. I couldn’t talk at that time so I called him few hours later to continue the discussion. After few agreements and disagreements and me reading out my following post to John I was verbally refused access to his forum and posting it.
He did strongly advise me against it, protecting/defending Fr Johnson vigorously and promised to fight my comments.
So here it is for the whole world to see just like my declaration.
Two weeks prior to the sermon in question Fr Johnson gave a small speech before a sermon at Sunday mass regarding resistance. He has told the parishioners that there is a few stupid troublemakers out there in some parishes as well as Jolimont and that all has begun in Europe/France and that these troublemakers have always been making trouble.
At that time I have heard very little of this resistance and honestly I didn’t care. When my wife showed me the “declaration” and she put my name down which was ok with me as I don’t see anything wrong and against my or anyone’s faith by asking some questions to which I still don’t have solid and clear answer.
Two weeks later same speech took place at Sunday mass before the sermon.
Fr Johnson said that Brother Eric has visited resistance-australia.boards website and there was a declaration with all the names of Australian faithful who signed it for the whole world to see, how stupid he said, stupid troublemakers he repeated couple of times . I don’t want these people in my parish, I don’t want nothing from them and I have nothing to give to them he said.
Then he spoke that someone’s name was put there without their permission, and then he said that anyone on that list (and he knows all the names) if they change their mind they will have to come and talk to him and apologize and then they have to make public denouncement of the resistance.
I was ready to walk out at that point, he then continue with Sunday sermon, to which I didn’t listen as I was still digesting what was said in the speech.
I walked out after the sermon, upset, I was almost in tears as I know I done nothing wrong.
I grew up in communist Poland and my first words to my wife when she came out from the church were: spoken like a true communist, what about the story of prodigal son?
Did he have to make public apology?
From then on I went to research and find out more about the resistance and regarding my name on the declaration for the whole world to see:
Can someone please make it in bold so the whole universe can see!!
This is true and as accurate as I can remember.
The truth will prevail in the end.
God Bless,
John Bieganski the Polak
-
Bravo John Bieganski! One more small victory for truth. Mr. Lane, your credibility is in tatters.
-
This is true and as accurate as I can remember.
The truth will prevail in the end.
God Bless,
John Bieganski the Polak
I retract my earlier comments. Thank you for your comments.
-
Bravo John Bieganski! One more small victory for truth. Mr. Lane, your credibility is in tatters.
I agree! Mr. Lane's reputation and credibility is in tatters.
What is it with men named John running message boards? First John Grasmeier of Angelqueen and now John Lane. Both of them restrict their forum membership to "me too" members in full agreement with the owner. Those two really remind me a lot of each other.
John Lane won't even allow someone he knows personally to join his forum! Give me a break.
They also both rabidly and emotionally support the neo-SSPX.
P.S. A person can get banned, leave, or avoid joining CathInfo, but most people seem to keep an eye on it nevertheless.
Moral of the story: There's a lot more traffic to CathInfo than the number of "registered users" that appear at the bottom of the homepage. Also, the number of "guests" are real people. All the search engine bots are filtered out.
-
Mr. Bieganski,
I wonder if you'd be willing to share with us what you've done since? Have you gone back to Mass at Jolimont? ...found somewhere else to receive the Sacraments?
I feel especially bad for your situation since it was not your intention to "join" the Resistance to begin with.
We'll remember you and your wife in our Rosary today.
-
The truth will prevail in the end.
God Bless,
John Bieganski the Polak
For some reason I cannot give thumbs- up to you , dear Mr (and Mrs) Polak, so here I am to say how much I admire you for your sincerity and frankness. May God bless you richly for it.
A fellow Aussie.
-
Couple of hours later I have received a phone call from the man himself as we have been friends for a long time. He asked me few questions and who posted “my post” here as he though it was my wife, yes with Polak as a username, of course it was me I said. I couldn’t talk at that time so I called him few hours later to continue the discussion. After few agreements and disagreements and me reading out my following post to John I was verbally refused access to his forum and posting it.
Wow.
And there's nothing quite like being booted out of a chapel for no good reason!!!
-
Mr. Bieganski,
I wonder if you'd be willing to share with us what you've done since? Have you gone back to Mass at Jolimont? ...found somewhere else to receive the Sacraments?
We'll remember you and your wife in our Rosary today.
No, I did not go back to Jolimont and I will try to make it when resistance prist comes over here. Thanks for your prayers.
God Bless
-
This entire issue saddens me. It is abundantly clear to me that there are many differing views on the whole affair and I am 100% confused. I don't doubt the reports of individuals saying what they heard, but I also think that many people seem to have heard different things, or, at least, their understanding of what they thought they heard is colored. Since, at this time, I have no relationship with either the SSPX or the resistance to the SSPX, I think I will keep my distance from the issue. Unfortunately, I think, this schism amongst traditional Catholics affects us all.
-
and the buck stops fair and square with BF. he no longer runs a tight ship, with priests and people singing from the same hymn sheet, the flock have been scattered, and menz couldnt care less.
-
Mr. Bieganski,
I wonder if you'd be willing to share with us what you've done since? Have you gone back to Mass at Jolimont? ...found somewhere else to receive the Sacraments?
We'll remember you and your wife in our Rosary today.
No, I did not go back to Jolimont and I will try to make it when resistance prist comes over here. Thanks for your prayers.
God Bless
I was under the impression that the independent American priest Fr Kevin Vaillancourt serviced Perth, Western Australia......
-
.
Thanks for the Logic lesson, Matthew!
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".
It was really great seeing this here.
Major proposition: Catholic forums are places on the Internet where you should be able to learn about Logic.
Minor proposition: But CathInfo is a Catholic forum.
Conclusion: If you're looking for a Logic lesson, you came to the right place.
Or,
Major: Real men are not afraid to demonstrate and discuss the use of Logic.
Minor: Matthew of CathInfo is not afraid to use Logic.
Conclusion: Matthew is a real man. :cowboy:
.
-
Hello I’m new here so please be gentle.
You haven't a thing to worry about, my good friend. Some of the smartest people in the world are Polish, and I've never met one anywhere that doesn't have an excellent sense of humor.
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
That was his first post, then 9 hours later is his second post:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32008&min=30#p2)
This is my story and please bear with me as English is my second language:
After posting here my promise of letting you know the content of Fr. Johnson’s speech, I went on to register at Ballarmine forums run by John Lane, as I was going to post there first.
A couple of hours later I [had] received a phone call from the man himself as we have been friends for a long time. He [had] asked me few questions and who posted “my post” here as he though it was my wife, yes with Polak as a username; "of course it was me," I [had] said. I couldn’t talk at that time so I called him few hours later to continue the discussion.
After few agreements and disagreements and me reading out my following post to John, I was verbally refused access to his forum and [from] posting [on] it.
He did strongly advise me against it, protecting/defending Fr Johnson vigorously, and promised to fight my comments.
So here it is for the whole world to see just like my declaration.
It would seem we may have here one of the original authors of the excellent AustralAsian Declaration in our midst.
Two weeks prior to the sermon in question Fr. Johnson gave a small speech before a sermon at Sunday Mass regarding [the] resistance. He has told the parishioners that there [are] a few stupid troublemakers out there in some parishes, as well as Jolimont, and that all [this] has begun in Europe/France, and that these troublemakers have always been making trouble.
I used to wonder why liberal priests like to make some snide comments like this before they start their sermon, as if it's part of the "announcements" -- the reason is, they'd like to hold out the option of later denying that they had said any such thing "in their sermon." How convenient!
At that time, I [had] heard very little of this resistance and honestly I didn’t care. When my wife showed me the “declaration” and she put my name down which was ok with me, as I don’t see anything wrong and against my or anyone’s faith by asking some questions to which I still don’t have solid and clear answer.
Two weeks later same speech took place at Sunday mass before the sermon.
Fr Johnson said that Brother Eric has visited [the] http://resistance-australia.boards.net/ website and there was a declaration with all the names of Australian faithful who signed it for the whole world to see. "How stupid," he said, "stupid troublemakers," he repeated couple of times. "I don’t want these people in my parish, I don’t want nothing from them, and I have nothing to give to them," he said.
Then he spoke that someone’s name was put there without their permission, and then he said that anyone on that list (and he knows all the names) if they change their mind they will have to come and talk to him and apologize and then they have to make public denouncement of the resistance.
I was ready to walk out at that point. He then continued with [his] Sunday sermon, to which I didn’t listen, as I was still digesting what was said in the speech.
I walked out after the sermon, upset; I was almost in tears, as I [knew] I [had] done nothing wrong.
I grew up in communist Poland and my first words to my wife when she came out from the church were: spoken like a true communist, what about the story of prodigal son? Did he have to make public apology?
I have known several survivors of Communism who have come to America, and I must say here that your testimony is invaluable. There are those of us who are eager to listen to your hard-won wisdom, and we will not hold it against you in any way what you have to conclude because we know God has put you in our midst such that we might know the truth. Please do not be afraid to speak out! Your words are as a soothing balm to our sore ears -- ears that have been pummeled by the bludgeoning of liberalism in speech and written words.
You can rest assured your voice has the fullest freedom right here on CathInfo, as you have already seen.
From then on, I went to research and [found] out more about the resistance and regarding my name on the declaration for the whole world to see: Can someone please make it in bold so the whole universe can see!!
This is true and as accurate as I can remember.
The truth will prevail in the end.
God Bless,
John Bieganski, the Polak
It's kind of nice that your name is John, because "John" needs a bit of new life after John Lane, John Grasmeier and John XXIII dragged it through the mud.
For the record, J. Bieg's rep score is 23 after only 3 posts. This one above has 8 thumbs up and 0 down, after only one day. I must say that this is one instance where the thumb votes are working properly! HAHAHA
But seriously, Polak obviously has nerves of steel. Here is a man who has not run away scared and has stepped forward with the goods. To be honest, I read Matthew's assessment before I read Polak's story and I'm glad I did, because every word is appropriate. Mr. Bieg, you deserve a medal of honor, for having survived a Communist upbringing and yet remained Catholic, and then later to provide this clarification for all to see. I would only ask that perhaps you would be so kind as to send an e-mail to Ed. at TheRecusant and tell him I asked you to thank him for his accuracy on Page 35 of Issue #16, because after reading the excoriating drivel of John Lane I had been under the impression that some manner of retraction would be in order. As it is, I'm at liberty to retype the entire paragraph here:
Australian neo-SSPX: more unjust threats - Fr. Shane Johnson, Western Australia, used a recent sermon to attack those who had signed the AustralAsian Declaration [a copy of which appears on pp. 25-31 of the same issue], saying that they needed to be humiliated and do public penance before they would be allowed back to Mass and the sacraments.
It seems to me that John Lane is to the SSPX what Karl Keating is to Newchurch, and what Brother Guy Cosolmagno is to nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr science. In their minds, their respective demigod organization can do no wrong. In this way, they have become the useful idiots of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and/or Communism (there really isn't much practical difference). They don't have to be Freemasons or card-carrying Communists in order to do the work of same.
.
-
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
-
Just to add some more to that story I have a visitor with me at the moment who was present at that mass. She just confirmed that Fr Johnson did say in anger You are no longer my parishioners and you are not welcome here unless you change your mind do the reparation blah blah blah publicly.
Here daughter said after the mass that we just got kicked out of the Church, this was said by a child who is only 12 years old and she was very upset.
-
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:
-
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?
We should be eager to cut Lane some slack because lots of times a regular parishioner can hear a sermon and not remember what was said in it. Words can go in one ear and out the other. Sometimes a regular parishioner can fall asleep during a sermon. But when he's a gung-ho minion of the priest giving the sermon, he's likely to deny later what others had heard the priest say just because he A) can't remember hearing such things (maybe he wasn't paying attention) and B) doesn't want to think that his hero-priest would ever say such things.
It's like when a Fellayite hears someone raise questions regarding what +F says in a speech or an 'announcement' before a sermon, he immediately replies, saying, "It sounds like you're just anti-Fellay."
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."
To "make reparation" is ambiguous. It can mean different things to different people. If Fr. Johnson had something specific in mind why didn't he say it? Did he not use specific language because he's following the example of his Superior General who says things with ambiguity all over them so that it can be interpreted in different ways to different listeners, and that way, he can leave everyone feeling happy about what he said?
You see, there have been times in the past when making public reparation has been humiliating. So the two cannot be legitimately separated, unless specific explanation is provided, and there was none in the announcement. Everyone was left to think whatever they wanted to think. That's the problem with ambiguity -- it leaves the listener with uncertainty.
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.
Anyone present hearing this "announcement" that wasn't part of the sermon (apparently) was left unaware of what "intention" Fr. had in mind regarding "reparation" because he DELIBERATELY chose not to explain himself in a matter of grave importance. So the responsibility for the controversy lies squarely at the feet of Fr. Johnson who was DELIBERATELY ambiguous.
Ambiguity has consequences.
Notice the NUANCE: If Fr. Johnson wanted to say that such a parishioner must "abjure his error," then why was he "so careful not to say that?" Is it because signing a docuмent that agrees with the Resistance isn't an error? Or, is it because "abjuration of error" is a topic that Fr. Johnson is uncomfortable with, since it's too much in line with longstanding Catholic Tradition?
When is the last time anyone has heard +F use the phrase, "abjuration of error?" You can't talk like that and keep your friends in Newchurch happy. Those are not words of "normalization" or "regularization" with Newchurch.
John your write [you wrote?] 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.
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.
.
-
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.
-
...after reading the excoriating drivel of John Lane I had been under the impression that some manner of retraction would be in order. As it is, I'm at liberty to retype the entire paragraph here:
Australian neo-SSPX: more unjust threats - Fr. Shane Johnson, Western Australia, used a recent sermon to attack those who had signed the AustralAsian Declaration [a copy of which appears on pp. 25-31 of the same issue], saying that they needed to be humiliated and do public penance before they would be allowed back to Mass and the sacraments.
I was thinking the same.
-
...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.
-
...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.
If the main concern is to have the true sacraments, then folks should avoid getting involved in the fraternal conflict of the congregation which is supplying them, and I was referring to these internet follies with John Lane and others over what a priest did or did not say.
-
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'.
-
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'.
Excuse me if I misunderstand you, donkath, but it seems you would be saying that in order for a a pro-Resistance Internet forum to be "good," it needs to have at least two (maybe more) moderators that arbitrarily delete any posts when they contain simple questions that challenge the subjective reality of the mods.
If that isn't what you meant, perhaps you can find other words to describe what you're trying to say. Use a different sentence structure because that usually helps to get the bugs out.
.
-
.
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?
.
-
Excuse me if I misunderstand you, donkath, but it seems you would be saying that in order for a a pro-Resistance Internet forum to be "good," it needs to have at least two (maybe more) moderators that arbitrarily delete any posts when they contain simple questions that challenge the subjective reality of the mods.
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.
The sad result of these actions resulted in there being no 'devil's advocate' posters to question the 'subjective reality' of the two moderators. I left the forum of my own free will because I couldn't follow up any previous posts made. I could not refer back to them or show whether there was any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of - or by - me or the moderator.
Anyway, for what it is worth, this is the best way I can describe it. It reminds me of what is being debated on another thread here about John Lane accepting only those members who agree with him. This is what is happening on the other forum about the particular subject under discussion .....sedevacantism.
-
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?
-
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.
-
.
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?.
Hi Neil!
There is a vast difference between subjective reality and private opinion
I like this definition: Subjectivity reality manipulates the boundary between fantasy and reality.
An opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE
WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY?
As I see it, there are only two viable possibilities for the nature of reality and how it relates to our personal experience of life. Either reality is completely external to us - something we are born into and have very limited control over. Or, it is entirely internal, meaning all of reality is a projection of our inner being.
The first view is known as Objective Reality, the other describes Subjective Reality, or Solipsism. These are the two extreme and polar positions. It is possible to posit a third alternative of some combination of external and internal, but for reasons I will elucidate in a bit, I do not believe that is a viable possibility.
So why is the question of the true nature of reality even important? Because how we answer this question determines everything - literally EVERYTHING we experience on personal, cultural and global scales. http://www.province-of-the-mind.com/objective-subjective-reality.html
-
Ah ok, now I understand. I think it's a shame. I am not a member of that forum, but read posts there from time to time, and remember reading yours. As far as I recall, you were never disrespectful or belligerent to warrant posts being deleted. It further confirms for me part of the reason why I never cared to join in over there. I am sorry that happened to you.
-
Ah ok, now I understand. I think it's a shame. I am not a member of that forum, but read posts there from time to time, and remember reading yours. As far as I recall, you were never disrespectful or belligerent to warrant posts being deleted. It further confirms for me part of the reason why I never cared to join in over there. I am sorry that happened to you.
You are very kind.
-
.
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?.
Hi Neil!
There is a vast difference between subjective reality and private opinion
I like this definition: Subjectivity reality manipulates the boundary between fantasy and reality.
It seems to me there is a flaw in this definition. It seems to make subjective reality per se into a quasi-person, by saying that it manipulates something. The term "manipulation" implies an act of man, especially (but not exclusively) because a root of this word is manus, or "hand." The Latin word for "manipulate" is tractare, to haul around, to handle, to manage or control, which further exemplifies this theme. It takes a person to do these things, unless it is a brute animal acting something like a person. Only a person has a hand, and we say that somebody 'has a hand' in something if that person is contributing to it.
Therefore, would it not seem more accurate for the sake of definition if it were the person who practices subjective reality, or believes in it, who would be doing the manipulation, donkath?
An opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE
WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY?
As I see it, there are only two viable possibilities for the nature of reality and how it relates to our personal experience of life. Either reality is completely external to us - something we are born into and have very limited control over. Or, it is entirely internal, meaning all of reality is a projection of our inner being.
The first view is known as Objective Reality, the other describes Subjective Reality, or Solipsism. These are the two extreme and polar positions. It is possible to posit a third alternative of some combination of external and internal, but for reasons I will elucidate in a bit, I do not believe that is a viable possibility.
So why is the question of the true nature of reality even important? Because how we answer this question determines everything - literally EVERYTHING we experience on personal, cultural and global scales.
http://www.province-of-the-mind.com/objective-subjective-reality.html
Who is the author of the quoted passage above?
.
-
Neil said:
Therefore, would it not seem more accurate for the sake of definition if it were the person who practices subjective reality, or believes in it, who would be doing the manipulation, donkath?
Yes. I think that is a more accurate definition. Good thinking!
Who is the author of the quoted passage above?
I do not know Neil. I came across the blog and thought it interesting. I went to the home page and it seems that the blog owner is a John Lilly. Could be a Doctor Dara Fogul (????)
-
...after reading the excoriating drivel of John Lane I had been under the impression that some manner of retraction would be in order. As it is, I'm at liberty to retype the entire paragraph [from The Recusant] here:
Australian neo-SSPX: more unjust threats - Fr. Shane Johnson, Western Australia, used a recent sermon to attack those who had signed the AustralAsian Declaration [a copy of which appears on pp. 25-31 of the same issue], saying that they needed to be humiliated and do public penance before they would be allowed back to Mass and the sacraments.
I was thinking the same.
In case anyone was not sure of the source, I was quoting The Recusant Issue #16 (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_16_-_may_2014.pdf), p. 35, in the SSPX Watch! section.
The AstralAsian Declaration (less the signatures) that Lane et.al. is all upset about, is found on 6 pp. starting with p.25 of Issue 16.
.