Author Topic: John Lane against the resistance (Read 13328 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #30 on:** May 06, 2013, 04:51:04 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

...
I am not really interested in arguing too much with those who have caught menzingenitis. Only prayer is left for such cases.

Menzingenitis ---------- excellent word!!

How about this: infectious menzingenitis.. contagious menzingenitis..

purulent pernicious menzingenitis

atrocious menzingenitis

abominable menzingenitis

horrific menzingenitis

despicable menzingenitis

the international plague of menzingenitis

unclean menzingenitis

repulsive menzingenitis

ghastly menzingenitis

It's too bad we have to start sounding like Jew hacks to make the point stick.

One thing ALL the saints have in common is a horror of sin.

A sinful thing must be perceived for the ugliness and repulsiveness that it is.

The devil's principle work is to make sin appear to be tolerable, appealing,
even good -- but that is his primary work of deception: evil under the
appearance of good.

bowler · « **Reply #31 on:** May 06, 2013, 06:28:56 AM »

Quote from: Matto

John Lane against the resistance

John Lane is a sedevacantist, though I think he attends Mass at an SSPX chapel.

Never heard of him. What are his credentials? The guy that ran Angelqueen forum had a huge following, membership, forum. He couldn't spell Colombia.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #32 on:** May 06, 2013, 02:26:48 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Matthew, part of the reason that John Lane's forum has so few users is that users are personally screened before being allowed membership.

I don't mean "send me an email to prove you're not a bot" but "send me an email to prove you're a traditional Catholic and why you want to use this forum." Since most people just read the forum and don't even post, I'm not surprised that the number is so few as you can do all the reading you want without having to type up a trad resume.

He's set up a forum for very serious discussion on basically one topic, so it makes sense to have that kind of screening process. It works for what he's doing. I think his reader base is much larger than the number of users suggest. Though what you said is still true, it's scope does not approach any of the other forums.

Plus, a sedevacantist forum isn't likely to attract as many members as an SSPX or Resistance forum.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #33 on:** May 06, 2013, 02:28:48 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Plus, a sedevacantist forum isn't likely to attract as many members as an SSPX or Resistance forum.

You mean a pro-Fellay sedevacantist forum is unlikely to attract as many members.

There are plenty of sedes out there.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #34 on:** May 06, 2013, 02:30:40 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Plus, a sedevacantist forum isn't likely to attract as many members as an SSPX or Resistance forum.

You mean a pro-Fellay sedevacantist forum is unlikely to attract as many members.

There are plenty of sedes out there.

Yes, thank you for the correction.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #35 on:** May 06, 2013, 06:30:33 PM »

It used to be the Protestants against the Catholic Church. We didn't know
how simple we had it then.

Now it's the John Lane Sedes against the Resistance.

So the Prots are yesterday's news, "Old Hat," and the new frontier is
an attack against the Resistance, which by definition, holds the same as
what the Catholic Church held when the Prots were attacking it.

We have been telling NovusOrdoCatholics "We are what you were. If you
were right then, we are right now." So the SedeLanes are telling the
Protestants, "We are what you were. If you were 'right' then, we are
'right' now." The SedeLanes are picking up where Fellay is leaving Prots
off!!

If he keeps this up, +Fellay might be able to make it look like he can bring
the Sedes "back" too - after all, Lane and his ilk are in favor of +Fellay
and opposed to the Resistance - so then Rome can see the only 'enemy'
left is the tiny fragment of Resistance.

Isn't it telling how important the Resistance is, when its tiny size is nonetheless
not negotiable with Rome? It's the only "freedom of religion" that Vat.II does
not defend, and we know this because it's the only "freedom of religion" that
conciliar Rome continues to punish.

The proof is in the punishment.

But that's nothing new. It was the same for the Roman martyrs. The proof
was that they had to die for the Faith.

donkath · « **Reply #36 on:** May 07, 2013, 05:56:51 AM »

I thought it would help to complete the assessment of John Lane's articles that are being brought up on various threads if readers knew that John attends SSPX Masses. He is on friendly terms with the Societys priests, and vice versa. He interviewed Bishop Fellay for two hours in his own home, and then asked BF if he could now defend the latter on Ignis Arden.

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #37 on:** May 07, 2013, 06:23:28 AM »

Pro Fellay sede-vacantists...now I've heard everything...." I think there's no Pope and all the Conciliar popes are heretics...but I really like the SSPX Sup gen who is tossing dogmatic principles aside to snuggle up to them..and his Zionist lawyer/investment partner? The harasser of Bp Williamson? Nothing to see there...move along.."

TKGS · « **Reply #38 on:** May 07, 2013, 06:40:37 AM »

John Lane has been very critical of Bishop Fellay. However, he also notes that there isn't a deal nor is there likely to be a deal anytime soon. That is simply a fact. He is critical of the Resistance because, he says, they argue against something that hasn't happened and is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

The problem, Mr. Lane has said, is that the SSPX, whether it be the Menzingen group or the Resistance group, absolutely rejects sedevacantism as even a possibility and considers the Conciliar papal claimant to truly be the pope. There will always be a possibility, on the part of any of them, of some sort of reconciliation as long as they fundamentally reject the possibility that the sedevacantist theory may be correct.

I, personally, do not argue for the Resistance or against the Resistance. I really do not have a dog in the fight. I do not regularly attend an SSPX chapel. However, if I were traveling and the only chapel available were SSPX, whether it was a Menzingen chapel or a Resistance chapel, I would have little concern about assisting at Mass unless I were certain that the priest was not one who had been ordained by the SSPX.

Rather than discuss Mr. Lane's views on CathInfo, it would seem more appropriate for members to join the St. Bellarmine Forum and discuss them there though he will not allow statement unsupported by facts and evidence to be posted. But those interested can actually read Mr. Lane's discussions of the Resistance issues in the "SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre" sub-forum that he established last year when the controversy was beginning to brew.

TKGS · « **Reply #39 on:** May 07, 2013, 06:54:55 AM »

The latest post by Mr. Lane about this issue:

Quote from: John Lane

I suspect that part of the problem is the political character they have given it. One effect of this is that there is no sophistication or subtlety to the discussion. It's all "two legs bad, four legs good" nonsense.

It's quite possible to believe that Bishop Fellay is a wonderful man, yet he is not Archbishop Lefebvre. It's quite possible to remain perfectly loyal to him and not fear for the future, without thinking that he has done everything perfectly or that he will always do everything perfectly in future. I know priests who have such views. And they detest the "Resistance."

But it's part of the Resistance campaign to divide the world into "Accordistas" and good guys. Accordistas are, contrary to the meaning of the word itself, not people in favour of a deal but rather they are merely people who refuse to join in the calumny and detraction. I'm a sedevacantist, so more against a deal than any "Resister" could possibly be, yet they call me an Accordista. And these people claim to love the truth? It's hard to see any religion in any of this, it's too obviously political.

As I noted above, he's not in favor of a deal. He simply is unwilling to throw Bishop Fellay under the bus. He doesn't worship the ground Bishop Fellay walks upon. He does not think Bishop Fellay has been the greatest leader since the Archbishop.

Domitilla · « **Reply #40 on:** May 07, 2013, 07:05:59 AM »

Mr. Lane was a member of both CathInfo and Ignis Ardens. Many of us are completely aware of his views regarding +Fellay and the current state of the SSPX. Please discontinue to bring him here; if we so desire, we can visit his forum and read his posts.

PAT317 · « **Reply #41 on:** May 07, 2013, 07:11:01 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

The latest post by Mr. Lane about this issue:

Quote from: John Lane
.... not people in favour of a deal ... I'm a sedevacantist, so more against a deal than any "Resister" could possibly be, ...

As I noted above, he's not in favor of a deal. .....

I have not been following this in detail, but I am getting the impression that part of the problem is he is another who only focuses on deal or no deal. But to me the much more important facet of the Resistance is the liberal slide of the SSPX. It is true, "Accordista" is not a perfect term (again in part because it focuses only on a deal - not the main problem), but I think people have been using that term for lack of a better one.

John Grace · « **Reply #42 on:** May 07, 2013, 07:30:07 AM »

Quote

It is true, "Accordista" is not a perfect term (again in part because it focuses only on a deal - not the main problem), but I think people have been using that term for lack of a better one.

An agreement with Rome is not the main problem at all.

John Grace · « **Reply #43 on:** May 07, 2013, 07:34:15 AM »

Quote

However, he also notes that there isn't a deal nor is there likely to be a deal anytime soon. That is simply a fact. He is critical of the Resistance because, he says, they argue against something that hasn't happened and is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

'Cassini' assured Irish folk there will be no deal. Many are happy to accept Bishop Fellay and have no reason to doubt him.

If Irish folk supported a man, who aligned his movement to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, they are hardly going to be outraged regarding Dr Krah.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/snmhmhqlid/

Quote

Party U-turn as Ganley backs Jєωιѕн group
By Paul O’Brien Political Correspondent - Thursday, June 04, 2009

LIBERTAS performed an astonishing U-turn last night after earlier claiming that a leading Jєωιѕн human rights organisation was "beneath contempt".

Less than two hours after Libertas candidate Caroline Simons branded the Simon Wiesenthal Centre as "willing idiots", Libertas founder Declan Ganley said his organisation was joining with the centre to "actively fight racism and anti-Semitism".

The embarrassing U-turn overshadowed Libertas’s final press event of the European election campaign.

The contradictory statements were issued after the centre, which fights anti-Semitism across the world, raised questions about some of Libertas’s candidates across Europe, as revealed in this paper yesterday. The centre stated: "Libertas is running some 600 candidates in over 20 of the elections in the 27 member states. Some of those standing are known αnтι-ѕємιтєs, homophobes and anti-migrant racists."

Libertas responded yesterday when claiming in a statement issued at around 3.20pm that the centre’s comments represented a "smear".

"In 2004, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre smeared the president of our country," Ms Simons, who’s standing for Libertas in Dublin, said. "They implied that by association, she was giving support to fascists. They are beneath contempt.

"The voters aren’t stupid. It was only ever a matter of time before the establishment got so desperate that they resorted to calling us nαzιs. The only surprise here is that we had to wait so long before they could find a willing idiot to come and say it."

But shortly after 5pm, Libertas founder Declan Ganley, who’s running as a candidate in Ireland North West, issued a very different statement.

"Libertas leader Declan Ganley today announced that the Libertas pan-European movement will ally itself with the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in a joint commitment to defend against and actively fight racism and anti-Semitism within the European Parliament and other European institutions," the statement said.

For many Irish SSPX folk, Ganley was the Messiah.

John Grace · « **Reply #44 on:** May 07, 2013, 07:41:20 AM »

And the note on the Irish SSPX District website stating the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' is beyond discussion, we must accept the big lie story.

Fr Fabrice Loschi SSPX admonished me via email regarding revisionism.