John Lane against the resistance

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

I disagree with John Lane but I think that running his sedevacantist forum makes him a somebody in the world of traditional Catholicism just like running Cathinfo makes Matthew a somebody. I was surprised to hear him being against the resistance because I thought most sedevacantists supported the resistance.

I agree that John Lane's position is very strange. That is one of the reasons I linked to his post.

I found it surprising and also interesting to see a sedevacantist who supported Bishop Fellay over the resistance.

Quote from: bernadette

I believe that Lane has a son who is a SSPX priest...therefore causing his evident confusion and hypocritical stance.

I thought it was John McFarland whose son was an SSPX priest?

Yes...I think you're right, never mind what I wrote everyone.

Is McFarland a sede?  Speaking of evident confusion!

Quote from: bernadette

Is McFarland a sede?

He was asked if he was, and he said he isn't.

By the way, nice to have you posting here again, bernadette.

Thank you SSS....I always like reading your posts!

I remember getting into trouble on IA after confusing the two Johns...They're both disagreeable for the most part...

John Lane's statement that the Archbishop says in the same interview he was willing to join the conciliar Church is not supported by the quote he gives.

"Realizing the impossibility of coming to an understanding, on the 2nd of June I wrote again to the pope: It is useless to continue these conversations and contacts. We do not have the same purpose. You wish to bring us round to the Council in a reconciliation, and what we want is to be recognized as we are."

This is not equal to saying that the Archbishop wishes to join the conciliar Church.

In fact, it says the opposite.  Entering "the conciliar church" is accepting the Council.  The "conciliar Church" is not the Church - but the neo-SSPX now says that it is!  Incredible.

It is idiocy for John Lane to say

"because we know that the Archbishop in the very same interview stated very clearly that he had no problem "entering the conciliar church"

That is a blatant falsehood!

There NEVER was a "no-strings" agreement on the table.

A "no-strings" agreement is not possible, barring the conversion of Rome.  Even then, could it really be "no-strings"

Bishop Fellay was never expecting a "no-strings" agreement, and those who speak of one are dishonest.

The Archbishop repudiated the agreement and he explained why.

Therefore, is it necessary to leave the official Church? To some extent, yes, obviously.
The whole book of Mr. Madiran "The Heresy of the Twentieth Century" is the story of the heresy of the bishops.
It is therefore necessary to leave the bishops’ environment, if you do not want to lose the soul.
But that's not enough, as it is in Rome where the heresy is settled. If the bishops are heretics (even without taking this term in his canonical sense and consequences) is not without the influence of Rome.
If we move away from these people, is quite the same way as people with AIDS. There is no desire to catch it. Now, they have spiritual AIDS, infectious diseases. If you want to save your health, you need not to go with them.

http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/the-visibility-of-the-church-archbishop-lefebvre-s-conference-to-

The defenders of Bishop Fellay can only excuse what he does by deliberately misconstruing what it says.

The neo-SSPX is infected with the disease the Archbishop was talking about.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: bernadette

Is McFarland a sede?

He was asked if he was, and he said he isn't.

By the way, nice to have you posting here again, bernadette.

Thank you SSS....I always like reading your posts!

I remember getting into trouble on IA after confusing the two Johns...They're both disagreeable for the most part...

But he really has a nice accent.   John Lane, that is.   :guitar:  :detective:

I know people who left the resistance and became SV's because they don't like Fr. Pfeiffer's views on family life.  

Could you please write more about fr. Pfeiffer's views on family life?
Thanks.