I do not think there is any contradiction in Mr. Lane's position.

   He is merely pointing out that it is not the act of criticizing Bishop Fellay that has turned him off, but the manner and spirit of the criticism itself.

   There is a Catholic way to make a point: Respectfully; respect does not limit the vigor of your opposition, but does temper it with charity.

   There is an uncatholic way to make a point: Disrespectfully; disrespect does not enhance the vigor of your argumentation, but does remove the temper of charity.

Well said. I'm glad SpiritusSanctus brought this topic up. I actually found this quote of JohnLane quite true:

The most prolific contributors are now partially disguised "home-alone" or "anti-una-cuм" types. They have no dog in the fight, of course,

I don't think its true in all circuмstances here on CI, however, its mostly true. Think about it- are not some of the members here who post most prolifically on this crisis, regardless of correctness on the position, non-SSPX goers? (ie. "...no dog in the fight...") I'm not saying its wrong, but I agree with what Lane says next:

I suspect partly because they don't realise quite how irreligious some of them truly are.

And its this lack of religiosity that can be most disturbing, and also most revealing about why that is. This is why Seraphim is right. There is a right and wrong way to go about things, without compromising the seriousness and correctness of what you need to say. There is a more Catholic deportment; one that is free of being judgmental. I don't mean judgmental in terms of how Protestants throw around the word; not at all. I mean in determining who is a 'true trad' or not. These people who feel compelled to be the best polemists on this issue, do so because of one reason: pride.

Granted, we're all susceptible to it. And if our own pride is evident to us, its can also be evident when judging the actions of others. This is what John Lane is speaking about, I believe. This is why the development of the interior life is so important. It tempers pride one may have when discussing intellectual topics. Its not that we ought not discuss these topics, but that we should do so with a sense of humility. You can be 'right' on the issue, have the best arguments, and be quick 'on your feet' with a discussion; but if you are prideful- you are only hurting yourself, even if you are 'right'.

Attacking a whole nebulous class of posters as being irreligious - not attacking their ideas - no, attacking them, making insinuations about their observance, condemning websites.

It's very typical of SSPX apologetics: they attack their critics, rather than answering their objections.

I do not find anything "liberal" in acknowledging that reality.

When did I call John Lane a liberal? I was talking about the comment someone posted on FishEaters as being liberal, not Lane's comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Passive aggressive goading about "pride" and "charity" is the invariable retort to the cold hard truth about Bishop Fellay and what he's been doing.  His cynical exploitation of the faithful to move in a way that will ruin the work of the Archbishop should be called out for what it is.

Attacking a whole nebulous class of posters as being irreligious - not attacking their ideas - no, attacking them, making insinuations about their observance, condemning websites.

It's very typical of SSPX apologetics: they attack their critics, rather than answering their objections.

Interesting you were bothered by this...  :detective:

Passive aggressive goading about "pride" and "charity" is the invariable retort to the cold hard truth about Bishop Fellay and what he's been doing.  His cynical exploitation of the faithful to move in a way that will ruin the work of the Archbishop should be called out for what it is.

Has anyone who'd just spoken about pride agreed or supported Fellay on anything? Nope. Again, your logic is bizzare.

Again.. its very interesting to me that you seem to be so bothered by these general statements on pride and charity.

Quote from: s2srea

Again.. its very interesting to me that you seem to be so bothered by these general statements on pride and charity.

It is very interesting that people aren't bothered by John Lane casting aspersions on the critics of Bishop Fellay.

Read my above post. I am.

And they do so with the tried and true methods of passive aggressive goading.

Non Sequitur. I've already stated I disagree with his position. That you are so bothered by statements on pride and charity, is your issue, not that of others. But its not surprising.

Anyone who's ever been in the SSPX orbit knows how the "pride" card and to a lesser extent the "charity" card are used to insult people and try to guilt them into silence.

Okay. What does this have to do with anything. People of all stripes, even non-Catholics do this. This has nothing to do with what's being stated here.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

To s2srea and Seraphim:

I don't disagree that we must be charitable and professional in our criticisms, that wasn't where I disagreed with John Lane. I disagree with him because I read a post he made on Ignis where he specifically stated that he would defend Bishop Fellay. I think he's being way too soft on him.

SS- I actually agree with you on this. I was responding more or less to what Seraphim said, and the quote from Lane you gave, which was a part I agreed with. Thats all.

Ah, ok. Sorry for the confusion.