It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:08 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
 Resistance Nonsense 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Resistance Nonsense
My attention has been drawn to the following:
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 27, 2014 3:27 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Oh, the sport!

Somebody has posted this to Cathinfo, and Matthew and his wife are double-teaming to complain that I have smeared all of the Resistance because of the excesses of some who have misrepresented Fr. Johnson, whilst also refusing to believe that I have given the facts accurately, so that Fr. Johnson may not have been misrepresented. And then, to really prove that truth doesn't matter, it is suggested that Fr. Johnson might possibly be guilty of saying things to scare people away, even if he didn't tell them they must stay away. You know how it goes - he's possibly guilty of something else, so why complain about a certainly false allegation? These are the morals of TV soap opera.

The writer wasn't a witness? No problem: let's speculate that she got her information from a witness. Truth doesn't matter, after all.

Evidently the hat fits too well.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 28, 2014 9:34 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
John, what a storm in a teacup. These "resisters" can’t get their facts straight even when instructions are directly and repeatedly given from their Resistance Leaders and then published online for anyone to find with a quick google search. Criticism of your defense of F. Johnson has now descended into questioning whether you were accurate in stating that the Resistance priests are instructing their laity to avoid SSPX masses. What is their excuse for official sermons and conferences and email newsletters from the Resistance leaders, I wonder?



From the Resistance website, Ecclesiamilitans.com, the same one publishing the aforementioned calumnies against Fr. Johnson.


From a Letter from Father Ortiz to the faithful of Streaky Bay, South Australia, December 31, 2013:

“Concerning the Sunday obligation, whenever there is a danger of Faith, there is no obligation in conscience to attend a Mass, Traditional and valid may it be.

It’s a similar case with the Indult or Motu proprio Masses, which are Traditional, but they are stained with a compromise in doctrine. This was Abp. Lefebvre’s practical recommendation.

Therefore, it’s my duty as a priest to alert the faithful of the danger of going to these Masses, like any father warning his children of dissociating with those who represent a danger to their Faith.”

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01 ... r-31-2013/



Below is instruction from Father Juan Ortiz (Signs in as JCO) posted by Kathleen Donnelly, Administrator of cor-mariae.proboards, Mar 10, 2014. However, the information cannot now be accessed except by members.

"Dear faithful,

Some of you have asked me what to do on Sundays when you do not have a Mass celebrated by a Resistance priest and you have refrained going to go the neo-SSPX Masses.

I encourage you to refrain going to the neo-SSPX Masses (Traditional and valid may they be) because of the proximate risk for the Faith.

Refer to the warning I gave recently about the case for our faithful in Streaky Bay [see below]."

Admin Note: This Instruction has been given to us by Fr. Juan Ortiz

http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/thread/1779



Fr Hewko – Stay away from SSPX Masses & why, Sep 19, 2013

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/09 ... asses-why/



From a conference given by Fr. David Hewko in St. Catharines, Ontario on January 19, 2014.

Should We Continue to Attend Neo-SSPX Masses – Fr. David Hewko Answers

“Hear Father’s answer, which is essentially the position held by other SSPX-Marian Corps priests...”

Fr. Hewko’s answer, “Objectively speaking, you should not go to the Society masses anymore.”

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01 ... o-answers/



Here is an extract of a sermon given by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer in Kansas City, Missouri on March 10, 2013.

Priests and Faithful Should Not Support the Neo-SSPX – Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
It is not correct for those who know the truth to continue to attend Society of St. Pius X mainstream Masses.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01 ... -pfeiffer/



“We Have to Get Out of the Official Structure of the Modern SSPX” – Fr. Patrick Girouard
In a sermon given on March 16, 2014 Fr. Patrick Girouard tells us that we must get out of the neo-SSPX if we want to remain faithful to Our Lord.

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/tag/neo-sspx/



Last but not least:

Matthew’s wife, "MaterDominici's" response on Cathinfo to your statement, "The Resistance priests are, of course, instructing their laity to cease assisting at Mass at SSPX chapels:

"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."


Below is a statement selected from Bp. Williamson. It’s not a secret. It was sent to a gazillion email inboxes last year. It was posted on Matthew's and his wife's website, Cathinfo, and provoked a 33 page thread. :oops:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/El ... -Falls-III

Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCXXIII - 323 (English), 19th September, 2013

"Therefore just as the Archbishop ruled out attending Indult Masses, so now, as a general rule, attending SSPX Masses should be ruled out, because even if this particular Mass is still celebrated in accordance with Tradition, the SSPX is being remoulded in general as a framework within which the new Conciliar religion is less and less disapproved, so that there is more and more of a danger in attending its Masses."


You can't get any clearer than that. It is not John's but “MaterDomini’s” statement that is “less than perfectly accurate.”

Why are these people so afraid to admit what is being openly preached by Resistance priests and Bp.Williamson and being published officially? Is it that their faith tells them that these clergy are preaching error and that the laity are not justified in neglecting their Sunday Obligation, I wonder?

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Wed May 28, 2014 10:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:05 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Katie wrote:

"Why are these people so afraid to admit what is being openly preached by Resistance priests and Bp.Williamson and being published officially? Is it that their faith tells them that these clergy are preaching error and that the laity are not justified in neglecting their Sunday Obligation, I wonder?"


Katie, I'm of the opinion that the "Resistance" is less about dogma and has more to do with politics, and as is typical of politics, politicians care not for the truth. Matthew was agitating well before the split, allowing all sorts of rumors and calumnies to be published on Cathinfo, and all the while being quite content to sit at the dinner table with Fr. Rostand, as he secretly sharpened his knife under the tablecloth. When Matthew and his wife were removed from their positions at the SSPX chapel they attended, he had the nerve to complain about it! He actively engaged in attacking Bp. Fellay and the hierarchy of the SSPX and then cried foul when he was relieved of his duties as cantor at an SSPX chapel, and his wife relieved of her position as accountant.

What truly amazes me is the number of people who claim to be devout Catholics can so easily spread rumors and gossip without a shred of evidence. Satan is truly pleased with the "Resistance".

Pax Christi,

Brian


Wed May 28, 2014 11:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Brian Kenny wrote:

Katie, I'm of the opinion that the "Resistance" is less about dogma and has more to do with politics, and as is typical of politics, politicians care not for the truth.


Yes, I've heard and read enough from Fr. Pfeiffer alone to convince me of the truth of this. It is not about rejecting Vatican II and modernism etc - it's about bringing down Bp.Fellay and the SSPX. I've seen and heard more than enough to get this message loud and clear. It's about partyism. Is that a word? :roll:

Brian Kenny wrote:

What truly amazes me is the number of people who claim to be devout Catholics can so easily spread rumors and gossip without a shred of evidence. Satan is truly pleased with the "Resistance".


Again, I agree with you entirely. If I was capable of being scandalised by the lack of Catholic principles and morality displayed by the resistance leaders and followers then what I have witnessed over the past couple of years would have sent me into overload. I think this is one of the most distressing things to come out it. It is as if there is a moratorium on the 8th Commandment. I have to keep reminding myself, "There but for the grace of God, go I." One good thing that has come out all this immoral behaviour and gross lack of justice towards Bp. Fellay and other SSPX priests is that many serious Catholics are horrified with it all and are increasing their prayers, particular for the SSPX bishops and their priests as well as increasing the masses they are attending, lest they too should be deceived. God draws good out of evil.

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Wed May 28, 2014 11:27 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Brian, you summarised the situation exquisitely!

I have to say that Matthew's wife has proved that the Resistance is not unitary - she has no idea what her own clergy have issued as advice, in writing, on what to do on Sundays and Holy Days - i.e. avoid SSPX masses. It looks like Bishop Williamson and the priests say something different to individuals than they say in public. Perhaps that explains why they constantly accuse Bishop Fellay of matching his message to his audience?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 29, 2014 1:13 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
That Cathinfo thread has now descended into even worse error than "mere" calumny and the defence thereof, believe it or not.

Matthew wrote:
Frances wrote:
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.


Francis, bless her, knows her faith and reacted nicely but firmly to this piece of terrible, terrible, shocking, advice from Matthew. Here's a standard and well-known catechism on this question.

Quote:
Penitents are in no way bound by the seal of confession; but they are advised to refrain from talking about what the priest tells them in the confessional.

1. Penitents should avoid speaking about the advice, the penance, etc.

One reason for this is that if we misunderstand or misrepresent what he priest told us, he has no way of defending himself.


From My Catholic Faith, 1961, page 333. All emphasis in the original.


Blind leaders of the blind!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 29, 2014 1:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
More from Cathinfo.

hugeman wrote:
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.


On Cathinfo, the pages are three posts each. I don't know why that is, but it's incredibly inconvenient even if it makes threads look long (which is apparently a desirable thing, or Matthew would change the setting).

I have no intention of reporting what Fr. Johnson said, except for the specific point regarding the "forbidding" of mass and the sacraments to people who attack the Fraternity. It was asserted publicly that he is forbidding them, and that is false. He isn't, and he didn't say that he would. The hearsay report at third-hand by The Recusant is inaccurate - actually, the exact opposite of the fact. In addition I have pointed out that anybody potentially affected by this inaccurate report can contact him and ask what his true position is. So the matter should die there, but for obviously political reasons it isn't.

Anything besides this one crucial point - that Fr. Johnson has not forbidden these people to come to mass and receive the sacraments - is commentary, as I said in my original post. It's obiter dicta, beside the point, not relevant.

The Resistance clergy directly advise, in writing, that their people should avoid SSPX masses, as the list of quotes above proves (thank you, Katie - excellent work!). This many of them do of their own choice (including the lady who originated The Recusant's false report). This is not surprising. Why would they not take the advice of the men they trust? But they also run this campaign accusing the Fraternity of using blackmail to fight the Resistance - i.e. threatening to refuse them access to mass and the sacraments if they don't stop their public accusations against the SSPX. But this is not the policy of the Fraternity, even if (and I know of no such actual case) some individual priests have taken such a stand. So, if to forbid these people the mass and sacraments would be an evil, why are they not glad that this claim is not true? Why do they not reply with, "Oh, good, I'm relieved that this isn't the case!" or something like that?

I really don't understand what the Resistance wants. It looks like a campaign of pure hatred against men to whom we all owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude. Only the devil himself could inspire such evil.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 29, 2014 3:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
John,

I think the reason that you "don't understand" what the Resistance wants is because of how diversified it is. Aside from all sharing in common either leaving or being expelled from the Society, there is no real principle of unity other than a general geographical one. In other words, what a given person or cleric who identifies as being part of the Resistance wants can vary dramatically. There is no unified "want" other than the most basic common denominator of not wanting anything to do with Rome (or at least, in theory-- Fr. Pfeiffer's inane "we must be united to Francis or we go to Hell" comments notwithstanding).

I've supported the Resistance in one way or another for more than a year now, mainly because as a sedevacantist at an SSPX chapel was dissatisfied with the talks with Rome. Have been to many a mass in an odd setting with folding chairs and the usual suspects (American Resistance priests and +W on one occasion) and have closely followed its development. I was "in" the Resistance by default, and initially thought that most were latent sedevacantists.

Now more than a year into this, it's quite clear that what +W predicted or intended (both? I can't remember) is exactly what we have: a loose and independent federation of priests who are really only united due to geography. You have the American group headed by Fr. Pfeiffer, though the priests under him are so completely unlike him that I have to wonder if maybe they just have no where else to go. Fr. Voigt in particular doesn't even talk about the SSPX issues-- he more brings them up in quiet passing in an obligatory fashion, almost the way that H.E. Williamson brings up sedevacantism, just to remind people that we're not supposed to be involved in it. Fr. Hewko is the holiest priest I've ever encountered and while perhaps a bit simple for some (though I find it refreshing) is rock solid and I would trust him with my life.

So, that's America. But then you have the Latin priests (Fr. Meramo et al.) who are, so far as I can tell, all sedevacantist or serious sedevacantist sympathizers. They aren't even considered part of the Resistance by the American Resistance even though they were doing what Fr. Pfeiffer and H.E. Williamson were doing years before they were doing it. Speaking of Fr. Pfeiffer and H.E. Williamson... Have you noticed they're not exactly working together closely either? Then you have the various European priests and religious from France and Germany, and I am not a French speaker or reader though from what has been translated for me it does not seem that the same sensationalism that exists in the English speaking world is present there. Fr. Pinaud, whom I hold in high esteem (perhaps prematurely simply because of his enduring +Fellay's "canonical trial," I know little else of him except that he is a non-una cum sedeplenist) travelled to Quebec to minister to the faithful there, where there is a division of una-cum and non-una cum laity. The una cum faction sent for Fr. Pfeiffer to come up-- and what happened to Fr. Pinaud? I don't know, but he's not in Quebec any longer. That sermon that Thomas Williams posted in the thread titled "Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer's Dogmatic Sedeplenism" was the sermon Fr. Pfeiffer gave when he got up to Quebec to straighten out the non-una cum faction up there. Yup. Back on point, from what I have read from various European priests, there is not the same rigid sensationalist sedeplenist sectarianism which seems to follow Fr. Pfeiffer (if anything else, I get a few points for that series of alliterations).

Anyways, at the risk of getting long winded, if you consider the Resistance as any other "part" of traditional Catholicism it will make sense. Just as you often lament the fact that Fr. Cekada and +Sanborn seem to be identified as "leaders" of sedevacantism, as if they speak for all of us (when really they're a loud minority, which I don't mean disparagingly but rather as a matter of fact) there are those of us who lament (yours truly!) that Fr. Pfeiffer is seen as the "face" of the Resistance. The shepherd is struck, the sheep have scattered, and found plenty of mini and pseudo shepherds in the meantime (by which I don't mean to insinuate that any of the mentioned or unmentioned clergy are ill-willed or malicious, only that they do not and cannot fill the void which we are left with having virtually no access to true shepherds).

For what it's worth!


Thu May 29, 2014 4:18 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Great contribution, thanks Mith. I have admired your calm and careful posts elsewhere, and your incredible patience with some who seem not to have a clue what the Church teaches. I don't know how you do it!

I'd like you to say what you mean when you write, "I've supported the Resistance in one way or another for more than a year now..." How could anybody with sound morals support that campaign? You shock me. I'm just being honest with you.

A few comments on the whole situation.

1. I'm more against a "deal" than any of these people, for the obvious reason that Francis ain't the pope. But I have no problem with Bishop Fellay's words or actions (i.e. when understood honestly and reasonably), especially since most of them are none of my darned business, except for the one thing that I really disagreed with, and he knows it, and that is his April 2012 text (due to its ambiguity, which is unacceptable in any doctrinal text). However he has withdrawn that, as all know, and has added that it will never reappear as the basis for any agreement with the Vatican. What he has not done is retract the things in it that scandalised some, as far as I can tell because he doesn't agree with their wrong interpretation of it, and if he retracts it on that basis he is agreeing with them, which would be dishonest. He cannot say, "I retract the words 'legitimately promulgated' since they imply that the Novus Ordo is a licit mass," because he never meant that by those words, he literally meant that Paul VI acted legitimately in the technical sense when he issued the missal for publication. Whether we agree with that view or not (I don't), it's a perfectly lawful opinion. And in case anybody is in doubt, he has declared since several times that he considers the New Mass to be illicit and "evil." What I will say in his favour is that I have been greatly edified by his sheer courage and steadfastness in sticking with his principle that "if Rome calls, we go" despite the overwhelming pressure poured upon him to say something like "never again." He is a man of principle, and one can admire and respect that even whilst disagreeing with him on fact (i.e. that isn't Rome).

2. "The Resistance" is not the body of men who spoke out against a deal in 2012. I did that, Fr. Damien Fox did it, Fr. Nely himself at the time openly said that he wanted nothing further to do with the deal. I pick three widely divergent men as examples to illustrate the point.

3. "The Resistance" is not the body of men, no matter how disparate, that are against a deal now. Otherwise it would include Bishop Fellay, who has clearly said that in the current circumstances there's no way a deal could be considered ("we stay as we are"). It would also include all sorts of other people such as myself and many priests of the Fraternity who remain against a deal and yet will have nothing to do with the manifest evils of the Resistance as it publicly presents itself. Nor would I ever have called Fr. Meramo a Resistance priest. I think whatever cooperation there is between him and the Resistance priests, it's accidental, in the technical sense of that term, and I doubt he's cooperating with Fr. Pfeiffer for example.

4. The Resistance, as I'd define it, is the group of priests and faithful who approve of texts like this: http://resistance-australia.boards.net (AUSTRALASIAN OPEN DECLARATION AND APPEAL). That is, texts which are packed with folly, lies, rash judgements, suspicion, calumny, detraction, and pure gossip. I'm more than happy to comment that text line by line if you don't agree with that assessment. Let me know if you agree with it. I'll be amazed if you do. You can also read there the second-hand and grossly inaccurate and slanderous report of Fr. Johnson's sermon (or speech before the sermon, if that distinction is important!). He wasn't yelling, in fact he dropped his voice when he was making the main point that would have upset the Resistance people. The whole report is a travesty. No doubt the other lady that reported it to the writer did her best to report it accurately, but she didn't succeed, and further, the writer didn't need to know about it (she no longer attended the SSPX) and she certainly didn't need to email it around, and she most certainly didn't need to approve of it being published. No, this disgusting effort was a purely voluntary act of busy-bodying aimed at discrediting an amazing priest who spends himself for his flock. And the Cathinfo people whine as if they're victims! What hypocrisy! Here's a free life tip for those people: Don't slander priests and you won't have to listen to people tell you what they think of your efforts.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 29, 2014 8:00 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
We now have another eye-witness report. None of this should be in a public forum at all, it's actually gossip that nobody outside Jolimont has the slightest right to hear. So far I have deliberately refrained from giving any detail so as not to provide the Cathinfo types with more words that they can parse and discover evil in, but unfortunately we now have more data to deal with.

Recall what was said so far:

Quote:
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.


John Lane wrote:
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.


And now the new report (from Cathinfo):

John Bieganski wrote:
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


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.


Thu May 29, 2014 3:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
John, despite some differences in fact I am glad to see that due to intervention John Bieganski has reflected on what Fr. Johnson did actually say and that his testimony in no way supports the main calumny against Fr. Johnson as published in the Recusant, which you took issue with. John Bieganski does not claim that Fr. Johnson threatened refusal of mass and the sacraments to resisters nor does he claim that Fr. Johnson required public humiliation. Whilst not total resolution on all points, for all your efforts there has been a successful resolution in the truth of these matters. That is a good outcome for those directly involved at least. As for the owners of the websites who have published these calumnies we can only hope that the truth of what actually transpired will come to their attention and that they will retract their reports in accordance with the given account of their source.

Further, I think when John B. reads the conversation above that transpired between you and Fr. Johnson regarding Fr. Johnson's (and your) denial that Fr. asked for an apology I do not believe that John B. would doubt Father's veracity on these points. Anyone who knows Fr. Johnson knows this much; Fr. Johnson is a stickler for the truth to the point of scrupolosity and he is a man of principle. If Father Johnson says something, particularly in public, there is no way that Father is going to back down on it!

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Thu May 29, 2014 8:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
John Lane wrote:
Great contribution, thanks Mith. I have admired your calm and careful posts elsewhere, and your incredible patience with some who seem not to have a clue what the Church teaches. I don't know how you do it!


Pray and drink enough and you'll find that nearly anything can be endured. :)

Quote:
I'd like you to say what you mean when you write, "I've supported the Resistance in one way or another for more than a year now..." How could anybody with sound morals support that campaign? You shock me. I'm just being honest with you.


I mean that I've attended their masses and been philosophically supportive of them inasmuch as (and pretty much only inasmuch as) concerns being against a deal with the Vatican. If you find this shocking, I'm sure it's because your definition(s) of "the Resistance" (enumerated in the body of your post) differ from mine.


I initially wrote out some replies to your body paragraphs but have deleted them. It suffices to say that the Resistance is undefinable, at least as far as I can tell. There are violent disagreements between and within the various geographical factions which I've already alluded to. As such, the "loudest" are typically identified as being the representatives of "the group" or really, "groups" I think.

When I think of the Resistance, I think of those faithful who have no interest in dealing with the modernist Vatican, so long as it is the modernist Vatican. It is that principle, and that principle only which I can pledge unyielding support to. From there, I may agree with some other points (though that has less and less been the case as far as Fr. Pfeiffer is concerned) but it is that one which I have in mind when I say I support "it."


Fri May 30, 2014 3:47 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Matthew from Cathinfo is slyly implying that Fr. Johnson employed artful language in dealing with this matter. What a foul mind! Maybe he could spend more time brushing up on his own faith so that he doesn't tell people that they can spill what occurs in the Confessional to all and sundry, rather than plotting how he can further smear Fr. Shane Johnson.

Matthew from Cathinfo wrote:
What if a priest says something carefully, calculated to create a certain impression, but carefully avoids using certain words? When that mistaken impression is successfully created -- and reported to others -- the priest can truthfully say, "I never said that!" which is the very definition of plausible deniability.


Fr. Johnson simply didn't say that the people who supported the Resistance were not welcome, he didn't say he didn't want them at his church, he didn't say anything like that. He spoke very carefully and calmly. Contrary to the incredible report from the non-witness who spoke to John B., he wasn't angry and he didn't raise his voice. That whole report is a false representation, factually and in terms of the "colour" it gives. How could it be otherwise? The author wasn't there and had to reconstruct it from another person's memory, a person who was highly emotional at the time. And now that John Bieganski has posted his own version, we see that most of what was alleged in the first, secondhand, version, is missing, as it should be. But John's report is still not completely accurate, as I have already pointed out.

What Father actually said was that by signing that Declaration those people have publicly attacked the Society, and himself personally. He pointed out that the Declaration asserts that Bishop Fellay has "given specific instructions to the members of the SSPX to remain silent about the grave changes operated within the Society and not to communicate the same to the faithful..." He stated flatly that he had received no such instruction, that this assertion is a lie. He proceeded to say that those people who signed it had made a choice, that from now on he would no longer consider himself their priest. He lowered his voice to express that point. There was no anger, no real emotion, just an ominous calmness and strength. I knew exactly what he meant by that phrase, as he has used it many times when discussing his obligations to the flock, obligations which do not arise from the usual Parochial situation (i.e. canonically erected parish, canonically erected parish priest). He said, I no longer consider that I have any obligations to you. He was clearly not referring to his public activities, Holy Mass and the sacraments, and he didn't say stay away from Jolimont. It was obvious to me and most others what he was doing. The fact that some, including John Bieganski, misunderstood him is now apparent. No problem. It's a pity they didn't clarify it with Father. It's also a fact that now that they know that they were mistaken, they are remaining with their original choice to abandon Jolimont. That's their choice, and I have no criticism of that, but let's not pretend that it now has anything to do with Fr. Johnson. If it were solely based upon his sermon, they'd be saying "Oh, good, I'm glad I misunderstood!" But they're not saying that, are they?

But this brings us back to Matthew's revolting suggestion, which is really just a straight-out calumny. Why would he think like that? Well, perhaps it's because he's so familiar with the Resistance milieu, in which it is apparent that the clergy have a highly ambiguous and selective manner of approaching the question of whether the faithful ought to abandon the Fraternity chapels. As Katie showed above, pretty much all of the key Resistance clergy have stated in writing or publicly in sermons, that the faithful ought to avoid Fraternity mass centres. But when asked by individuals, privately, they give different advice, very often the opposite advice in fact. There is abundant evidence of this, and it's provoked a heap of controversy amongst Resistance followers on Cathinfo.

Matthew, for the record, Fr. Johnson's not like the people you're familiar with. You're barking up the wrong tree.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 30, 2014 4:33 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Mithrandylan wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Great contribution, thanks Mith. I have admired your calm and careful posts elsewhere, and your incredible patience with some who seem not to have a clue what the Church teaches. I don't know how you do it!


Pray and drink enough and you'll find that nearly anything can be endured. :)


Ah, you too, huh? :)

Mithrandylan wrote:
When I think of the Resistance, I think of those faithful who have no interest in dealing with the modernist Vatican, so long as it is the modernist Vatican. It is that principle, and that principle only which I can pledge unyielding support to. From there, I may agree with some other points (though that has less and less been the case as far as Fr. Pfeiffer is concerned) but it is that one which I have in mind when I say I support "it."


I identify completely with your principle, I'm one of those people. And I detest the Resistance. The Resistance, generally speaking (I make exception for Fr. Hewko, for example, and plenty of the ordinary faithful who have been duped by the lies) is not even really concerned with Modernists in the Vatican, or proposed deals, or any of that. That's all just a casus belli. For mine, the clearest possible proof is in the flagrant sins these people publicly engage in, against justice, charity, truth, etc. When the deal was killed in 2012, they didn't celebrate, they immediately denied that the deal was dead. They want the SSPX to do a deal, that is the truth, because a deal will give them the ammunition they sorely need to blow up the Fraternity. Along the way countless rumours have appeared, been championed by these people, and then proved utterly baseless. Do they ever retract, apologise, or even welcome the good news that a nasty rumour was untrue? No, never. Do they contact the sources when rumours appear, in order to get to the hard facts? Never. When somebody like me does contact a source, such as Bishop Fellay, they turn and accuse me of having some other agenda. What are they worried about? The facts. They are petrified by truth, by fact, by honest and open discussion of data.

That whole milieu is the devil's playground, aimed at getting people upset, off-balance, and vulnerable. The chief fruit of it is division, and the second fruit of it is the deprivation of many families - especially children - of Holy Mass and the sacraments. What is there about it that he could not love? Here's the motto of the Resistance: "And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is vain."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 30, 2014 4:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
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.


Fri May 30, 2014 11:27 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Dear TKGS,

Very wise. None of this should have been published. Unfortunately, several people thought otherwise and did so. Their recollection or reconstructions, respectively, were calculated to convey the assertion that Fr. Johnson told them they were forbidden to come to mass any more. This was false. Fr. Johnson confirms this and will do so for anybody who cares. Nobody does care, despite their pretensions to an interest in truth. (I actually believe they misunderstood him, but when they discovered this they should have withdrawn their contrary stories. They haven't.) Further, the report written by a non-witness was coloured so as to paint Fr. Johnson in a very bad light. This was wicked. In addition, the simple and direct denial of this material by me, an eye-witness, was not only rejected, but further speculation was launched to the effect that Fr. Johnson might have done something else wrong which would justify the assaults on his good name by those who were upset by his sermon. No comment. Finally, when a report by another eye-witness is presented, the original assertion is seen to be unsupported yet we are subject to commentary to the effect that it was supported. Perverse!

Of course, now that all know that Fr. Johnson is not forbidding these people to come to mass or receive the sacraments (something they could confirm if they desired), they are clearly stating that they have no intention of coming to Jolimont again. Also, recall that the initial report was written by a lady who had decided two weeks before not to go to Jolimont any more. So we are back to what I knew and said all along - Fr. Johnson is being blamed for a decision they are making for themselves, on the long-standing prior advice of the priests that they trust, who all say the same thing - get away from SSPX chapels! If that isn't the purest hypocrisy, I've never seen it.

Would it not have been better if they had left quietly, saying nothing publicly, instead of writing emails and publishing stories blaming an entirely innocent man?

Behold: The Resistance.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 30, 2014 11:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Resistance Nonsense
Good job John.

Truth indeed does matter, and I am glad you brought this incident up. The resistance tends to be a bit too suspicious, sometimes the best way of knowing is simply to ask the priest straight up. Its not that hard, you might also want to give the priest the context of what you are saying.

They need to be as factual as possible, because these matters are grievous.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:36 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.