Sean Johnson sees the fruits

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Defender, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. Defender

    Defender Member

    Sean Johnson sees the fruits [I've put the fruits in red]

    From Sean Johnson’s website.

    http://sodalitium-pianum.com/the-resistance-and-self-fulfilling-prophecy/


    The Resistance and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

    by

    Sean Johnson

    11/8/17


    A couple weeks ago, I introduced the idea of “self-fulfilling prophecy” in relation to Bishop Williamson’s discouraging and defeatist counsel in a recent Eleison Comments, stating my belief that:

    To take the completely defensive and fatalistic posture His Excellency is advocating is to GUARANTEE defeat; it is to allow ourselves to be overrun in what is sure to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating precisely the situation His Excellency thinks exists now.

    In this article, I would like to explore this idea of “self-fulfilling prophecy,” and apply that principle to the current situation in the Resistance (insofar as that incohesive “body” of clergy and faithful can be described in a monolithic sense), to see whether or not it runs the risk of falling into such a situation.

    According to this well-written Wikipedia article, a self-fulfilling prophecy is:

    …a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior. Although examples of such prophecies can be found in literature as far back as ancient Greece and ancient India, it is 20th-century sociologist, Robert K. Merton, who is credited with coining the expression “self-fulfilling prophecy” and formalizing its structure and consequences. In his 1948 article Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Merton defines it in the following terms:

    The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.

    In other words, a positive or negative prophecy, strongly held belief, or delusion—declared as truth when it is actually false—may sufficiently influence people so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy are effects in behavioral confirmation effect, in which behavior, influenced by expectations, causes those expectations to come true.

    How, precisely, does this notion of self-fulfilling prophecy apply to Bishop Williamson’s approach to the Resistance apostolate?

    Firstly, His Excellency seems to me to be unduly swayed by private revelation (even contradictory ones), and prophecy. For example, in a recent brief interview, His Excellency was asked the question, “What are Catholics to make of the Second Vatican Council?” Answer: “The Second Vatican Council was a gigantic step forward in the great Apostasy predicted and prophesied toward the end of the world.”

    Thus, His Excellency’s starting point for his approach to the Resistance apostolate is not the public revelation of the Church (Scripture and Tradition; doctrine and dogma), whose truths are certain and obligatory, but rather private revelations and prophecies whose teachings are optional, non-obligatory, sometimes contradictory, and most importantly: Uncertain.

    This is not at all to suggest that His Excellency denies anything in public revelation!

    Just that it is interesting to observe an uncertain, fallible, possibly untrue basis for His Excellency’s approach to the apostolate being given preference to the certain and infallible quality of public revelation.

    But having embraced the private revelations and prophecies (e.g., Holzhauser; Akita; Fatima; Valtorta; Garabandal; LaSalette; etc) as a basis for his worldview, it is only natural to conclude that the end of the world is imminent. And if the end of the world is imminent -truly- then “hunkering down” and praying the Rosary while waiting for Heaven to intervene has a certain reasonableness to it: Why build seminaries, constitute religious orders, endorse Catholic Action, encourage vocations; etc. if the end is near?

    It would all be frivolity and folly.

    But its also a huge gamble: What if his excellency is wrong?

    What if the world has many hundreds (or thousands) of years to go? In that case, we will have recklessly ascribed to an end of the world scenario which resulted in snuffing out our Lord’s Resistance (and Church), such that the question our Lord asks in Scripture comes about: “When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on Earth?”

    Moreover, if His Excellency sees no reason to rebuild because the end of the world is imminent, does this not ensure that the remnants of traditional Catholicism get completely overrun; that the enemies of the Church are given free reign; that without any Catholic resistance in the world working to counteract the gains of secular humanism inside and outside the Church, that in such a scenario we are actually HELPING to prepare the soil for the advent of Antichrist?

    It is in this way that His Excellency’s fatalism/defeatism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: By mistakenly believing that the end of the world is upon us, the “hunker-down” strategy removes all the soldiers from the field who could have prevented or forestalled the advent of the Antichrist, such that now the Church is given over even more completely to him; the world situation becomes daily worse, and the mistaken premise upon which His Excellency’s approach to the apostolate was based in the beginning guides our actions (i.e., “hunker-down-ism”) into creating the very situation in reality, or, as we stated above:

    In other words, a positive or negative prophecy, strongly held belief, or delusion—declared as truth when it is actually false—may sufficiently influence people so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.

    The solution to combating a self-fulfilling prophecy is what is known as a “self-defeating prophecy

    A self-defeating prophecy is the complementary opposite of a self-fulfilling prophecy: a prediction that prevents what it predicts from happening. This is also known as the “prophet’s dilemma”.

    A self-defeating prophecy can be the result of rebellion to the prediction. If the audience of a prediction has an interest in seeing it falsified, and its fulfillment depends on their actions or inaction, their actions upon hearing it will make the prediction less plausible. If a prediction is made with this outcome specifically in mind, it is commonly referred to as reverse psychology or warning. Also, when working to make a premonition come true, one can inadvertently change the circumstances so much that the prophecy cannot come true.

    It is important to distinguish a self-defeating prophecy from a self-fulfilling prophecy that predicts a negative outcome. If a prophecy of a negative outcome is made, and that negative outcome is achieved as a result of positive feedback, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, if a group of people decide they will not be able to achieve a goal and stop working towards the goal as a result, their prophecy was self-fulfilling. Likewise, if a prediction of a negative outcome is made, but the outcome is positive because of negative feedback resulting from the rebellion, then that is a self-defeating prophecy.

    A self-defeating prophecy to counteract Bishop Williamson’s self-fulfilling prophecy is precisely what I am advocating: When the day comes that the world situation is such that the Church must return to the catacombs to preserve its very survival, then and only then will it be time to hunker down and wait for heaven to intervene.

    Until then, we have a King to defend. And our business is to be about the restoration of His kingdom. This hopelessness which would have us all lay down our arms, even before the first shot is fired, and clear the field for the enemy, approaches treason against Him whom we are to give all for.

    I will fight this vision until the end, out of loyalty to our King.


    The Hidden Church:

    There is yet another aspect or principle which ensures the realization of this self-fulfilling prophecy, which one might call the “private Resistance.”

    The private Resistance is a conscious approach to the apostolate which seeks to remain below the radar; to stay out of the public gaze; to spread itself by word of mouth (if it spreads itself at all); to consciously forego many aspects of Catholic action (conferences; books/magazines/publicly published articles/websites/etc). It fears to make itself known.


    Basically, it replicates the Church in the catacombs

    Once again, such an approach might be considered necessary amidst bloody persecution for the very survival of the Church in those times. Yet objectively, the Church is constituted as a public institution, known to the world by its conspicuous visibility. Conversely, how can we not notice the opposition between the idea of a hidden Church, and the visible Church constituted by our Lord? If faith comes by hearing, then how can we refuse to preach it?

    The hidden apostolate requires the faithful and clergy to seek out this kind of Resistance, yet how can they, if they are not made aware of its message? Worse still if its message is one of despair, chicken little-ism, and hopelessness.

    Naturally, such a vision has absolutely no attraction for the faithful (except for apparition-obsessed types), and the end result is again a suicidal, self-destructive approach which succeeds in bringing about the very prophecy it wrongly diagnosed in the beginning.


    Reflecting back in time:

    When in April/2013 His Excellency came to St. Paul for a conference, on a weekday, and during work hours, we were able to draw 100 Resistance faithful, despite less than ideal attendance conditions. It was at this time that His Excellency began expounding upon Holzhauser’s “Seven Ages of the Church,” and thereafter giving the Resistance (whose existence preceded his entry into it) a new vision for the apostolate:

    The end was near; independence instead of hierarchy; eventually a hidden resistance which really had nothing public to say.

    The result?

    In St. Paul today we are lucky if we can muster 20 people.


    Nobody was buying what Bishop Williamson was selling, and forced to choose between a liberalizing SSPX or a doomed and depressing Resistance, most chose the former. After all, if Menzingen goes liberal, subjectively I can still maintain my own personal faith despite them. But with this new kind of resistance, well, we won’t even have any priests!

    The Resistance has languished because of this reorientation of it: We have gone from rebuilding to surviving.

    What began as a contingency plan to carry on the apostolate of the SSPX as it was created by Archbishop Lefebevre was morphed into a premature acceptance of Fr. Calmel’s O.P. vision and Benson’s “Lord of the World” scenarios before their time.

    When the faithful meditated upon the inevitable results of such a vision, they saw no future in it.

    Yes, there would always be a dwindling number of faithful who managed to find a Resistance bishop somewhere, but rebuilding has given way to an illusory survival mode; “we just need to survive,” we are continually told. But it seems an excuse to avoid reaching our potential.

    Suddenly what was possible in 2012 was no longer possible in 2013.

    Or, because a superior general can subvert an entire order (has it not always been the case?), we will do away with hierarchy. If we have had subversive popes, should we do away with the papacy?

    So the die is cast, and until these bishops shake themselves free from the idea that we are already in survival mode, their approach to the apostolate will continue to diminish the Resistance.


    Clearing the air:

    One person accused me of making a “vicious attack” on Bishop Williamson. In good faith, that was never my intention. As my apology post mentioned, I lamented the tone/tenor of that post, but it is the idea and vision I oppose, not the man. In my mind, we are allies who are having a rather profound difference of opinion.

    And yes, I realize one of us is a bishop, and one of us is not.

    Ultimately, it comes down to this: If in conscience (rightly formed or wrongly) I believe the approach to the apostolate the bishops have endorsed is deleterious to the very survival of the Resistance (much less its growth and rebuilding), then how can I remain silent in the matter? Would I not then become the very “yes-man” some have accused me of on prior occasions?

    Another person said to me (paraphrasing), “Your post could have been lifted from a Pfeifferian website. Are you now heading in their direction?”

    Apparently, it is not possible to disagree in any matter whatever, without being accused by simplistic minds of having flip-flopped.

    Even one of the bishops, in a recent conversation when I pointed out to him that despite his errors, Fr. Pfeiffer was at least public and committed to rebuilding when he left the SSPX, and for his efforts he grew dozens of Mass locations, giving people hope and inspiration… But I couldn’t even get the thought out. Before I could complete it, he told me, “Then go with them!”

    Everything a Pfeifferite says is not wrong merely because he is a Pfeifferite. If one told me that 2+2=4, should I reject it because he was a Pfeifferite?

    In my mind, I am with the bishops, even if I disagree with their organization of the Resistance apostolate in light of the qualitative and quantitative decline this vision has resulted in: It will keep our chapels empty, and SSPX chapels full.

    Is one not permitted to voice a disagreement without being accused of being an enemy? I have cast my lot with these bishops, and I give them my support. I want to help the Resistance, but not into the foxholes, but for the rebuilding of Christendom. That process begins with replicating the model of the SSPX, and not blazing a new path into the unknown.

    So long as this fatalistic, hidden, independent vision remains the basis of Resistance, our hopes are all narrowed to a little congregation in France (the SAJM), and a couple allied religious orders, which have maintained the traditional apostolate.

    Everything else will disappear like Powers Lake.

     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
  2. Ecclesia Militans

    Ecclesia Militans Active Member

    The severity of the issue that Sean speaks about in this article is relatively low compared to Bishop Williamson permitting one to actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass given certain circumstances and the damage that Mr. Johnson has done in defending him. If Mr. Johnson wants to be taken seriously in my book, he must retract his flawed publication.
     
  3. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    Just like with everything else with the fake resistance - they flop around like fish out of water on the more minor issues but but they hold fast to their doctrinal errors. Thus Sean Johnson makes no mention of the grace in the new mass issue because for them, its not an issue. They don't like the poor leadership of Bishop Williamson but are very content with his errors.
     
    JillMcFaul likes this.
  4. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    A flopping fish out of water among other fishes with a rotten head (bishops of false resistance) is a good metaphor. The fisherman is the devil luring to shore unsuspecting souls…only to leave them flopping to die. And those bishops know it. Our Lord through the great Archbishop Lefebvre had warned of this many times – touching modernism is a fish hook of the devil.

    Fortunately Mr. Johnson is using his latest (last?) breath, when his other breaths try to lure us in as well on shore to sun bathe in that unnatural environment for a fish, to also warn of the moral dangers he sees related to these bishops. If only SJ would spit out the hook of the modernist doctrine not allowing him to get back in the water…his flopping will continue. And that too is a “self-fulfilling prophecy” and a “GUARANTEE of defeat” –to use his words.

    A moral danger is a doctrinal danger. One cannot be immoral without twisting the doctrinal gate.

    As a fish begins to rot from the head, the essence of the rot from these faux pas bishops continues in pertinacity of a modernist cult mixed with a traditional view to it. It’s not hard to see. Our Lord made it quite visible in their words and actions. There’s hope though, not through human means but through our Lord who rose from rot many of prelates immersed in their sins.

    Telling too from SJ, the insider, the errors conveyed by BW is also conveyed in the plural through his other 3-bishops; as we already knew. SJ wrote:

    "Even one of the bishops, in a recent conversation when I pointed out to him that despite his errors, Fr. Pfeiffer was at least public and committed to rebuilding when he left the SSPX, and for his efforts he grew dozens of Mass locations, giving people hope and inspiration… But I couldn’t even get the thought out. Before I could complete it, he told me, “Then go with them!”"

    Yes, the false resistance is fatalistic! And a human understanding of grace and growth is not the cause, it is an effect. Catholic growth is based and provided by God to those faithful to His mission holding and passing on the true faith (unwanted by many) by the Holy Spirit our saintly forefathers also fought for (Catholic Catechism).

    But could we humbly in the House of God ever get the words out for ABL’s perennial guidance to help them before the false resistance cuts us off? Surely we could disagree without being “simplistic” or “children in a play pen”; could we? But SJ only finds it appropriate when he is the one asking the questions - oh hum…:

    "Another person said to me (paraphrasing), “Your post could have been lifted from a Pfeifferian website. Are you now heading in their direction?”

    "Apparently, it is not possible to disagree in any matter whatever, without being accused by simplistic minds of having flip-flopped.

    "Everything a Pfeifferite says is not wrong merely because he is a Pfeifferite. If one told me that 2+2=4, should I reject it because he was a Pfeifferite?

    "Is one not permitted to voice a disagreement without being accused of being an enemy?"

    But SJ still rejects it, conveniently, at will, and we are still the "enemy". Hmm...

    So what is really being said by SJ?

    "In my mind, I am with the bishops, even if I disagree with their organization of the Resistance apostolate in light of the qualitative and quantitative decline this vision has resulted in: It will keep our chapels empty, and SSPX chapels full."

    Yes, to be in the false resistance, the Stockholm Syndrome needs to continue with admiration of the jailers and the rot it ensues.

    But the flop continues…

    "I have cast my lot with these bishops, and I give them my support. I want to help the Resistance, but not into the foxholes, but for the rebuilding of Christendom. That process begins with replicating the model of the SSPX, and not blazing a new path into the unknown.

    "So long as this fatalistic, hidden, independent vision remains the basis of Resistance, our hopes are all narrowed to a little congregation in France (the SAJM), and a couple allied religious orders, which have maintained the traditional apostolate."

    Sigh…conservatism still doesn't work, it is another fish out of water.

    When will these fishes spit out the fatalistic hook and go back into the living waters?

    With prayers…we hope.


    Ps.
    They seem to rely on a "bishop" to remain and flop on the fatalistic shore. Another answer for them is coming soon...

    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017 at 2:50 AM
  5. Admin

    Admin Moderator Staff Member

    Well summed up Machabees. Johnson's self-deception is unbelievable!
     
    mirella likes this.
  6. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Received an email SJ is well aware of the message, but still has no defense but to regurgitate his past omissions and stark errors twisting ABL into some false resistance supporter too. How man tries to bend God into his pocket... Said he is going to put up his previous self-glorified pin up every couple of months as if saying something wrong many times will somehow make it better.

    SJ is missing the whole point (purposeful to save BW again? Or maybe himself?). Seems that is the thing for the priests too in the false resistance, they say nothing to BW's errors even when the moral and doctrinal depravity is a visible open sore. No compassion to help your bishop(s)? What if Bishop Fellay did and said the SAME moral and doctrinal depravities? Seems those priests stood up for more than that earlier, why not this time standing up for the rights of our Lord when BW does it? Utility? Didn't seem to bother them leaving the sspx. Why now the silence, forced into compliance by BW (no Holy oils and sacraments)? No longer wanting to fight...? Why only a few of their faux pas layfolk saying something and they are not?

    I know many and especially three large families who left everything, moved to a strange location decades ago to be closer to a sspx priory fighting for the faith and apostolate for their children, when the new 2012 civil war happened in the sspx, they were present, staunch, and angry at the betrayal. Reaction, they said chin down, "I'm done fighting and moving...can't do anything about it." They gave up. Human will is fickle. What a shame. And now? They all are passive conservative neo-traditional catholics loving the non-conforming life the new-sspx offers. Sad. And the SAME for these priests in the false resistance? Nothing too...you can here a pin drop in the public arena. But privately, all sorts of admitted discouragement. The Catholic Chruch is not for the Nicodemus' to hide but for a Church of saints to proclaim Jesus and Him crucified in a private AND public manner to save one's soul and many others.

    Has catholic charity grown cold, dismissed, and left at the door like shoes?

    Fortunately, we have our predecessors our Lord warned to be our anchor and made a parable for us to follow such lineage pointing to God...to save one's soul. Not with a choice to follow novel ideas of man.

    "And [the dead rich man in hell] cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

    "And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

    "And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, [even] if one rise again from the dead"
    (Luke 16)​

    Bishop Williamson errors and novelty (in extension his three other bishops) is no different from the rich man making up sediments and a different course to follow. Regard no man, says our Lord, but be afraid of the one who can banish you to hell for infidelity.

    "Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10).​

    Here too, our Lord said:

    "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him." (John 4).​


    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017 at 4:22 AM
    mirella and Enos like this.
  7. Martius

    Martius Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately for them, the false resistance has backed themselves into the proverbial corner. They placed all their hopes in BW and company. They betrayed their faith to follow a man. And now when BW’s errors are too much for even them, they have no where to go, literally.

    And even though they acknowledge the problems with BW, they refuse out of pure vitriol, to give credit to those good priests who did sound the alarm and warn us about these errors. They have been so full of hate towards those good priests, especially of OLMC, they cannot see how BW has betrayed them. And how OLMC was right all along.

    And for what? Pride goes before the fall. And the fall is losing one’s Faith.