Selective Amnesia

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Martius, Jun 14, 2017.

  1. Martius

    Martius Well-Known Member

    Once again, the false resistance has demonstrated a severe case of selective amnesia. Its a full blown case of it. Particularly more obvious in some than others.

    Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage, disease, or psychological trauma. Amnesia can also be caused temporarily by the use of various sedatives and hypnotic drugs. The memory can be either wholly or partially lost due to the extent of damage that was caused. There are two main types of amnesia: retrograde amnesia and anterograde amnesia. Retrograde amnesia is the inability to retrieve information that was acquired before a particular date, usually the date of an accident or operation. In some cases the memory loss can extend back decades, while in others the person may lose only a few months of memory. Anterograde amnesia is the inability to transfer new information from the short-term store into the long-term store. People with this type of amnesia cannot remember things for long periods of time. These two types are not mutually exclusive; both can occur simultaneously.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesia


    Now, Sean Johnson (either alone or with full support of BW and company) has taken upon himself to re-write the narrative of Archbishop Lefebvre. Mind you, he's the only one who is saying these ridiculous things. But as he himself is only too ready to tout, he has multiple priests and bishops who confirm his writings. (Mmm, wonder who they are?) A few days ago, he tried foisting upon an unsuspecting public (or at least the few who read his blog – there are only a few, as evidenced by the recent post on CI, 'who is Sean Johnson?') a new narrative.

    He notes right off the bat, this new nonsense is about his long-winded Catechetical Refutation, which was written as an apologetics piece after the scandals caused by Bishop Williamson telling people there was grace to be found in the new mass. After much self-promotion on Johnson's part of the release of this paper last year, several good answers and rebuttals to Johnson's Refutation has left him in the pitiable state of having to continue to keep defending his fully debunked theories on how we can obtain grace in the new mass, or he must admit defeat.

    But no, that he will not do. And so his attempts to continue these efforts of self-promotion/defense of his error-laden paper have forced him into a bit of a corner. Either he must admit he was wrong and the preponderance of evidence given that (particularly) Archbishop Lefebvre never allowed for grace in the new mass and there are no church documents that support this either, no matter how much Johnson has tried to contort them into trying to say so. Or he must continue the contortion. This appears to be what he has chosen to do.

    He tried to say the Archbishop has allowed for attendance at the New Mass. He uses a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre from 1974 - only five years after the roll-out of the new mass, when most of the priests were still validly ordained, still said the mass with the intention of a sacrifice, etc. - again, a hallmark, to take things out of context. Johnson attempts to make AGAIN the point, that the Archbishop supported the error Bishop Williamson has preached since 2015, that there is grace in the new mass. It is interesting to note that in the quotes used by Johnson, the Archbishop either implicitly or explicitly worries that weak souls will be confused by saying we must not be part of the schismatic conciliar church and turn instead to sedevacantism, which the Archbishop warned until his dying day against.

    Again, recently he attempts again to rewrite the legacy of the Archbishop by advancing the idea: 'Did Archbishop Lefebvre REALLY Believe the Council Was “Schismatic?”' (emphasis Johnson's). Of all the absurdities he could have advanced, this was one most were not expecting as the Archbishop's writings redound with references to this idea. One actually winces with pain in reading this, not because there was a shred of truth to it but because of the sure mockery that would accompany such an attempt to disparage the Archbishop's words in a thinly-veiled attempt to bolster Bishop Williamson's. It is classic, liberal re-writing of history at worst. It is selective amnesia at best. Picking and choosing, like a true cafeteria-style Catholic (also known as Protestantism), what is palatable and what is not.


    Archbishop Lefebvre on the NEW MASS:

    This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)

    “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

    "This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)

    “The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)

    “… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)

    “We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

    It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13)

    “And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” – but THEY ARE BETRAYING US – betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work. (Archbishop Lefebvre, September 1990, last address to his priests)



    Archbishop Lefebvre on the 'Schismatic' Vatican II:

    “We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

    The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

    This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)

    This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How is it possible that the Pope can sign this constitution [on liturgical change]? It is a deep mystery.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)

    “We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988) [Notice how the Archbishop clearly tells us that the conciliar church defines itself with the new mass. Thus we can see that while there may ever more rare cases of valid new masses, we nonetheless must not associate with it, as was pointed out multiple times by the Archbishop. For by doing so we count ourselves as part of the conciliar church.]

    "It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)

    “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

    “John Paul II “now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.(Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)

    “What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

    “Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

    "The Catholic faithful have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they have recourse are not in communion with a counterfeit Church which is evolutionary, pentecostalist, syncretist." (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, Econe, July 6, 1988.)

    “How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 8, 1978)

    The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, July 8, 1987)

    Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)
     
  2. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    I would like to counter, that especially in some cases amongst the false/fake/faux pas Resistance, it is more delusions of grandeur.

    upload_2017-6-13_14-18-44.jpeg
     
  3. Scarlet Pimpernel

    Scarlet Pimpernel Active Member

    Now that would be a miracle!
     
    Deus Vult and unbrandable like this.
  4. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Seems like Mr. Johnson is trying to float his investment of BW than of Catholic doctrine. Throwing the grace of Archbishop Lefebvre under the bus has consequences in heaven.

    Dislodging Archbishop Lefebvre's writings into a time frame of political "probabilities" to suit a selfish group, like the new-sspx is doing, is very low.
     
    Scarlet Pimpernel and Rose like this.
  5. Rose

    Rose Well-Known Member

    Well, it stands to reason that if the false resistance is going to try to bend and twist the Council of Trent to support their narrative (as he did in his 'refutation'), the same faulty attempts of bending and twisting will apply to everyone and everything else.

    The thing that is so interesting about these particular attempts of SJ's is that they are so quickly and easily countered, it elicits surprise that they/he didn't think this one through a little bit better.
     
  6. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member


    upload_2017-6-14_15-14-15.png
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017
    Scarlet Pimpernel likes this.