R
roanoker
Guest
If the Pentagon incident was not an airliner, what happened to all the passengers and crew of an AA plane that were never heard of again? (One of which was a tv celebrity). Raptured, maybe?
- Status
G
GerardP
Guest
Uh oh. You’ve nailed it.
I can just hear it, “But…but…Matt Abbott posted an article implicating the entire SSPX based on an article about what someone supposedly heard Bishop Williamson say.”
Forget the fact that the bishop devoted a good amount of time to his perspective on this in 2003 with Bernard Janzen. It’s only over 4 years old.
But hey, it’s a good opportunity to blast the SSPX as an integral part of the traditionalist stance in the Church. Williamson gets to be misrepresented, the SSPX gets to be misrepresented and authentic tradition in the Church gets to be misrepresented.
It’s part and parcel with the trashing of Fr. Malachi Martin on Angelqueen earlier this year and prior to that Abbott and another would-be journalist posing as a traditionalist took creative license with Atila Sinke Guimareas.
Any Catholic who doesn’t actively support the messianic policy of the U.S. in the middle East is going to be slimed.
Chris Ferrara recently pointed out another aspect of any Catholic that doesn’t act like a “Republican” Catholic gets trashed.
Judie Brown has even been trashed.
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-1115-syllabus_of_hitchcock.htm
G
GerardP
Guest
In your mind, was there ever a conspiracy that was real?
Part of the problem is, those who oppose any kind of idea that any kind of scullduggery is planned by elites with huge amounts of influence won’t provide a definition of what a conspiracy is.
Ultimately, I believe they are in denial about the reality of evil, the activity and existence of the Devil and belief in Hell.
G
GerardP
Guest
Unfortunately, your assertion that there is only one consensus on how the buildings fell is wrong. There are multiple speculations by people who don’t think it was either an allowed terrorist attack or a “Boston Tea Party” style of deception who differ on how the towers fell.
You have the pancake theory, and you have the idea that the truss system was heated, sagged and pulled the outer walls into the building causing the collapse. There are few other hypotheses as well.
There are also differing opinions about the jet fuel and nature of the fire.
Even among those that believe the most common understanding of the attack there are differences of opinion.
I’m sure Bishop Williamson has heard multiple opinions about the nature of the collapse.
B
Brendan
Guest
Do you think we live in a cartoon world? That when something goes through a wall that it leaves a silouette of itself, like Wile E. Coyote hitting a canyon wall.
Guess what, in real life, things don’t work that way. The wings and tail are designed to take a lateral stress ( up and down for the wings), they are NOT designed to take a frontal sheer force. In other words, when hit from the front, they break off.
This is actually by design, because if that type of strike to the wing is something that can really only happen at or near the ground. The desired behavior in that case is not to have the aircraft stop immediately ( which would cause a massive deceleration on the passengers) or to wagon wheel around the object ( which would mean a loss of directional control to the pilot)
Rather, they are to break off at sheer, allowing both pilot control of direction and braking. Which is a good thing.
G
GerardP
Guest
You can’t possibly think that, that is what he meant.Do you think we live in a cartoon world? That when something goes through a wall that it leaves a silouette of itself, like Wile E. Coyote hitting a canyon wall.
In fact you are actually quoting the Popular Mechanics ad-homimen used by one of their writers who used the exact same misrepresentation.
It’s called setting up a straw man.
You’re obviously trying to belittle the point that the poster pointed out that there was no wreckage resembling the wings near the impact point.
What else does the TV tell you to think?
P
pnewton
Guest
Perhaps they were all secretly one of “the elites” and only pretended to disappear.
S
stmaria
Guest
Let me go on record. I believe Popular Mechanics has it right on the 9-11 attack.
popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
F
fatima1917
Guest
I think most posters are missing the point here. The fact is that SSPX is basically a conspiracy factory which operates on the basis of melding prophecy and the churches problems together in order to control peoples lives through fear. Fear of change, fear of the unsettled times, fear of the moral decay of society, etc. After a while the issues that they use to separate them selves from the Bark of Peter fade away but the schism continues. How is that possible you say? The TLM has been freed and ecumenism has been properly interpreted by the magisterium in Dominus Jesu. Does SSPX come back? No! Why? Because the issues are not the issues anymore; it is all about power. The SSPX bishops are media stars with power over peoples lives and power over millions of dollars. It is intoxicating. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In the Catholic church under the authority of BXVI, Williamson could not be a bishop for all of the tea in China. Kooks like him once they are reconciled with the Pope are sent to a monestary in the upper reaches of the South America Andes to live out their lives so that there could be some hope for their salvation. As for the laity in SSPX the majority would drift back to the church and look upon their time of having the swamp fever of schism supported by whacko conspiracy theories as just an embarassing episode in their lives. As for the rest they have drank the cool aid and there really is no hope for them.
In the Catholic church under the authority of BXVI, Williamson could not be a bishop for all of the tea in China. Kooks like him once they are reconciled with the Pope are sent to a monestary in the upper reaches of the South America Andes to live out their lives so that there could be some hope for their salvation. As for the laity in SSPX the majority would drift back to the church and look upon their time of having the swamp fever of schism supported by whacko conspiracy theories as just an embarassing episode in their lives. As for the rest they have drank the cool aid and there really is no hope for them.
G
GerardP
Guest
I have to say I was unimpressed with the mode of argumentation by Popular Mechanics. And I’ve been the same on several other issues like Evolution.
Here’s an interesting rebuttal to the PM article:
911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
G
GerardP
Guest
That’s the “fact”? That’s actually nothing more than your own little conspiracy theory.
What facts can you offer that support your theory?
First it’s “Barque” not “Bark”. Second, how is that true when Bishop Fellay personally goes to meet Pope Benedict at the request of Fellay?
But those aren’t the doctrinal issues that the SSPX has been requesting be clarified. The ecumenical policies have not been in line with Dominus Iesus. And the excommunication declarations haven’t been nullified. The Motu Proprio was the first of two requests the SSPX made BEFORE they were willing to discuss doctrinal issues. After the doctrinal issues are discussed-reintegrating the SSPX into the organizational structure can take place.
This one made me laugh. I remember kissing Bishop Williamson’s ring and talking to him while he was sitting on a plastic chair and eating off of a paper plate with a plastic fork. He’s really living the high life.
Under St. Pius X he would probably be Secretary of State.
“Kooks” like him? I’m continually impressed with the intellect of a number of posters. Added to that the charitable attitude. Pope Benedict would really approve.
And you know this how?
Ah yes, the magisterial voice of fatima1917 proclaims “no hope for Catholics that don’t agree with fatima1917.”
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
F
fatima1917
Guest
I lived around them for a long time, Gerald. My wife is one of them. I know how they think because I have had many talks with them. It is all about conspiracy. A melding of Fatima and La Sallete to get their template for their justification of schism. Don’t tell me I don’t know because I know.
Don’t drink the cool aid Gerald it only makes you very sick.
Don’t drink the cool aid Gerald it only makes you very sick.
G
GerardP
Guest
S
Sure
Guest
Gerard,
Why are you defending him on this? Don’t you see that he destroys the credibility of the SSPX? And that you hurt your own credibility by defending him?
It seems terribly ironic to me that you constantly point fingers at anyone who defends the Pope saying that “they find the Pope irresistable”, when apparently, you find Bishop Williamson irresistable.
Are you also going to defend Bishop Williamson’s statement that the Holocaust did not occur and that no Jews dies in the gas chambers?
Why are you defending him on this? Don’t you see that he destroys the credibility of the SSPX? And that you hurt your own credibility by defending him?
It seems terribly ironic to me that you constantly point fingers at anyone who defends the Pope saying that “they find the Pope irresistable”, when apparently, you find Bishop Williamson irresistable.
Are you also going to defend Bishop Williamson’s statement that the Holocaust did not occur and that no Jews dies in the gas chambers?
G
GerardP
Guest
And of course, we are all alike. How convenient for your broad brush. I guess all conciliarists who go to the Novus Ordo are happy with the idea of Clown Masses.
I wonder if you are going to be the one to define “conspiracy.” Nobody on CA seems to want to define it. But they deny them all the time.
Really? So how come I have Bishop Williamson on tape distinguishing between approved apparitions and unapproved and how no one is obliged to believe them? How come this weekend on the reflection of the Gospel, our priest stated that he had no right to make anyone assent to an interpretation regarding the Great Tribulation in the Church since there was no dogmatic official doctrine from the Church beyond a few straightforward points?
I think you’ve been drinking your own brand of “cool aid” since your experience is nothing like the years of experience I have.
This is what the “cool aid” is at the SSPX chapels I’m aware of.
Say the Rosary.
Learn the Faith,
Hold onto the Faith.
Live the Faith.
Don’t compromise the Faith.
Pray for the Pope.
Pray for the Bishops (all of the bishops)
Avoid sin and the near occasion of sin as best you can.
Frequent the sacraments.
Aim for Heaven, not Purgatory, because if you aim for Purgatory, you’re going to end up in Hell.
P
pnewton
Guest
All laudable, but you left out the part about receiving sacraments from priest not licitly approved by the local ordinary. I believe that is the part that is considered problematic.
Once again, where did all the people go? If it were a missle and not a plane, what happened to the passengers?
G
GerardP
Guest
Because I always defend people who are attacked by bullies.
- He has the right to hold an opinion on these matters right or wrong.
- Catholics should not pick a secular point of disagreement in order to throw ad homimens. Disagree with him if you want but hurling insults based on simple disagreement is not the same as a passionate disagreement based on reason.
- Had there been a calm disagreement with Williamson, I wouldn’t be inspired to defend him. But the cat calls and smears are simply unworthy of Catholics and need a rebuke.
This has been said so many times. Enemies of the SSPX are out to destroy the credibility of the SSPX with truth or lies. Somehow the SSPX seems to get through each “storm.”
And ultimately, I don’t know the bishop’s full argument. I used to think Fr. Malachi Martin was just an old Irishman full of “Blarney” but he’s turned out to have been way ahead of the curve.
Advocates of individual issues that he pointed out like Pat Buchanan or Glenn Beck still don’t seem to get the full grasp of the world situation the way Fr. Martin did. Bishop W also has that perspective. So did the late Fr. Vincent Miceli S.J.
I’ve been down these roads before.
No. I find Bishop Williamson persuasive and reasonable. What initially inspired me to investigate him was reading “whacky” statements taken way out of context. But the utter cruelty thrown at him by so-called Catholics was way out of proportion.
So, I reached into my pocket and invested in his “Faith In Crisis” series of interviews with Bernard Janzen. The conversations go back to the 1980’s pre-consecration with Father Williamson.
Needless to say the gaps were filled in that differentiated the man I’ve met and the “The Monster” as he described himself to me as the media presents him.
I’m going to point out that that statement has been floating around for years with no real context. I’ve asked for the context numerous times and no one seems to have it.
Back in '03 the bishop referred to how one “must” adhere to an official line on the Holocaust or face consequences in an interview for the Remnant.
He also in 03 gave an interview that explained his position on “the Jews” to Bernard Janzen. It was very Catholic and very well reasoned and very beautiful in sentiment.
What I’ve found interesting is that many of the things I was taught about the Holocaust have turned out to be untrue. (eg. Nazis made Jews into soap and lampshades. Pius XII was Hitler’s Pope, Jews were burned alive in big bonfires or ovens. )
Was there a persecution of Jews in Germany? Answer: Yes. Are the details absolutely clear? Answer: that is debated.
Another thing I’ve found interesting is how people who question such things are thrown into jail in many countries. Not for encouraging persecution of Jews but for questioning the details of the History.
Imagine if people were treated that way if they denied Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope” or if they denied that the Inquisition 'burned thousands of Jews" or “killed 11 million people.”
Bishop Williamson says a lot of politically incorrect things that eventually turn out to be correct down the line.
The man is doggedly in love with Jesus Christ and he never takes his eye off of him. He wants nothing more than to save souls and he does a good job of realigning people’s priorities.
I saw a confirmation video of him recently and he said, “God made the world for one purpose only. To save souls. All else is a distraction.”
G
GerardP
Guest
I’m sure the catacombs had juridical issues as well. I believe we are in an emergency situation in the Church. We seem to disagree on the extent of the emergency. However the Holy See allows participation at SSPX chapels if it is to the spiritual advantage of the person.
I don’t know. How did Bishop Williamson describe it? You must know his position. Right?
F
fatima1917
Guest
Yup that is for sure. If you have a discussion with a SSPSer the clown masses will surely show up sooner than later. So a few clown masses and off we go appointing bishops without Papal approval. You SSPXers are so predictable.
Very interesting that you brought up about approved apparitions and unapproved apparitions and “Bishop” Williamson. It seems if I remember correctly while sitting down to a meal within earshot of the dear dear “Bishop” Williamson that I heard the good old phrase from Garabandal of “Many Cardinals, Bishops, and priests are on the road to hell” from the lips of the dear “Bishop”. Now as far as I have heard that is an apparition that is not approved by the local Bishop of Santander and has stated officially that there is nothing supernatural about the supposed apparitions. I have also heard in SSPX land that Williamson is an advid believer in Garabandal. Maybe Williamson should take some of his own advice. O but wait Williamson and the other gagle of bishops are there own magisterium so they can set the rules and do what they want whenever they want.
As I stated before both true and false prophecy and the churches problems are used by SSPX to create a condition of fear so that people can be controlled. I live it everyday.
- Status