SSPX and 9/11

[GerardP]

Again, I’ve been asked and I’ve answered again over and over and over again.

No. You haven’t answered. You’ve responded but not answered.

And he didn’t deny it in one of them, did he?

It didn’t come up. He didn’t avoid answering anything like you avoid admitting that you have not heard one of the interviews I’ve referred to.

There goes the gymnastics again. Good old George didn’t have a website did he.

It’s not gymnastics. It’s pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. You demand that Williamson apologize or deny a quote that you don’t even know if it is real, what the context was or what the bishop thinks. You are upset by this allegation so, you believe the bishop owes you an apology and a retraction. Not an explanation or even a verification. That is what is absurd.

Williamson has quite often used the SSPX site to put forth corrections. Who knows? Maybe he’ll put out a correction in a few weeks. That said, he hasn’t yet on the gas chamber quote. In fact, he has spoken to them already with no correction so we can assume it to be true.

I haven’t seen anyone actually present him or anyone with a counter argument. Just a lot of table pounding telling to believe what they believe. It’s funny how you assume that the need for a retraction is so self-evident on something that you take solely on faith.

You protest because you have to. One of the major leaders in your little world has spewed some very loopy things and you have to dismiss them or it lessens your arguments when you say “Listen to him”.

You’ve missed the whole point. I’m not saying “Listen to him.” I’m saying “Listen to yourselves.” Williamson says or is reported to say something controversial and so many of you become unhinged. It’s a sign of a deeper issue.

The sad thing is that most of us would be more inclined to listen to you if you just admitted that he puts forth some loopy ideas but not all of them are loopy.

Basically, you are saying if I agree with you more, you’ll agree with me more. That’s an argument for persuasion based on compromise instead of argument for the sake of and in pursuit of the truth.

That would be far better for your cause then to try and dismiss them over and over again claiming context problems that aren’t there.

So you refuse to even acknowledge that your knowledge of the situation is limited. You are right and the only acceptable response if capitulation to your perspective.

I encourage people to read his letters posted on the site run by his group all of the time because they show, in context, just how loopy he is.

Yet you won’t cite a real example. The fact that you trash him because he pointed out the unhealthy attitudes presented in a comparably harmless movie like the Sound of Music is evidence that you’ve missed the point he was making about the culture we live in.

Again, he’s been asked about the quote and his only defense was that he was arguing against the enemies of Christ.

Again, that was an unsubstantiated thirdhand report.

He never said that he didn’t say it. We can assume it to be true. Secondly, context has nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with the loopiness of the comment. Gerard, do you believe that there were no Jews killed in gas chambers?

I don’t know if there were or weren’t with absolute certainty. I’m certainly not going to take it on faith. I prefer to at least give someone a hearing on the basis of their arguments.

If someone in the 1970’s told me Jews were not made into soap and lampshades, I would have thought they were “loopy.” I’m older and wiser now. I don’t treat history like dogma.

 

[GerardP]

You make some very interesting points Gerard, and I’m not going to try and formulate an opinion one way or another about 9-11 and what really happened, because I don’t believe we have all the facts. Am I ready to accept some 20 year old with his own blog’s, theory of how 9-11 was an inside job ? NO I’am not. Am I ready to accept the war mongering, we need bases everywhere, and must curtail civil liberties in the USA, Bush Administration’s explanation ? The answer is also NO.

Thank God! A sane response. You just made my day.

 

[GerardP]

Just to set the record straight, Parson Weems’ biography of Washington, which is the only source for the cherry tree story, was written long after Washington’s death, so he couldn’t very well deny it.

So does that mean it happened or it didn’t happen?

 

[Sure]

I’m wondering how much worse the unsupported ad hominems can get.

People are either moved by the Holy Spirit or Something Else. We can have an idea of which by what they say and do. This man subscribes to bizarre lies about Jews and 9/11 is excommunicated and continues to sacriligiously confect Christ’s Body. The Holy Spirit doesn’t move people to do such things.

That is truly funny. You really have no idea about the man.

Again, I know him by his actions. I know that for an excommucated priest to celebrate Mass is a mortal sin. The fact that he does such things tells me about his character. It’s fair to judge a man by what he does and says.

That’s right. Get him to a Clown Mass or a Charismatic “Healing” someone can speak in tongues to give him deliverance.

I really fail to see why having him attend a sacriligious, abuse-ridden liturgy would help him in any way. Perhaps, we could just pray that he begs the Holy Father to forgive him for his grievious evil actions. Then maybe he could help in the rebuilding of the traditions of Catholicism.

 

[pnewton]

I find this a very strange attitude. You are virtually idolatrous of the U.S. Government.

Me thinks you are a little too generous with that accusation. A person can believe something or someone without it being idolatry. Oh well, it is not the first time Catholics have been falsely accused of idolatry.

 

[First_of_9]

So does that mean it happened or it didn’t happen?

Didn’t happen.

Much of Weems’ biographies–A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits, of General George Washington(1800) and The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen(1806) is at best “pious fiction” and incidents such as the cherry tree and tossing a dollar across the Potomac were created out of whole cloth.

 

[childofmary1143]

Is this the same “Bishop” who had a problem with Female CANONIZED Saints being declared Doctors of the Church?

 

[GerardP]

People are either moved by the Holy Spirit or Something Else. We can have an idea of which by what they say and do.

Who moved JPII to kiss the Koran? God?

This man subscribes to bizarre lies about Jews and 9/11

How do you know they are lies?

is excommunicated

intrinsically invalid

and continues to sacriligiously confect Christ’s Body.

Ilicitly not sacrilegiously. Sacrilege would be giving Communion to non-Catholics.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t move people to do such things.

Should we really apply that same standard to JPII?

Again, I know him by his actions. I know that for an excommucated priest to celebrate Mass is a mortal sin.

Unless of course it’s invalid.

The fact that he does such things tells me about his character. It’s fair to judge a man by what he does and says.

But you don’t judge justly. And remember what Christ said about that.

I really fail to see why having him attend a sacriligious, abuse-ridden liturgy would help him in any way.

I beg to differ. They are “in communion” with the Holy Father and the Local ordinary who has been given permission to do these sorts of things.

Perhaps, we could just pray that he begs the Holy Father to forgive him for his grievious evil actions.

Better yet, the Pope could right the wrongs of his predecessors.

Then maybe he could help in the rebuilding of the traditions of Catholicism.

He’s already way ahead of the curve.

 

[GerardP]

Is this the same “Bishop” who had a problem with Female CANONIZED Saints being declared Doctors of the Church?

Yes. And he made an incredibly strong case for his position. See if you can find Colleen Hammond’s interview with him via podcast on this. It’s very revealing. She asked him tough questions and he gave her solid, straight answers and she walked away with a new perspective on the “maternal doctoresses” thanks to him.

 

[GerardP]

Me thinks you are a little too generous with that accusation. A person can believe something or someone without it being idolatry. Oh well, it is not the first time Catholics have been falsely accused of idolatry.

NO! I’m going to adopt the same attitude most of the anti-Williamson crowd has. Williamson is not allowed to hold any opinion contrary to what the mainstream media says. He must be looney! We don’t need to even find out what he says. He must apologize or be sent off to the Gulag!

So, to keep the level of conversation the same, If a person thinks someone who believes a government can have corruption in it is a looney. That person is sick! Don’t approach the conversation with reason. We don’t need reason! We need outrage, rash judgement and overreactions!

 

[GerardP]

I will add my two bits also.

Gerard, do you believe that the US military fired a missile into the Pentagon?

I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I do know there are a large number of questions that have been raised. I do know that those asking the questions are continually treated with a degree of ridicule that is way out of proportion to the nature of the questions and it just keeps getting ratcheted up.

If it was “an inside job” I wouldn’t be surprised. If it was a “terrorist attack” I equally wouldn’t be surprised. A country that allows millions of children to be slaughtered by abortion is not “blessed by God.”

I will say this little tidbit as to what gives the conspiracy theorists credibility in my opinion;

If the nation had truly been struck by an outside force trying to “step on Superman’s cape” as Pat Buchanan described it, then the policy of the U.S. would have been far different regarding the borders of the U.S.

If the borders had been protected and immigration laws enforced with all due dilligency as warranted by the events of 2001, I would be more liable to believe the commonly held account.

The lack of action in the cause of trans-national economic policy is indicative of a true lack of seriousness about the threat against the nation.

 

[pnewton]

That person is sick! Don’t approach the conversation with reason. We don’t need reason! We need outrage, rash judgement and overreactions!

And you’re the one for the job?

I do not think it is just disagreeing with the mainstream as much as the level of disagreement. With teenagers, it seems that everytime an adult says white, they say black. One or two points of unique points of view makes one a thinker. Add a couple more you’re an eccentric. Disagree on most things, you are just being cantakerous (or an SSPX) Oops, there I go with my ignorant comments again.

 

[bear06]

No. You haven’t answered. You’ve responded but not answered.

Yes I have and anyone who spends time knows it’s true. You can keep up with the “maybe if I say it enough it’ll be true” but if you truly believe what you’re saying, I’d spend a little time searching the site.

It didn’t come up. He didn’t avoid answering anything like you avoid admitting that you have not heard one of the interviews I’ve referred to.

 

[bear06]

Oops. The above should have said "Maybe I just disagree with him.

 

[mark_a]

Is the fact that this thread is in the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum a conspiracy with the mods???

 

[childofmary1143]

Yes. And he made an incredibly strong case for his position. See if you can find Colleen Hammond’s interview with him via podcast on this. It’s very revealing. She asked him tough questions and he gave her solid, straight answers and she walked away with a new perspective on the “maternal doctoresses” thanks to him.

Strong position eh? The Pope through an infallible action declared these CANONIZED Saints as Doctors of the Church and Williamson is arguing against that?

 

[GerardP]

Strong position eh? The Pope through an infallible action declared these CANONIZED Saints as Doctors of the Church and Williamson is arguing against that?

1. Yes it’s a strong argument he makes. Go find it and listen to it.
2. Infallibility has nothing to do with the honorific of giving someone the title of “Doctor.”
3. I suggest that you learn something about the subject before you go on a rant about something you obviously know nothing about.
4. Canonizations aren’t even infallible. Thomas Aquinas (a CANONIZED Saint) teaches that infallibility in canonizations is only a “pious belief.”

 

[GerardP]

 Yes I have and anyone who spends time knows it's true.  You can keep up with the "maybe if I say it enough it'll be true" but if you truly believe what you're saying, I'd spend a little time searching the site.

No you haven’t. You say something like “I read the letters and he’s nuts.” is not making an argument against them. You didn’t show where the bishop is wrong about the Sound of Music or

 

[old_school]

Um… honestly, who cares. If everyone would focus on thier own faith and not worry about the priest and bishop and this other ****, just live and do your best and go to mass and confession, otherwise everyoen is judgemental, hateful, and downright prideful. Everyone should go sit in the back corner of the church and PRAY for our priests and bishops.

 

[TMC]

No you haven’t. You say something like “I read the letters and he’s nuts.” is not making an argument against them. You didn’t show where the bishop is wrong about the Sound of Music or

I read the letter. Williamson says that women can’t be doctors of the Church because that would encourage women to teach publicly. He says that women should not teach (except little children in their homes) for three reasons, which he attributes to Aquinas:

Firstly he quotes St. Paul (II Tim II, 12): “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.” St. Thomas distinguishes here public from private teaching: in the home a mother must teach her children, in a quasi-domestic setting a woman may well teach, especially girls and little boys.

Secondly, any woman set up in public view is liable to arouse unclean desire in men.

Thirdly, “women in general are not so perfect in wisdom as to be entrusted with public teaching.”

I haven’t had time to go back and look at the Aquinas passages he refers to, but I’ll see if I can get to that later. In the meantime I would point out that there has been much debate over the meaning of the quote from Timothy. Certainly there are some who would agree with that interpretation, but most Catholics would not, I think. Reasons 2 and 3 are no more than out of date gender bias without even an attempt to dress them up as something else. If 3 is true then women should not work as professional people. If 2 is true they should be kept hidden in their homes like Moslem women. Or is that his point?