SSPX and 9/11

[JKirkLVNV]

How come when I ask for sources concerning bishop Williamson, and “the gas chambers” comment, the burden of proof is on Williamson to deny the charges?

Are you going to demand that JKirkLVNV also provide sources to prove the assertion that kissing the Koran was a gesture of courtesy only and not a huge scandal? It’s amazing how the Pope is never responsible for liturgical abuse, his own actions or anything that would have caused outrage if done by a known liberal priest or bishop.

I don’t pretend to know authoritatively that it was simply a gesture of courtesy, simply that that was the explanation given. It seems to me a reasonable one, because the Holy Father did not go further and apostacize to Islam. Again, it goes to motive. What did he intend?

 

[Arnobius]

How come when I ask for sources concerning bishop Williamson, and “the gas chambers” comment, the burden of proof is on Williamson to deny the charges?

And that has exactly what relevance does that have to my point? The poster I was responding to made a specific claim that it was a fact that these were done as gestures of worship of a foreign religion. The burden of proof falls him to establish it is so in a way we can verify or else he can withdraw the claim.

Since I was not involved in the “Gas chamber” dispute, there is no reason why I should ask about that.

Are you going to demand that JKirkLVNV also provide sources to prove the assertion that kissing the Koran was a gesture of courtesy only and not a huge scandal? It’s amazing how the Pope is never responsible for liturgical abuse, his own actions or anything that would have caused outrage if done by a known liberal priest or bishop.

You are clearly scandalized yes. But what you are doing is asking JKirkLVNV to prove it was not an act of worship (proof of a negative). It is possible for popes to make human mistakes, such as thinking that this was a proper gesture of courtesy. However, it would seem that no proof would ever be enough for you, as it seems you have made up your mind… so where is the proof that justifies your claim? Saying there is no proof against it is an Argument from Ignorance or an Argument from Silence.

The problem is those who claim that the Pope was doing a scandalous act are those who made the first claim and their’s is the burden of proof. People like JKirkLVNV point out the more probable conclusion is that it was human respect based on what the Pope has had to say on God, Christ and even Islam.

However, people with an a priori belief that the Pope must have been committing a willful scandal are demanding their opponents prove a negative

 

[bear06]

A VERY tired old saw. It was removed as soon as the Buddhists were made aware of their faux pas.

It also wasn’t a Mass and the Buddhists got a nice lesson on the Real Presence.

 

[bear06]

Other threads are irrelevant. If you want to post a link to back up your claim to have supplied “examples” feel free to. You could also cut and paste your previous arguments. That would take very little time. Unless of course your arguments have been rebutted before. My blanket statement about your posts is evident on this thread.

Other threads are not irrelevant and people are free to look them up. I’m still finding it funny that you try to rebutt one of the examples I supposedly didn’t give. You’re just steamed because even people who support the SSPX think Bishop Williamson to be loopy. Why don’t you harp on them for awhile? I don’t agree with them on many things but at least they’ll call a very obvious spade a spade which is something you’re quite unwilling to do. If they agree with you, they’re gold. Consider Williamson your Koran incident only current.

 

[bear06]

Our government is on good terms with the Christian hating Saudis, and the Christian hating Pakistanis, but our unjust invasion of Iraq (according to Catholic teaching) has led to death and persecution for Iraqi Catholics. But don’t take my word for it, take the word of Chaldean Rite Bishop Ibrahim Ibrahim who supports an immediate withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq.

Well, now you make a partly logical argument. The Saudis are very bad. That said, it has little to do with the topic of the thread and the persecution of the Catholics in Iraq isn’t being done by America.

 

[bear06]

Yeah it takes us a while, since we are not on every day like you, Sure, and JKirk. Just out of curiosity how do the three of manage this many posts (20 000+)? I do not think I could do that in a lifetime. Quite an achievement!
BTW, why not bring 'em up, these events did occur, but of course y’all will always come up alternate views of what actually occurred (which of course are dimensionless).

GOD Bless.

You’re on a roll, Isidore. Now we’re going to launch into the “you sure post alot” canard?

Since you asked, most of the time I post I’m sitting with my children while they’re doing their schoolwork and post while I’m waiting for them to, say, finish their math problem. It’s better than twiddling my thumbs. I get spiritual reading, article writing and all sorts of things done. Too bad I can’t get the house clean during that time but, as most homeschoolers know, the second you leave 'em the work slows down! The rest is usualy done after they go to bed. BTW, you’ve been on since March of this year and I’ve been on since 2004.

BTW, they’re not alternate views. They’re facts which is not something traditio.com is too concerned with.

 

[bear06]

You are an expert in the fields concerning Islam and Hinduism?
With family members who are Hindu and Muslim, and who have associates who are pundits (Devanagari: पण्डित) and Muftis (مفتي) (who are Islamic scholars who is an interpreter Islamic law (Sharia)), you have an incorrect interpretation of those events. It would be wise to speak with individuals such as these, to better your understanding of the events that you and others like Bear06 are misinformed on. Since it is common knowledge that you are incorrect.

And what, pray tell are their interpretaions of those events? Do they deem the women to be a priestess or do they admit that she was a Catholic woman? Give me a break.

From James Akin’s “The Nazareth Resource Library”

"Q: Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu ‘priestess of Shiva’ and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?

"A: There is a photo of the pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving a traditional Indian form of greeting known as ‘Aarti,’ which has no more religious significance than a handshake in western culture or giving someone a wreath of flowers as a welcome in Hawaii.

"A letter dated November 22, 1994 from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society:

" ‘Indian Catholics…use “Aarti” when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, “Aarti” is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at a liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, “Aarti” is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a “priestess of Shiva” as has been alleged.’

"The letter, by Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the pontifical council, went on to note: ‘Use of the “Aarti” ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of the Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe.’

“Your schismatic friend in the Society of St Pius X should check his facts before spreading such malicious gossip about the holy father (cf. Acts 23:1-5). He was simply about to say Mass and received the traditional Indian form of greeting for the celebrant.” (2)

What are your friends’ reasonings for believing it is the Mark of Shiva? If you’ve seen the picture, you’d know that you certainly can’t tell what the mark on the forhead looks like. So we have your friends who say it’s the Mark of Shiva from a priestess and we have the Vatican telling you it’s Aarti. Why in the world would I believe your friends when I know what the Mark of Shiva looks like and it can’t be seen in the picture and the Vatican has already dismissed your accusation?

 

[bear06]

I think you mean bishop Sheen.

I’ve read the letter before. Many good people didn’t and still don’t understand all of the factors around archbishop LeFebvre’s situation. And some believe erroneous information. In 1978 Fr. Malachi Martin wrote about archbishop LeFebvre and thought he’d gone too far at a few moments. He later in life said, 'The older I get, the more I thank the Lord for giving us archbishop Marcel LeFebvre. "

Bishop Sheen like many good bishops were very well-intentioned and didn’t see the problems that would develop. Other good bishops did. Cardinal Siri, Ottaviani, Bacci, Odi, Stickler, archbishop LeFebvre, bishop De Castro Mayer. Later in life, Sheen would make strong statements that while not directly putting the blame on the Council as a catalyst, indicated that Sheen felt very differently about what was going on in the Church. He even regretted “throwing stones” at people. His letter emphasizes the issue of language. Vernacular vs. Latin was not and is not the issue of the SSPX or archbishop LeFebvre.

So, in other words, listen to Archbishop Sheen when he agrees with me but when he doesn’t he can be ignored as well intentioned but ignorant?

BTW, thanks for catching the typo. I did mean Sheen.

 

[pnewton]

. Since it is common knowledge that you are incorrect.

This tactic is an a appeal to false authority. “It is common knowledge…” or “Everyone knows…”

Is there a link (non-SSPX) that supports the claim?

 

[bear06]

If you’d listen to the Colleen Hammond interview with bishop W, you’ll find he points out that the Mohammedans have natural truths that have bubbled up in their culture. He and Ms. Hammond also point out that there are huge differences.

You’re silly. I don’t need Hammond to point that out.

If it were not a hatchet job, you would have provided the context of the quotes about WWII. The absolute unwillingness to explore and the snide commentary is a good indication that it’s a hatchet job.

 

[chosen_people]

How come when I ask for sources concerning bishop Williamson, and “the gas chambers” comment, the burden of proof is on Williamson to deny the charges?
.

In 1989, Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada, Bishop Williamson stated:
“there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel… Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism.”

According to Bishop Williamson Jews have an organized plot to destroy the Catholic Church

In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of June 2000, the Bishop wrote:

“And secondly, down 2,000 years Jews have repeatedly sought to undermine the Catholic Church and to take Christ out of Christendom (leaving only endom or enddoom!).”

This Letter may be read online at:

sspxafrica.com/documents/2000_June/Bishop_Williamson.htm

Further, in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of April 2000, the Bishop wrote:

“Just as the chief priests and ancients hated Jesus unto death, but they needed an Apostle to betray him, so we may blame Jews and Freemasons and others like them for engineering the destruction of the Church, but it has taken churchmen from within to do the actual betraying and destroying.”

sspxafrica.com/documents/2000_April/Bishop_Williamson.htm

If you thought that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” describing the secret Jewish plot for world domination was an antisemitic forgery, Bishop Williamson repeatedly explains to his followers that it is all so true (see sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/May1-2000.htm - in his Nov. 1 and Nov.3 1991 Letters to Friends and Benefactors Williamson uses quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support his position)

 

[bear06]

And, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the Protocols of the Elders of Zion considered to be fake? Of course, that’s probably part of the plot too, I suppose.

 

[GerardP]

I don’t pretend to know authoritatively that it was simply a gesture of courtesy, simply that that was the explanation given. It seems to me a reasonable one, because the Holy Father did not go further and apostacize to Islam. Again, it goes to motive. What did he intend?

Well, it’s apparant that we’ve got a problem with the Holy Father when he acts like that.

Would the early martyrs who refused to offer incense at the cost of their lives do that?

As time goes on and the perspective opens up, it becomes apparant that JPII had some mixed up priorities and ideas.

 

[GerardP]

In 1989, Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada, Bishop Williamson stated:
“there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel… Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism.”

Actually this sentence was overheard by a third party in a private conversation after the events. Unfortunately the third party never wrote anything else that was said that would have lead up or followed the bishop’s statement.

According to Bishop Williamson Jews have an organized plot to destroy the Catholic Church

Some jews. Not all. And it’s true. Abe Foxman, Marvin Heir, Schmuley Boteach are three contemporary prominent anti-Catholic bigots in the U.S.A alone. If you don’t think there was an organized effort to stop “the Passion of the Christ” you are sadly mistaken.

In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of June 2000, the Bishop wrote:

Here’s the quote in context about JPII’s regrettable “apologies” for the Church.

*Q. Then does he believe in one Heaven and one Truth?

By his actions, no. This is indicated also by his prayer for pardon for the third category of sins “which have harmed the unity of the Body of Christ”. Here he said amongst other things, "Believers have opposed one another, becoming divided and have mutually condemned one another and fought against one another”.

Q. What is wrong with that?

If we consider the Catholic-Orthodox split finalized in 1054, and the CatholicProtestant split of the 16th century and since, it is obvious that the Catholic churchmen on these occasions have shown various human weaknesses in their dealings with those breaking away from the Catholic Church, but there is no comparison - unless one does not believe in Truth - between the Catholics condemning error and the nonCatholics condemning Truth! When the Orthodox deny papal primacy, they are wrong. When Protestants deny the Real Presence, they are wrong. The mutual condemnations are in no way equivalent, as John Paul II’s silence on their difference implies. By slurring the Catholics in the way that he does, he also slurs the divine doctrine. Any Catholic apologizing for Catholics’ human sins must in no way allow the slur to pass over to the divine doctrine, to Catholic faith and morals.

Q. Does this Pope have an inkling of the absolute ness of Catholic Truth?

That is the question. In the fourth category, “Sins committed against the People of Israel”; he says we are saddened by all those who have caused Jews to suffer, and “we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant”. But firstly, Catholics are the people of the New and Eternal Covenant, which did away with the Old Testament or Covenant made on Mount Sinai between God and the Israelites, as substance replaces shadow (Heb. X, 1). The Jews are no longer the people of a valid Covenant, in fact any religious practice of their dead covenant, because it looks forward to the Messiah coming, has been, ever since the Messiah came, mortal sin, at least objectively.

And secondly, down 2,000 years Jews have repeatedly sought to undermine the Catholic Church and to take Christ out of Christendom (leaving only endom or enddoom!). In praying to commit the Church to “genuine brotherhood” with these people, does the Pope take into account this lesson of two millennia? He makes no mention of it in his prayer for pardon.

Q. Isn’t it against all common sense to want to make friends with your enemies?

Yes, unless you are passing over to join the enemy …

Q. Does this Pope know what he is doing?

One wonders. One may think not. One may think he is, in Sister Lucy of Fatima’s description of modern churchmen, “diabolically disoriented”. One may think he means to serve the Church but is hopelessly - or willfully - confused as to how to do so. God knows.*

A strong argument can be made for every one of the bishops statements. Conversos, literature against the Church, the ADL, the attacks against the Passion, the attacks against the TLM.

And bishop W is not nearly so stern as St. John Chrysostom.

 

[Arnobius]

Nor is Bishop W so educated as St. John Chrysostum.

Or perhaps he might have noticed the tu quoque fallacy in his words on the treatment of the Jews and his drawing improper conclusions from the choice of wording of the Pope.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

This tactic is an a appeal to false authority. “It is common knowledge…” or “Everyone knows…”

Is there a link (non-SSPX) that supports the claim?

Before you post, read Second Vatican council Decrees, since I have already proven you have not read Lumen Gentium.
see this other thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=198661&page=18

What authority do you have may I ask?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This tactic is an a appeal to false authority. “It is common knowledge…” or “Everyone knows…”
quote]

Indeed. “It’s common knowledge” apparently wasn’t taken into account by the Pontifical Council for Social Communication. But then, I’m sure they didn’t consult There Can Only Be 1.

 

[pnewton]

Before you post, read Second Vatican council Decrees, since I have already proven you have not read Lumen Gentium.

First, you do not get to make the rules. Second, you have proven nothing except your own propensity to jump to conclusions and, of course, reinforced SSPX stereotypes. And, of course, you are dead wrong about me.

Do you seriously put you and your knowledge above the Vatican II Council? Doesn’t that say more about you than the Council?

 

[Arnobius]

Before you post, read Second Vatican council Decrees, since I have already proven you have not read Lumen Gentium.
see this other thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=198661&page=18

What authority do you have may I ask?

So you posted that so you could embarrass yourself twice.

Your “common knowledge” is indeed a fallacy, as it seems to be only common to those with an a priori belief that the Church since Vatican II was heretical.

Recognize that you are begging the question and your claims need to be proven and are not proof in themselves.

A definition of Common Knowledge
Common knowledge is what “everybody knows”, usually with reference to the community in which the term is used.

The assertion that something is “common knowledge” is sometimes associated with the fallacy argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”). The fallacy essentially warns against assuming that just because everyone believes something is true does not make it so. Misinformation is easily introduced into rumors by intermediate messengers.

 

[GerardP]

Further, in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of April 2000, the Bishop wrote:

“Just as the chief priests and ancients hated Jesus unto death, but they needed an Apostle to betray him, so we may blame Jews and Freemasons and others like them for engineering the destruction of the Church, but it has taken churchmen from within to do the actual betraying and destroying.”

This is an excellent and beautiful letter. Only someone with an axe to grind or someone ignorant of the contents would cite this as an example of anti-semitism.

By the way, anti-semitism is not the same as believing that Jews need to convert the same as Protestants, Orthodox and Pagans.

A true anti-semite who claimed to be Catholic would not wish for a conversion and therefore wish for the person to be consigned to Hell instead of Heaven.

Let’s look at this letter with a little added context:

Through the triple prayer of his Agony, Our Lord in his humanity, without human support, found in God the strength to go through with his Passion. When his enemies at last arrived in the Garden of Gethsemane, led by Judas betraying him with a kiss, Our Lord far from reproaching him, appealed to him - “Friend, what have you come for?” This “Friend” is astonishing in the circumstances, but such is Our Lord, thinking only of souls and their salvation - Judas, think what you are doing, and repent, before you cast yourself into a terrible and eternal damnation

In today’s crisis of Church and world, our strength is in God alone, because humanly speaking we are powerless in the face of the trials confronting us. Our enemies are all-powerful, those inside the Church being much more dangerous than those outside. Just as the chief priests and ancients hated Jesus unto death, but they needed an Apostle to betray him, so we may blame Jews and Freemasons and others like them for engineering the destruction of the Church, but it has taken churchmen from within to do the actual betraying and destroying. Does Our Lord hate these traitors, as we can be sorely tempted to do?** No, he seeks only their salvation,** although their punishment will be horrible if they do not repent.

After being betrayed with a kiss in Gethsemane, Jesus calmly asked the Temple rabble whom they sought. “Jesus of Nazareth!” they cry out. “That is me”, says Our Lord, but in such a way that they all crash to the ground (Jn XVII, 6)! Obviously it is Our Lord who is in control. But he wishes to suffer, so he smothers the power of his majesty and lets them arrest him - “This is your hour and the power of darkness” (Lk. XXII, 53). Obviously at any moment today the Lord God could stop the Church-wreckers dead in their tracks, but in March of 2000 it looks as though He is still choosing not to do so. Because God is holding back, the Devil has virtually a free rein and we are making the bitter experience of the power of darkness. But God’s hour will come.

However Simon Peter could not wait. Single-handed with one sword he was ready to take on the whole Temple rabble that had come out to arrest Jesus. Virile and courageous, adoring Our Lord, he could not stand by inactive. He had to act! He slashes off an enemy ear, only to be told to sheath his sword by our Lord, who proceeds to look after the enemy! **How many good men there are today who similarly cannot bear to stand by inactive, as it seems, and watch the rabble of mankind (us they can seem to us) tearing to pieces every last shred of truth and decency. Surely we can DO something! Surely we MUST do something! Let us slash the ears off a few Jews and Freemasons, etc.! But then we would find Our Lord only stooping over them to look after them! **“You know not of what spirit you are” (Lk. IX, 55).

Then let us this Lent meditate on Gethsemane (Mt.XXVI, 36-56; Mk.XIV, 32-52; Lk.XXII, 39-54; Jn.XVIII, 1-12) in order neither to rage uselessly at the enemies of Our Lord, nor join them, nor run away from his Church in its hour of need, but to stand by in prayer and if necessary in suffering, to await the hour appointed by God for the triumph of His cause.

I thank and bless all of you praying for my mother (Helen by name), but I have to warn you that she will not be easy to convert. Into God’s hands…!