SSPX and 9/11

[Arnobius]

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.

Actually we can. Because it is a blanket statement of Jews and Freemasons. The Church does have enemies of course and some of them are probably Jews or Freemasons, but it does not follow from this that it is a Jewish-Freemason conspiracy to do so.

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

This is true as far as it goes. Those who are not in the state of invincible ignorance are called to seek the truth of God.

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.

This is false. An anti-semite could hate those Jews who had not converted and believe all sorts of hateful things about them without hating those who have converted.

 

[GerardP]

Actually we can. Because it is a blanket statement of Jews and Freemasons. The Church does have enemies of course and some of them are probably Jews or Freemasons, but it does not follow from this that it is a Jewish-Freemason conspiracy to do so

.

The problem is one of Semantics, not Semitics. The fact is that the term “Jews” like “Italians” or “Germans” covers a wide range of people. But there is no term in popular language that distinguishes innocent good jews from organized bad jews as there is in the case of Italians with “the Mafia” as contrasted with “Italians.”

This is false. An anti-semite could hate those Jews who had not converted and believe all sorts of hateful things about them without hating those who have converted.

That doesn’t hold. Anti-semitism is based on a hatred of someone’s physicality. It’s a form of racism. They might convert to Catholicism for example but they would still be Semitic. So, you can’t be selectively “anti-semitic”.

More likely at worst someone would be zealousy against Judaism as a religion that is no longer true and non-salvific. That would be akin to being virulently against cars that don’t have safety features in them and are prone to fatal malfunctions.

Williamson clarified this issue more in his interview “Behind the Headlines” with Bernard Janzen. He points out the Biblical difference between Caiphas and Aanas vs. the noble Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus as examples of the non-monolithic attitudes of Jews towards Christ personally. And how Jews today fall into one of those two camps, either being friends of Christ or enemies of Christ.

In another interview with Janzen He says, “By no means am I saying “all Jews” or “all Freemasons.” I’m talking specifically about those Jews and Freemasons that are enemies of our Divine Lord Jesus Christ.”

This is all pointed out in the context of the primary fault of trouble in the world and in the Church as not being Jews but being faithless Christians.

He also says about Jewish converts based on the preparation of their nature as God’s Chosen People in the Old Testament and religious aspects of their culture:“They make magnificent Catholics.” “When Gentiles convert they can never be at home in the Catholic Faith in the same way as a real Jewish convert can.” “When a Jew converts they are coming home in a way that no Gentile Catholic can relate to.” “The world is at a loss while Jews have not converted.” And many other well thought out and truly Catholic sentiments.

A jew may not like what Williamson says about the need for becoming Catholic but you can’t accuse Williamson of anti-semitism when he wants Jews and everyone else to share in what he believes is the most important and beautiful thing in life as well as the only doorway to Eternal Life.

 

[GerardP]

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)

Interesting that you would post this link without reading the letter. He’s discussing the Protocols not as an anti-semitic document but a description of the Communists intent on destroying the Church and the West and the Russians precipitating WWII in order to clarify a confusion with the Fatima revelations.

And in the end, what is Williamson’s solution?

“Dear readers, God is in command. He and His Mother know exactly what they are doing. They do not expect all of us to know such details as above of the plotting of wicked men, but especially when we do know them,** Heaven expects us to take the simple remedial action which it puts in the hands of all of us, the prayer of the Rosary and the five first Saturdays. ** We cannot see, but we must believe in, the world-saving power of these simple remedies.”

Even if someone doesn’t believe what Bishop Williamson believes are the events shaping history in the world, his solution is utterly harmless to anyone and everyone except those that are fearful of the world-saving power of the Rosary.

 

[GerardP]

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

Are you saying that you agree with St. John Chrysostom’s wording against Judaism and Conversos?

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.

Can you provide examples to demonstrate this?

 

[Arnobius]

.

The problem is one of Semantics, not Semitics. The fact is that the term “Jews” like “Italians” or “Germans” covers a wide range of people. But there is no term in popular language that distinguishes innocent good jews from organized bad jews as there is in the case of Italians with “the Mafia” as contrasted with “Italians.”

So you say “some Jews” not “Jews” or “The Jews.” It is not semantics. Either Bishop Williamson spoke wrongly or carelessly to say “Jews and freemasons”. Either way it is very much a double standard to demand leeway for him while refusing to allow for the fact that Pope John Paul II may have been misunderstood.

Perhaps the measure by which Williamson judged, he is being judged by (to paraphrase scripture)?

That doesn’t hold. Anti-semitism is based on a hatred of someone’s physicality. It’s a form of racism. They might convert to Catholicism for example but they would still be Semitic. So, you can’t be selectively “anti-semitic”.

More likely at worst someone would be zealousy against Judaism as a religion that is no longer true and non-salvific. That would be akin to being virulently against cars that don’t have safety features in them and are prone to fatal malfunctions.

Williamson clarified this issue more in his interview “Behind the Headlines” with Bernard Janzen. He points out the Biblical difference between Caiphas and Aanas vs. the noble Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus as examples of the non-monolithic attitudes of Jews towards Christ personally. And how Jews today fall into one of those two camps, either being friends of Christ or enemies of Christ.

In another interview with Janzen He says, “By no means am I saying “all Jews” or “all Freemasons.” I’m talking specifically about those Jews and Freemasons that are enemies of our Divine Lord Jesus Christ.”

This is all pointed out in the context of the primary fault of trouble in the world and in the Church as not being Jews but being faithless Christians.

He also says about Jewish converts based on the preparation of their nature as God’s Chosen People in the Old Testament and religious aspects of their culture:“They make magnificent Catholics.” “When Gentiles convert they can never be at home in the Catholic Faith in the same way as a real Jewish convert can.” “When a Jew converts they are coming home in a way that no Gentile Catholic can relate to.” “The world is at a loss while Jews have not converted.” And many other well thought out and truly Catholic sentiments.

A jew may not like what Williamson says about the need for becoming Catholic but you can’t accuse Williamson of anti-semitism when he wants Jews and everyone else to share in what he believes is the most important and beautiful thing in life as well as the only doorway to Eternal Life.

Anti-semitic tendencies can be on religious grounds and not merely racial grounds, even though the worst anti-semitism was racial under Hitler. To bear animosity to Jews that did not convert is anti-semitism even if it is not racially based.

 

[GerardP]

So you say “some Jews” not “Jews” or “The Jews.” It is not semantics. Either Bishop Williamson spoke wrongly or carelessly to say “Jews and freemasons”.

As I explained above, there is no identifiable “moniker” for the specific groups. Jews themselves use broad terms in describing Jews. Neil Gabler wrote a book “How the Jews conquered Hollywood.” He obviously didn’t mean “all Jews.” There is simply an oversensitivity to the word brought on by the camouflage of bad people who are jewish mingling among good people who are jewish.

Ultimately, the Jewish community itself will have to identify their own bad element and deal with it if they want to advance harmony and peace with non-jews. But the traditional cultural tribal mentality works against that need in today’s society. This problem is evident in other cultures as well, Italian, Greek, Irish and German, Asian communities etc.

Either way it is very much a double standard to demand leeway for him while refusing to allow for the fact that Pope John Paul II may have been misunderstood.

But Williamson does allow for leeway.

“We hit a major problem which is best tackled before we look at the Pope’s own words. They are nearly always ambiguous, i.e. capable of meaning two things at once.”

Perhaps the measure by which Williamson judged, he is being judged by (to paraphrase scripture)?

No. He’s simply being persecuted.

Anti-semitic tendencies can be on religious grounds and not merely racial grounds, even though the worst anti-semitism was racial under Hitler. To bear animosity to Jews that did not convert is anti-semitism even if it is not racially based.

I disagree, this becomes an ever widening scope of “anti-semitism” There was a Rabbi who wrote a few years ago, “Anti-semitism used to be people who didn’t like jews. Now it’s people that jews don’t like.”

Anti-Judaism would be on religious grounds and since not all reigious jews are ethnic jews it wouldn’t be anti-semitism.

In either case, Williamson displays no animosity towards jews. Instead he constantly calls for prayers for conversion and believes anyone who is not in the embrace of Christ in the Catholic Church is to be pitied, not hated. The whole exegesis on St. Peter is about that.

 

[Arnobius]

Are you saying that you agree with St. John Chrysostom’s wording against Judaism and Conversos?

No, just disagreeing with your linking of the two

Can you provide examples to demonstrate this?

Some of the gross errors highlighted:

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.

In the first case, it is not Mortal sin, which is acknowledged to be knowledge consent and grave matter. He might be right on grave matter, but for the knowledge and consent, he would have to demonstrate the Jews do know Christ is the Messiah and refuse to accept it anyway. He is at the least very sloppy with this, and certainly more in error than anything he accuses the Pope of.

Pope Pius IX: “By Faith is it to be held that outside the Apostolic Catholic Church, none can achieve salvation. Thia ia rgw only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain is it to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this fact guilty in the eyes of the Lord” Allocution Singulari Quadem (1854)

In the second case, it is a tu quoque fallacy to say that because some Jews may have acted against the Church, the Pope was wrong to do as he did. Whether or not some Jews may have done some hostile things is irrelevant to the issue of seeking to improve relations to the Jews of today.

 

[GerardP]

No, just disagreeing with your linking of the two

So, if I post some commentaries from St. John Chrysostom, you’ll be in full agreement? I’ve found that it’s interesting to post Chrysostom under the name of Williamson people often act differently than when they know it’s Chrysostom. (of course, I make them aware of the switch in order to demonstrate my point)

In the first case, it is not Mortal sin, which is acknowledged to be knowledge consent and grave matter. He might be right on grave matter, but for the knowledge and consent, he would have to demonstrate the Jews do know Christ is the Messiah and refuse to accept it anyway. He is at the least very sloppy with this, and certainly more in error than anything he accuses the Pope of.

I agree he could’ve been tighter in his description. I believe he was describing “objective mortal sin” as “grave matter” as opposed to “subjective sin” taking into account the interior disposition of the individual.

In the second case, it is a tu quoque fallacy to say that because some Jews may have acted against the Church, the Pope was wrong to do as he did. Whether or not some Jews may have done some hostile things is irrelevant to the issue of seeking to improve relations to the Jews of today.

I believe he’s pointing out not so much a 'tu quoque" but rather a need for parity and balance in the Pope’s address. This leads to a misconception of the Church itself as groveling. JPII mislead a lot of people with his apologies.

I’m done for the weekend. Have a good one everybody!

Good spirited debate this week!

 

[Arnobius]

So, if I post some commentaries from St. John Chrysostom, you’ll be in full agreement? I’ve found that it’s interesting to post Chrysostom under the name of Williamson people often act differently than when they know it’s Chrysostom. (of course, I make them aware of the switch in order to demonstrate my point)

Do you hold St John Chrysostum to be infallible? Even the saints are not. Remember also he had some ideas of Mary that were wrong. The fact that St John Chrysostum has had some errors on the Jews does not change the fact of his holiness.

However, that Bishop W has some ideas that may be similar to a 5th century Church Father does not legitimize anti-semitic attitudes on the part of Bishop W when the Church has taught that the Jews as a group are not guilty now or at the time of Christ;s crucifixion for the crucifixion of Christ.

It is possible before a position has been decreed that some may hold the wrong opinion. Dominicans of medieval times believed Mary was not Immaculately conceived. They were wrong, but they were not obstinately wrong. Today however, someone denying the Immaculate Conception would be wrong. The fact that Bishop W cites St John Chrysostum does not make him justified in his own right.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

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.

PNewton,

since you are commenting on the post:
It is you that does yourself the injustice since what I posted was in fact from the Holy See website.

Apparently, while teaching me how to look up definitions, you perchance forgot to address what I referred to
in Lumen Gentium from the other thread:

“Ecclesia Dei subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica”

That was the essence of the post in the other thread.
I guess you missed that, hold up I am going to the Dictionary to find out the word for…

BTW, as I presumed, most of similar character as yours use Wiki for info. I just verified it with your def. That in itself is a could indicator of your insight.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

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?

So I guess that means you did not read the Vatican 2 documents concerning Lumen Gentium?

Pity.

 

[Arnobius]

So why are you asking PNewton about what I said? Your citation was erroneous, seeking to play with the semantics of “subsist” as I noticed when it was clear that it was merely an excuse. The Church does not understand the term as you accuse it of understanding it.

 

[pnewton]

That was the essence of the post in the other thread.
I guess you missed that, hold up I am going to the Dictionary to find out the word for…

BTW, as I presumed, most of similar character as yours use Wiki for info. I just verified it with your def. That in itself is a could indicator of your insight.

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about or why you are being insulting. As to:

So I guess that means you did not read the Vatican 2 documents concerning Lumen Gentium?

The only polite way to put it is to say that your guess is in error.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

So why are you asking PNewton about what I said? Your citation was erroneous, seeking to play with the semantics of “subsist” as I noticed when it was clear that it was merely an excuse. The Church does not understand the term as you accuse it of understanding it.

I was not asking Pnewton anything, I was calling you Pnewton since you are answering the post addressed to PNewton. I thought that was your alias. Get it. Good.

You have not read the Second Vatican Council documents, save yourself the embarrassment and read them.

Since you are a **Wiki **expert:

*Embarrassment is an emotional state experienced upon having a socially or professionally unacceptable act or condition witnessed by or revealed to others. Usually some amount of loss of honour or dignity is involved, but how much and the type depends on the embarrassing situation.

It is similar to shame, except that shame (at least in the West) may be experienced for an act known only to oneself. Also, embarrassment usually carries the connotation of being caused by an act that is merely socially unacceptable, rather than morally wrong.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassment
*

One more thing I notice you overuse the word ‘semantics’, please stop, honestly. Ad Nauseum.

Semantics: from Wiki
Semantics (Greek sēmantikos, giving signs, significant, symptomatic meaning, from sēma (σῆμα), sign) refers to aspects of meaning, as expressed in language or other systems of signs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about or why you are being insulting. As to: The only polite way to put it is to say that your guess is in error.

I apologize but I was not insulting you, but merely stating that you did not understand/read the document Lumen Gentium.

 

[Arnobius]

I was not asking Pnewton anything, I was calling you Pnewton since you are answering the post addressed to PNewton. I thought that was your alias. Get it. Good.

If you want only pnewton to answer your questions then take it to PM, obviously. Anything said on a public forum is open territory for commentary

You have not read the Second Vatican Council documents, save yourself the embarrassment and read them.

I have a Masters Degree in Theology and have read all sixteen of them, thank you very much…

Since you are a **Wiki **expert:
meaningless flame removed

Personal attacks, nice. What next. Will I see you use l33t talk and tell me d00d UR@ n00b?

One more thing I notice you overuse the word ‘semantics’, please stop, honestly. Ad Nauseum.

Stop making arguments based on the nitpicking of words and I will. Get used to it: semantics, strawman, ad hominem, non sequitur, argumentum ad ignoratum, post hoc, etc. You seem to use them in place of argument and I will point them out when you do.

The fact that I used the Wiki for the definition was because it is convenient and not because it is a source of my common reference. Wiki is used for general information, but I never use it for a specific purpose except maybe to find the name of a document I search for elsewhere.

That you seem to spend your whole post flaming someone based on the use of one Wikipedia article doesn’t impress me any more than your supposed knowledge of Vatican II. Clearly your focus on some words is rather limited.

But if you want to play Dictionary games, here is the form of subsistit

sub-sisto , stĭti, 3, v. n. and
2. In partic.

                    a. To stay, tarry, abide, remain in a place: locus ubi nationum subsisterent legati, Varr. L. L. 5, § 155 Müll.: erimus ibi die dedicationis: subsistemus fortasse et sequenti, Plin. Ep. 4, 1, 6 : intra tecta (opp. in aperto vagari), id. ib. 6, 16, 15 : ut eā die domi subsisteret, orabat, Vell. 2, 57, 2 .--

                    b. Esp. (late Lat.), to remain alive, Dig. 34, 4, 30, § 3; Vulg. Job, 32, 22.--

                    c. To make a stand, i. e. to stand firm, hold out; to withstand, oppose, resist: nisi suffulcis firmiter, Non potes subsistere, Plaut. Ep. 1, 1, 78 : Hannibali atque ejus armis, Liv. 27, 7: clipeo juvenis, Verg. A. 9, 806 .--

                          (b). Of things: quod neque ancorae funesque subsisterent, neque, etc., stood, held out, Caes. B. G. 5, 10 .-- 

        B. Trop. 

              1. In gen., to stop, halt, pause; to stay, continue, remain, subsist: subsistere (in dicendo), Quint. 4, 5, 20 ; Ov. M. 12, 147: subsistit omnis sententia, Quint. 8, 5, 27 : altius ibunt qui ad summa nitentur, quam qui circa ima substiterint, id. 1 , prooem. 20: intra priorem paupertatem subsistere, Tac. A. 12, 53 : equitum nomen subsistebat in turmis equorum publicorum, still remains or subsists only in, etc., Plin. 33, 1, 7, § 30: servum quoque et filium familias procuratorem posse habere aiunt: et quantum ad filium familias, verum est: in servo subsistimus, we pause, hesitate, are in doubt, Dig. 3, 3, 33 ; 12, 1, 32.--

              2. In partic. 

                    a. To stand still permanently, i. e. to come to a stop, to cease: substitit ut clamor pressus gravitate regentis, Ov. M. 1, 207 : ingeniumque meis substitit omne malis, id. H. 15, 196 : si nihil refert, brevis an longa sit ultima, idem pes erit; verum nescio quo modo sedebit hoc, illud subsistet, Quint. 9, 4, 94 .--

                    b. (Acc. to A. 2. c.) To stand, withstand, be adequate to, sustain, support a thing: non si Varronis thesauros haberem, subsistere sumptui possem, Brut. ap. Cic. Fam. 11, 10, 5: tantis periclis, Claud. ap. Eutr. 2, 368: liti, Dig. 21, 2, 62, § 1 .--

                    c. To stand by, support any one (Appuleian): meis extremis aerumnis subsiste, App. M. 11, p. 257, 39 ; so id. ib. 2, p. 126, 23; 3, p. 139, 28; 5, p. 167, 9; 6, p. 174, 14. --

                    d. To stand or hold good, to subsist (late Lat.): non eo minus sententia adversus te latā juris ratione subsistit, Cod. Just. 2, 13, 14 ; 7, 2, 11.--

                    e. To withstand, make resistance: aut hanc esse veram religionem, cui ad vincendum tanta vis inest, aut illam falsam, quae subsistere non potest, Lact. 4, 27, 6 .--

  II. Act. (acc. to I. A. 2. c.), to make a stand against, withstand, encounter any one (very rare): praepotentem armis Romanum subsistere, Liv. 9, 31 : feras, id. 1, 4 .

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

If you want only pnewton to answer your questions then take it to PM, obviously. Anything said on a public forum is open territory for commentary

If you really are serious you can send me a private message, so that we can settle this another way, as to not disrupt the thread.

I have a Masters Degree in Theology and have read all sixteen of them, thank you very much…

Personal attacks, nice. What next. Will I see you use l33t talk and tell me d00d UR@ n00b?

This does not do justice to the Masters though.

Stop making arguments based on the nitpicking of words and I will. Get used to it: semantics, strawman, ad hominem, non sequitur, argumentum ad ignoratum, post hoc, etc. You seem to use them in place of argument and I will point them out when you do.

The fact that I used the Wiki for the definition was because it is convenient and not because it is a source of my common reference. Wiki is used for general information, but I never use it for a specific purpose except maybe to find the name of a document I search for elsewhere.

That you seem to spend your whole post flaming someone based on the use of one Wikipedia article doesn’t impress me any more than your supposed knowledge of Vatican II. Clearly your focus on some words is rather limited.

But if you want to play Dictionary games, here is the form of subsistit

sub-sisto , stĭti, 3, v. n. and
2. In partic.

                    a. To stay, tarry, abide, remain in a place: locus ubi nationum subsisterent legati, Varr. L. L. 5, § 155 Müll.: erimus ibi die dedicationis: subsistemus fortasse et sequenti, Plin. Ep. 4, 1, 6 : intra tecta (opp. in aperto vagari), id. ib. 6, 16, 15 : ut eā die domi subsisteret, orabat, Vell. 2, 57, 2 .--

                    b. Esp. (late Lat.), to remain alive, Dig. 34, 4, 30, § 3; Vulg. Job, 32, 22.--

                    c. To make a stand, i. e. to stand firm, hold out; to withstand, oppose, resist: nisi suffulcis firmiter, Non potes subsistere, Plaut. Ep. 1, 1, 78 : Hannibali atque ejus armis, Liv. 27, 7: clipeo juvenis, Verg. A. 9, 806 .--

                          (b). Of things: quod neque ancorae funesque subsisterent, neque, etc., stood, held out, Caes. B. G. 5, 10 .--

        B. Trop.

              1. In gen., to stop, halt, pause; to stay, continue, remain, subsist: subsistere (in dicendo), Quint. 4, 5, 20 ; Ov. M. 12, 147: subsistit omnis sententia, Quint. 8, 5, 27 : altius ibunt qui ad summa nitentur, quam qui circa ima substiterint, id. 1 , prooem. 20: intra priorem paupertatem subsistere, Tac. A. 12, 53 : equitum nomen subsistebat in turmis equorum publicorum, still remains or subsists only in, etc., Plin. 33, 1, 7, § 30: servum quoque et filium familias procuratorem posse habere aiunt: et quantum ad filium familias, verum est: in servo subsistimus, we pause, hesitate, are in doubt, Dig. 3, 3, 33 ; 12, 1, 32.--

              2. In partic.

                    a. To stand still permanently, i. e. to come to a stop, to cease: substitit ut clamor pressus gravitate regentis, Ov. M. 1, 207 : ingeniumque meis substitit omne malis, id. H. 15, 196 : si nihil refert, brevis an longa sit ultima, idem pes erit; verum nescio quo modo sedebit hoc, illud subsistet, Quint. 9, 4, 94 .--

                    b. (Acc. to A. 2. c.) To stand, withstand, be adequate to, sustain, support a thing: non si Varronis thesauros haberem, subsistere sumptui possem, Brut. ap. Cic. Fam. 11, 10, 5: tantis periclis, Claud. ap. Eutr. 2, 368: liti, Dig. 21, 2, 62, § 1 .--

                    c. To stand by, support any one (Appuleian): meis extremis aerumnis subsiste, App. M. 11, p. 257, 39 ; so id. ib. 2, p. 126, 23; 3, p. 139, 28; 5, p. 167, 9; 6, p. 174, 14. --

                    d. To stand or hold good, to subsist (late Lat.): non eo minus sententia adversus te latā juris ratione subsistit, Cod. Just. 2, 13, 14 ; 7, 2, 11.--

                    e. To withstand, make resistance: aut hanc esse veram religionem, cui ad vincendum tanta vis inest, aut illam falsam, quae subsistere non potest, Lact. 4, 27, 6 .--

  II. Act. (acc. to I. A. 2. c.), to make a stand against, withstand, encounter any one (very rare): praepotentem armis Romanum subsistere, Liv. 9, 31 : feras, id. 1, 4 .

as I said before, Ad Nauseum.:hypno:

 

[Arnobius]

Pope Pius IX: "By Faith is it to be held that outside the Apostolic Catholic Church, none can achieve salvation. Thia ia rgw only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain is it to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this fact guilty in the eyes of the Lord" Allocution Singulari Quadem (1854)

Oops… I see I made a mistake when typing in one hand and holding the book open with the other.

It should have read:
Pope Pius IX: “By Faith is it to be held that outside the Apostolic Catholic Church, none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain is it to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this fact guilty in the eyes of the Lord” Allocution Singulari Quadem (1854)

Perhaps a minor thing, but embarrassing none the less.

 

[chosen_people]

According to Richard Williamson’s February 1, 1991, Letter from Winona, “Until [the Jews] re-discover their true Messianic vocation [by conversion to Christ], they may be expected to continue fanatically agitating, in accordance with their false messianic vocation of Jewish world-dominion, to prepare the Anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem. So we may fear their continuing to play their major part in the agitation of the East and in the corruption of the West. Here the wise Catholic will remember that, again, the ex-Christian nations have only their own Liberalism to blame for avowing free circulation within Christendom to the enemies of Christ… Remembering also that Annas and Caiaphas induced but never obliged Judas to betray Jesus, and that the Apostle’s betrayal was a crime far worse than the Jews deicide, he will look at the state of the Catholic Church today and see why the enemies of Christendom are being given so much power…”

As stated previously Williamson repeatedly supports these claims of the “Jewish plot” for world domination and the destruction of the Catholic Church by quoting from the forged antisemitic nonsense in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. On the way lets not forget his views (again see the above quote) that the the Jews are guilty of deicide and preparing for the “antiChrist”. To paraphrase Damon Runyon, Williamson may not be an antisemite but he’ll certainly do until one comes around.

 

[chosen_people]

In 1989, Williamson delivered some speeches in Canada that caused some consternation, and got him investigated for possible hate crimes by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In Sherbrooke, Quebec, he said, “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.”

Later he defended these statements, stating that "I was attacking the enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that includes Jews, as well as Communists and Freemasons."

Williamson returned to the United States before the investigation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police got off the ground, but now the Pius X publications Verbum, Angelus and Williamson’s monthly Letter are banned in Canada.