Williamson removed from Argentine seminary

[maurin]

Why is there no effort being made on the part of Bishop Williamson’s supporters to offer credible proof that his opinions on the Holocaust are legitimate?

The best I hear is that its a secular opinion, if you oppose him, you are a liberal heretic, it has no matter in faith or morals.

I wonder also if there are any canonized saints or soon to be ones that were martyred at the hands of the Nazi’s in the gas chambers? I know that St. Maximilian Kolbe was starved to death but how did St. Edith Stein die?

dear sonofourlady,

in the order of your questions:

there is no credible proof that his opinions on the Holocaust are legitimate. I’ve been made it clear I think His Excellency is wrong.

I think you have not followed the conversationS closely if you believe that I have called the liberal modernists ‘liberal modernists’ because they disagree with His Excellency.

It was St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, nee’ Edith Stein, who died in the gas chamber. Her last written words (found on scraps of paper in Auschwitz) were: The Savior hangs before you with a pierced heart. He has spilled His heart’s blood to win your heart. If you want to follow Him in holy purity, your heart must be free of every earthly desire. Jesus, the Crucified, is to be the only object of your longings, your wishes, your thoughts…He wants your life in order to give you his. Hail to the Cross, our only Hope!

She died on August 9, 1942.

Now, enough of the sidestepping of my post to which you responded with the above. My post stated clearly that it is a protestant notion to divorce history from the present, especially in terms in the Faith. “Monsieur Descartes,” I repeat, “meet your son. His name is abortion.”

want to respond to Cathguy’s assertion that the evils of the 18th and 19th centuries have no bearing on the evils of the 21st?

 

[maurin]

Can you explain logically how a man who is NOT an anti-semite would do the following therefore?

1. Promote the book “The Hitler We Loved and Why”
2. Promote the forgery known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”
3. Promote the notion that “not a single Jew died in the gas chambers… not one.” (Bp. Williamson)
4. Promote the idea that the Jews have a conspiracy to rule the world and destroy the Church.

I am open to hearing you square these 4 FACTS with the notion that Williamson is not an anti-semite. I look forward to hearing your “argument.”

Except for #3 which ByzCath provided links for, you have not proven what you assert: show me in links (not video, please, computer won’t download them), where he promoted your points 1, 2 and 4. Your word that he has done so is not good enough. If you show me he has done these things, I will, as I did before, apologize.

your other posted stated that there are some still fighting the battles of the 18th and 19th centuries, instead of fighting today’s battles. Your lack of understanding that those battles are the ancestors of todays is poignantly “laughable”, if I can use your favorite word.

 

[cathguy]

dear sonofourlady,

in the order of your questions:

there is no credible proof that his opinions on the Holocaust are legitimate. I’ve been made it clear I think His Excellency is wrong.

I think you have not followed the conversationS closely if you believe that I have called the liberal modernists ‘liberal modernists’ because they disagree with His Excellency.

It was St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, nee’ Edith Stein, who died in the gas chamber. Her last written words (found on scraps of paper in Auschwitz) were: The Savior hangs before you with a pierced heart. He has spilled His heart’s blood to win your heart. If you want to follow Him in holy purity, your heart must be free of every earthly desire. Jesus, the Crucified, is to be the only object of your longings, your wishes, your thoughts…He wants your life in order to give you his. Hail to the Cross, our only Hope!

She died on August 9, 1942.

Now, enough of the sidestepping of my post to which you responded with the above. My post stated clearly that it is a protestant notion to divorce history from the present, especially in terms in the Faith. “Monsieur Descartes,” I repeat, “meet your son. His name is abortion.”

want to respond to Cathguy’s assertion that the evils of the 18th and 19th centuries have no bearing on the evils of the 21st?

I believe that you are either dishonest or grabbing at straws.

IF YOU HAVE THE COURAGE address my WHOLE post. I was speaking specifically of FREEMASONRY which I said was EVIL (still want to yell “liberal” at me?)

I then said that some in the SSPX were so busy fighting the battles of the 18th and 19th century that they were missing the boat on those forces actually focused on destroying the Church today.

Why did I say it? If you were honest you quote the entire post: I said it because Masonry’s membership has declined 71% in the last 50 years… I even quoted the academic source where I got that statistic.

Thus, opposing the Mason’s isn’t as imperative today as opposing planned parenthood, which is an organization out to destroy the Church and kill babies.

That is clear from the context of my post, and you are misquoting me on purpose to score points.

Lets see if you have the guts to answer my direct questions, and not just take me out of context purposely. I doubt it.

 

[maurin]

I went through your entire post again, and here we have more of your stock in trade. There isn’t a SINGLE question to me posed by your post. Not one question mark at all.

did you not even read the post of mine you quoted? Did I ask you a question? no. I presented issues which you once again neglect to respond to. but again your liberal modernist mo is typically evasive.

Allow me to ask you some DIRECT questions: (my guess… you will again refuse to answer them)

yeah, good one…a good offense:thumbsup:

1. Wasn’t it obvious from that context of my post that I wasn’t arguing that the errors of the 18th and 19th century weren’t still errors?

what was obvious is that you haven’t a clue that the heresies of the 18th and 19th centuries are directly related to the heresies of the 21st.

1. Wasn’t it obvious that I was just pointing out that you are missing the real problems of today because you are focused on your own flawed understanding of Catholic tradition?

what is obvious is that you have a very high opinion of your own.

1. You keep saying that I am doing something wrong calling the anti-semitic Msgr. Williamson an anti-semite.

."

touche’…and you keep saying that I am doing something wrong by calling the liberal modernist cathguy a liberal modernist.

For the umpteenth time in the last 3 weeks, prove he’s an antisemite. provide the links. if I’m wrong, I can admit it. but alas, you’ve avoided every request for links.

 

[maurin]

I believe that you are either dishonest or grabbing at straws.

.

and I believe you behave foolishly.

so before this gets further out of hand, we should take a break from each other. when the temp is a little cooler, we can resume.

 

[maurin]

I believe that you are either dishonest or grabbing at straws.

IF YOU HAVE THE COURAGE address my WHOLE post. I was speaking specifically of FREEMASONRY which I said was EVIL (still want to yell “liberal” at me?)

I then said that some in the SSPX were so busy fighting the battles of the 18th and 19th century that they were missing the boat on those forces actually focused on destroying the Church today.

Why did I say it? If you were honest you quote the entire post: I said it because Masonry’s membership has declined 71% in the last 50 years… I even quoted the academic source where I got that statistic.

Thus, opposing the Mason’s isn’t as imperative today as opposing planned parenthood, which is an organization out to destroy the Church and kill babies.

That is clear from the context of my post, and you are misquoting me on purpose to score points.

Lets see if you have the guts to answer my direct questions, and not just take me out of context purposely. I doubt it.

behaving foolishly? you’ve made my point.

Abortion is the biggest evil we face today, cath. The acceptance of abortion can be traced back to our 18th century ‘Catholic’ philosopher, Des Cartes and his ‘cogito ergo sum.’ That is what I was addressing. But you can play with the Masons if you’d like.

 

[cathguy]

did you not even read the post of mine you quoted? Did I ask you a question? no. I presented issues which you once again neglect to respond to. but again your liberal modernist mo is typically evasive.

yeah, good one…a good offense:thumbsup:

what was obvious is that you haven’t a clue that the heresies of the 18th and 19th centuries are directly related to the heresies of the 21st.

what is obvious is that you have a very high opinion of your own.

touche’…and you keep saying that I am doing something wrong by calling the liberal modernist cathguy a liberal modernist.

For the umpteenth time in the last 3 weeks, prove he’s an antisemite. provide the links. if I’m wrong, I can admit it. but alas, you’ve avoided every request for links.

Look, Maurin, you have an internet connection, obviously.

Type in Williamson and “The Hilter We Loved” into google and see what comes up.

There are a plethera of stories about how Williamson was almost arrested in Canada (I do not support that action… I believe in freedom of speech as well… modernist ) for a speech he gave in Quebec.

Here is just one:
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24981421-7583,00.html

John Allen’s reporting on the issue has been excellent.

ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=comment/reply/3180

As for the protocols, in an earlier thread, a document direct from an SSPX website promoted by Williamson showed him encouraging the faithful to read the protocols. Do I really have to go dig this up too?

You have an internet connection and a brain. Use them.

The entire world-wide press is not in the grips of some conspiracy to destroy the Church Maurin. Liberal bias? Sure…

Out to destroy the Church and rule the world? Common.

 

[I_Believe]

Did you miss the “some in” in my original post or are you ignoring it purposively?

No, I would not do that. One of my biggest gripes is when someone replies to one of my posts, and it’s obvious they didn’t even read it. I know how it feels, believe me.

Not some, but all SSPX clergy are fighting an old fight. What gets lost in almost every single thread where the division among us surfaces, is that it was at Trent, the battle began.

Luther, Calvin, and the rest, left the Church. They had their reasons, and many souls were lost. The followers of these men embraced their heresy. And Trent rose to the challenge and those who held the Faith were united by a well defined Catechism and Liturgy. The Tridentine Church stood firm and strong in the aftermath of this crisis. The post-Trent parent knew their Faith and with the help of Catholic schooling, raised good Catholics.

…Those were the glory days of the Church when our Catholic faith was a family thing, a treasure we prized. Our faith was so much a part of our life that it colored our moods, shaped our social activities, influenced our style of dress, and flavored our conversation. How many families can make the same claim today?
Rev. Charles Schoenbaechler, C.R.
newoxfordreview.org/letters.jsp?did=1004-letters

SSPX supporting families can.

Can an average mainsteam Catholic family say so ? Of course, but what percentage vs SSPX families ?

Traditionalists have been on the front lines you mention for a very long time. Fighting all those temptations you list, and more.

**“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.” **

• Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

It’s hard enough fighting heresy and anti-Catholicism. But today, we as Catholics find ourselves with two different mindsets. Two unique Catholic worldviews, within the Church.

And that’s not Catholic. One has to go.

 

[cathguy]

No, I would not do that. One of my biggest gripes is when someone replies to one of my posts, and it’s obvious they didn’t even read it. I know how it feels, believe me.

Not some, but all SSPX clergy are fighting an old fight. What gets lost in almost every single thread where the division among us surfaces, is that it was at Trent, the battle began.

Luther, Calvin, and the rest, left the Church. They had their reasons, and many souls were lost. The followers of these men embraced their heresy. And Trent rose to the challenge and those who held the Faith were united by a well defined Catechism and Liturgy. The Tridentine Church stood firm and strong in the aftermath of this crisis. The post-Trent parent knew their Faith and with the help of Catholic schooling, raised good Catholics.

SSPX supporting families can.

Can an average mainsteam Catholic family say so ? Of course, but what percentage vs SSPX families ?

Traditionalists have been on the front lines you mention for a very long time. Fighting all those temptations you list, and more.

**“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.” **

• Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

It’s hard enough fighting heresy and anti-Catholicism. But today, we as Catholics find ourselves with two different mindsets. Two unique Catholic worldviews, within the Church.

And that’s not Catholic. One has to go.

I appreciate this thoughtful post, but I think it oversimplifies things.

The SSPX are VERY small. The largest estimates have them at around 1.5 million members world wide. The Catholic Church as a whole (the SSPX are within it of course, and are not schismatic) numbers in the billions.

In the larger group of course only a percentage live authentic Catholic family lives. The percentage that reject contraception for instance is scandalously small.

That said, the Church has never been a “pure” Church, and never will be. As Oscar Wilde said (on one of those occasions where he put his wit to GOOD use) “The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners… respectable people have the Anglicans”

Why are the numbers of Catholics who believe what the Church professes so small? I do not know. I do know that it is incredibly hard being on the front lines trying to convince those around us in the NO Church that contraception is evil. It is hard being in the front lines trying to convince everyone around us that abortion is fundamentally evil. It is hard being in the front lines standing up for a traditional liturgical praxis that clearly recognizes our Eucharistic Lord.

All of that said, it seems the SSPX misdirects their fire. Suppose you are right; you are the one true Church and even John Paul II and Benedict XVI got it wrong on things like freedom of religion etc. Suppose you manage (despite the fact that the Pope has called on you to recognize the Council and stop claiming a Magesterium superior to his) to remake the Church in the SSPX’s image.

You know how hard it is to proclaim the truths that even the Vatican II Church proclaims? Just wait. You would be almost entirely by yourselves arguing against freedom of religion in a country like the United States, which prides itself on its pluralism and its freedoms.

I for one am not sure Christ would be on your side in such a crusade, for I believe that Vatican II is a valid council, and the teachings of the Popes post the Council on things like freedom of religion come from Christ.

I really think, despite the tone of your post, which is Christian and humble and admirable, that the argument you making smacks of a bit of pride here. (I am NOT saying you are prideful!!! Not at all… just the argument).

I do not think throwing away Vatican II is the answer to the Church’s problems. I do not think that embracing a Catholicism that denies everything about the enlightenment (even those things about the enligtenment that were good) is a very smart way to go. I do not think it is what Christ wants. (I look to the Popes and the Magesterium to guide me on that… yes… the CURRENT ONES.)

 

[I_Believe]

I appreciate this thoughtful post, but I think it oversimplifies things.

The SSPX are VERY small. The largest estimates have them at around 1.5 million members world wide. The Catholic Church as a whole (the SSPX are within it of course, and are not schismatic) numbers in the billions.

In the larger group of course only a percentage live authentic Catholic family lives. The percentage that reject contraception for instance is scandalously small.

That said, the Church has never been a “pure” Church, and never will be. As Oscar Wilde said (on one of those occasions where he put his wit to GOOD use) “The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners… respectable people have the Anglicans”

All true

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” - St. Athanasius, AD 373
"
“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.” -St. Robert Bellarmine

Why are the numbers of Catholics who believe what the Church professes so small? I do not know. I do know that it is incredibly hard being on the front lines trying to convince those around us in the NO Church that contraception is evil. It is hard being in the front lines trying to convince everyone around us that abortion is fundamentally evil. It is hard being in the front lines standing up for a traditional liturgical praxis that clearly recognizes our Eucharistic Lord.

All of that said, it seems the SSPX misdirects their fire.

They only practice Catholicism as it was from 1563 until 1963 The target is the same. Satan.

Suppose you are right; you are the one true Church and even John Paul II and Benedict XVI got it wrong on things like freedom of religion etc. Suppose you manage (despite the fact that the Pope has called on you to recognize the Council and stop claiming a Magesterium superior to his) to remake the Church in the SSPX’s image.

NO NO NO ! First, I’m not SSPX clergy, nor do I attend their Masses. I’m a member of a diocesan parish.

The parallel Magisterium issue is moot at this point. That issue is history, barring a turning away from our Holy Father’s hand he has offered. I too, had concerns about that, and along with Bishop Fellay calling BXVI a “perfect liberal”. I was about to formally join the local Chapel after a few weeks of assisting the Mass there, but I haven’t been back since the comment. It’s not an issue for me anymore, because obviously, it isn’t one for the Pope.

And the SSPX image ? They have no image, nor have they ever formed one. Stigma, yes. Unjust as history will prove imo. The Church doesn’t need to be remade. She needs to be reaffirmed as at Trent. Trent is the measuring stick, not the Society. To say such would be pride.

You know how hard it is to proclaim the truths that even the Vatican II Church proclaims? Just wait. You would be almost entirely by yourselves arguing against freedom of religion in a country like the United States, which prides itself on its pluralism and its freedoms.

, are you agreeing that the pastoral efforts of VII have failed in the US ?

I for one am not sure Christ would be on your side in such a crusade, for I believe that Vatican II is a valid council, and the teachings of the Popes post the Council on things like freedom of religion come from Christ.

I really think, despite the tone of your post, which is Christian and humble and admirable, that the argument you making smacks of a bit of pride here. (I am NOT saying you are prideful!!! Not at all… just the argument).

I do not think throwing away Vatican II is the answer to the Church’s problems. I do not think that embracing a Catholicism that denies everything about the enlightenment (even those things about the enligtenment that were good) is a very smart way to go. I do not think it is what Christ wants. (I look to the Popes and the Magesterium to guide me on that… yes… the CURRENT ONES.)

Winning souls for Christ has been the Church’s mission from day 1. Christ instructed the Apostles to do this.

To engage in dialogue instead of war, is of benifit. And the doors of the Church must remain open for all who wish to enter. Continued dialogue, in the interest of peace, and in hopes of conversions, is fine.

But the Church can only enrich other religions, by making it known to them what we believe. These other religions have nothing to offer the Church other than their respect of Her.

Do they ? A Baptist may question the practice of kneeling before a statue of Our Lady. Fair enough. We can explain if they will listen. But on the more extreme end, those of a religion that rejects Jesus Christ dares to tell HMC to omit a prayer in the Her Liturgy, which by doing so, is a forsaking of Her mission and the uncrowning of Christ the King !

And why did this issue arise ? Because of the Summorum Pontificum. The prayer wasn’t an issue until the Mass was freed of stigma once and for all. Then comes the lifting of the excommunications. Again, it was known that Bishop Williamson 's thoughts were an issue. But it was only brought up after the official announcement on the excommunications.

See what all of this ecumenical effort has gotten us ?
Attacks on our Holy Father. A world leader being told he should step down by those who wish they were. Bishops publicly questioning the Bishop of Rome.

So now what ? The VII teaching on Religious Freedom is the measuring stick against which HMC’s Doctrine and Dogmas will be judged ? Shouldn’t it be the other way around ?

That would be more in line with Tradtition wouldn’t it ?

 

[I_Believe]

I appreciate this thoughtful post, but I think it oversimplifies things.

The SSPX are VERY small. The largest estimates have them at around 1.5 million members world wide. The Catholic Church as a whole (the SSPX are within it of course, and are not schismatic) numbers in the billions.

In the larger group of course only a percentage live authentic Catholic family lives. The percentage that reject contraception for instance is scandalously small.

That said, the Church has never been a “pure” Church, and never will be. As Oscar Wilde said (on one of those occasions where he put his wit to GOOD use) “The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners… respectable people have the Anglicans”

All true

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” - St. Athanasius, AD 373
"
“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.” -St. Robert Bellarmine

Why are the numbers of Catholics who believe what the Church professes so small? I do not know. I do know that it is incredibly hard being on the front lines trying to convince those around us in the NO Church that contraception is evil. It is hard being in the front lines trying to convince everyone around us that abortion is fundamentally evil. It is hard being in the front lines standing up for a traditional liturgical praxis that clearly recognizes our Eucharistic Lord.

All of that said, it seems the SSPX misdirects their fire.

They only practice Catholicism as it was from 1563 until 1963 The target is the same. Satan.

Suppose you are right; you are the one true Church and even John Paul II and Benedict XVI got it wrong on things like freedom of religion etc. Suppose you manage (despite the fact that the Pope has called on you to recognize the Council and stop claiming a Magesterium superior to his) to remake the Church in the SSPX’s image.

NO NO NO ! First, I’m not SSPX clergy, nor do I attend their Masses. I’m a member of a diocesan parish.

The parallel Magisterium issue is moot at this point. That issue is history, barring a turning away from our Holy Father’s hand he has offered. I too, had concerns about that, and along with Bishop Fellay calling BXVI a “perfect liberal”. I was about to formally join the local Chapel after a few weeks of assisting the Mass there, but I haven’t been back since the comment. It’s not an issue for me anymore, because obviously, it isn’t one for the Pope.

And the SSPX image ? They have no image, nor have they ever formed one. Stigma, yes. Unjust as history will prove imo. The Church doesn’t need to be remade. She needs to be reaffirmed as at Trent. Trent is the measuring stick, not the Society. To say such would be pride.

You know how hard it is to proclaim the truths that even the Vatican II Church proclaims? Just wait. You would be almost entirely by yourselves arguing against freedom of religion in a country like the United States, which prides itself on its pluralism and its freedoms.

, are you agreeing that the pastoral efforts of VII have failed in the US ?

I for one am not sure Christ would be on your side in such a crusade, for I believe that Vatican II is a valid council, and the teachings of the Popes post the Council on things like freedom of religion come from Christ.

I really think, despite the tone of your post, which is Christian and humble and admirable, that the argument you making smacks of a bit of pride here. (I am NOT saying you are prideful!!! Not at all… just the argument).

I do not think throwing away Vatican II is the answer to the Church’s problems. I do not think that embracing a Catholicism that denies everything about the enlightenment (even those things about the enligtenment that were good) is a very smart way to go. I do not think it is what Christ wants. (I look to the Popes and the Magesterium to guide me on that… yes… the CURRENT ONES.)

Winning souls for Christ has been the Church’s mission from day 1. Christ instructed the Apostles to do this.

To engage in dialogue instead of war, is of benifit. And the doors of the Church must remain open for all who wish to enter. Continued dialogue, in the interest of peace, and in hopes of conversions, is fine.

But the Church can only enrich other religions, by making it known to them what we believe. These other religions have nothing to offer the Church other than their respect of Her.

Do they ? A Baptist may question the practice of kneeling before a statue of Our Lady. Fair enough. We can explain if they will listen. But on the more extreme end, those of a religion that rejects Jesus Christ dares to tell HMC to omit a prayer in the Her Liturgy, which by doing so, is a forsaking of Her mission and the uncrowning of Christ the King !

And why did this issue arise ? Because of the Summorum Pontificum. The prayer wasn’t an issue until the Mass was freed of stigma once and for all. Then comes the lifting of the excommunications. Again, it was known that Bishop Williamson 's thoughts were an issue. But it was only brought up after the official announcement on the excommunications.

See what all of this ecumenical effort has gotten us ?
Attacks on our Holy Father. A world leader being told he should step down by those who wish they were. Bishops publicly questioning the Bishop of Rome.

So now what ? The VII teaching on Religious Freedom is the measuring stick against which HMC’s Doctrine and Dogmas will be judged ? Shouldn’t it be the other way around ?

That would be more in line with Tradtition wouldn’t it ?

 

[pnewton]

All true

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” - St. Athanasius, AD 373

Is everyone familiar with the internet rule that whoever mentions Nazis or Hitler first loses? I think we need a traditionalist thread rule that whoever mentions St. Athanasius/Arianism first loses. I don’t think I have ever seen a traditionalist thread where it doesn’t pop up somewhere.

There are those in the SSPX who equate belief in a jewish-masonic conspiracy with the Catholic faith.

This thread is the first time I ever heard this phrase. Is this another conspiracy Williamson buys into?

In any case, I do not know if Bishop Williamson has the talent to serve as bishop in any capacity. What I do know is that at this time, he lacks the authority within the Catholic Church, all of which flows from the office of the papacy. If the Holy Father appoints him as a bishop within the Catholic Church, then we should all support that. If not, we should all support that. I think we can (most of us) agree that there are a few bishops out there that are … out there already, at least as far as Catholicism is concerned. Most of these are of the liberal variety.

 

[maurin]

Look, Maurin, you have an internet connection, obviously.

Type in Williamson and “The Hilter We Loved” into google and see what comes up.

There are a plethera of stories about how Williamson was almost arrested in Canada (I do not support that action… I believe in freedom of speech as well… modernist ) for a speech he gave in Quebec.

Here is just one:
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24981421-7583,00.html

John Allen’s reporting on the issue has been excellent.

ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=comment/reply/3180

As for the protocols, in an earlier thread, a document direct from an SSPX website promoted by Williamson showed him encouraging the faithful to read the protocols. Do I really have to go dig this up too?

You have an internet connection and a brain. Use them.

The entire world-wide press is not in the grips of some conspiracy to destroy the Church Maurin. Liberal bias? Sure…

Out to destroy the Church and rule the world? Common.

Yes, I have an internet connection, and a brain. Everything I’ve Googled has been, like your information, second hand. Now an intellect as profound as yours might accept second hand info and what would amount to hearsay as accurate, but most people–reasonable people, that is–would rather read it first hand.

So all the links I’ve googled have been like yours: weak and second hand.

I’d love for you to prove me wrong–sincerely. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it. But if the above links are the best you have, your proof is nil.

 

[Rogerteder]

Never mind if one likes the Armenians or not, is there enough “historical evidence” to substantiate the massacre of Armenian (Christians, by the way) by the Ottomans?

Never mind what one might think of dissidents in Soviet Union. Is there enough “historical evidence” to substantiate that the Soviet Union ran gulags?

Never mind what one thinks of Chinese students. Is there enough “historical evidence” to substantiate the ruthless repression of free expression at Tianemen Square?

Never mind what one thinks of Tutsi. Is there enough “historical evidence” to substantiate the wanton killings in Rwanda?

Never mind what one thinks of black Sudanese. Is there enough “historical evidence” that the janjawid have run amok and killed and starved thousands upon thousands of innocent people (a good many of whom are Christian)?

Ok , but if they believed there was evidence to question those events, and werent motivated by hate wouldnt that be ?

 

[malphono]

Ok , but if they believed there was evidence to question those events, and werent motivated by hate wouldnt that be ?

The motivation of an individual is subjective, but when that individual subscribes to revisionist history, the motivation becomes much more objective, since the individual has become part of the group.

There are groups who do question each and every one of those examples, and those groups all have an agenda of their own. Essentially they thumb their noses at the facts of history in order to further that agenda.

 

[Layman]

Well, one parish I attend in Ireland announced before Christmas that they would need more Permanent Deacons as they had no vocations.

So I am glad that SSPX exists and that we will have more traditional priests joining us in good time.

It’s curious this issue arose just as the lifting of the excommunications was announced. And it has served its purpose [he muses darkly]; it has caused discord over an issue that is at least one remove from the core of our Faith; bringing souls to Christ and sustaining them until the death of the body, and beyond.

I don’t care too much nowadays what opinions my priest has as long as he is not a heretic or a crook or invalidly saying the sacraments.

Opinions have now been criminalised*. What a world!

*In the UK you can be arrested for intolerance, or the like. How long before the cops march into your local church and drag away the priest? I can see it happening.]

 

[Ella]

HERE is a link that explains the history of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.

A quote from my link above: “It is claimed that the Protocols are the minutes of a meeting of Jewish leaders at the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, in which Jews plotted to take over the world.”

Anyone who believes that ‘The Protocols’ is fact not fiction believes that the Jews plotted to take over the world.

Does the Bishop believe that the Jews plotted to take over the world? If he does then, well, that is an anti-semitic belief.

In another recent thread, Indyann posted a link:
sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/May1-2000.htm

The link went to a document that included Bishop Williamson’s beliefs about the Protocols of Zion. Interestingly, that link that was working last week does not work today.

 

[Ella]

Ah I have discovered the location of the document I mentioned above. This is Bishop Williamson’s May 2000 Rector’s Letter:
stas.org/publications/letter/2000/May/

Quote:
“However one victim who escaped death was a certain Christian Rakovsky (Christian only in name), one of the internationalists who considered Stalin had betrayed Communism by putting the interests of Russia and himself first. Rakovsky, to save his life, promised to tell Stalin secrets of great value to Stalin. Stalin who knew that Rakovsky was one of those few men who are the real rulers of the world, agreed to listen. The resulting interrogation of Rakovsky by one of Stalin’s agents inside the prison was recorded by the interpreter present for the interrogation, and by him it was smuggled out of the prison. By remarkable circumstances it reached the West, where it should be far better known that it is, but of course the modern world has a thousand ways of smothering its own dirty secrets. God puts in men’s hands the “Protocols of the Sages of Sion” and the “Rakovsky Interview”, if men want to know the truth, but few do.”

 

[maurin]

Ah I have discovered the location of the document I mentioned above. This is Bishop Williamson’s May 2000 Rector’s Letter:
stas.org/publications/letter/2000/May/

Quote:
“However one victim who escaped death was a certain Christian Rakovsky (Christian only in name), one of the internationalists who considered Stalin had betrayed Communism by putting the interests of Russia and himself first. Rakovsky, to save his life, promised to tell Stalin secrets of great value to Stalin. Stalin who knew that Rakovsky was one of those few men who are the real rulers of the world, agreed to listen. The resulting interrogation of Rakovsky by one of Stalin’s agents inside the prison was recorded by the interpreter present for the interrogation, and by him it was smuggled out of the prison. By remarkable circumstances it reached the West, where it should be far better known that it is, but of course the modern world has a thousand ways of smothering its own dirty secrets. God puts in men’s hands the “Protocols of the Sages of Sion” and the “Rakovsky Interview”, if men want to know the truth, but few do.”

thank you, Ella. I’m listening. What else do you have?

There are many ridiculous–disgusting-- things in the Protocols…but as with anything, lies cannot exist without being mixed with some elements of the Truth. If lies were only lies, falsehoods, they couldn’t exist on their own. Like the time bombs in many of the documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the surface there is much to be respected, but digging down deep there is much that enabled the liberals to pervert the faith. For example, changing the definition of the Church from The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, to The Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church has enabled this false ecumenism.

But when one reads some of the Talmudic writings which call Our Lady a whore and Our Lord a bastard, one cannot but wonder if one can excise the stupid, ridiculous and disgusting things from the Protocols–in other words the lies and the falsehoods-- what elements of the Truth–if any-- remain?

To be perfectly honest, I’m glad you posted what you posted–my opinions are only at the beginnings of change in regards to His Excellency. He probably could have used other sources, rather than the disgusting Protocols, in support of his views.

But this link you have provided, while turning my head with the desire to hear more, certainly is not the proof one needs to label him unequivocally as an anti-semite. Equivocally–maybe.

I’m still willing to listen to more.

 

[Ella]

From:
stas.org/publications/letter/2002/September/September.shtml

“However, let none of us think that minds are giddy only under monarchies. Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers are classic examples of how modern democracies must be led with lies, and we come to a third great political lie behind today’s economic crisis, and that is the lie that only “democracy” is an acceptable form of government. In either a monarchy or an aristocracy where there is an authority recognized above the people, the people could be told, with authority, “There is no such thing as a free lunch. The party is over. These and these are the measures which all of us must take to get over the crisis.” As it is, if in Western democracies today a politician dares to breathe a word, for instance, against welfare or against the Jews, he knows he will be shouted down and voted out at the next election. In other words, the politicians are virtually controlled by public opinion, which is fabricated by the media, which are tightly controlled by a handful of Judeo-masons, the people who also control finance and the governments.”