|
Post by annie on Nov 11, 2017 20:05:18 GMT
I notice he doesn't mention that the apparition said that the visionaries could read a book on the Index, or that the apparition declared Fr. Vlasic to be innocent when in fact the opposite was true. Or that the apparition threatened the Bishop of Mostar with divine vengeance if he did not return a positive ruling as was the case on the 21st June 1983 ("Tell the Father Bishop (Zanic) that I request his urgent conversion to the events of the Medjugorje parish...I am sending him the penultimate warning. If he is not converted, or will not be converted, my judgment as well as that of my Son Jesus will strike him."). Here has now added #21 and #22 in response to your queries www.markmallett.com/blog/2017/11/08/medjugorje-and-the-smoking-guns/
|
|
|
Post by annie on Dec 8, 2017 13:48:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by annie on Mar 26, 2018 8:26:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 26, 2018 17:04:45 GMT
Annie, those slanderous rumours that Bishop Zanic collaborated with the local Communists to oppose the apparitions have been doing the rounds for years. The fact is that not only did the Bishop not collaborate, he frequently and explicitly condemned the imprisonment of priests by the regime.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Apr 6, 2018 16:01:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by annie on Oct 18, 2018 18:47:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by annie on Jan 12, 2019 19:20:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by annie on Dec 16, 2019 22:01:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by annie on Apr 27, 2020 13:50:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 3, 2020 21:00:25 GMT
What are your own thoughts on Medjugorje, Annie? I have become a fan of E Michael Jones over the last years or so, mainly due to his historical perspective on usury and the degeneracy of our times (from his book Degenerate Moderns). But I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said. I don't know enough about Medjugorje to have an opinion. One of the reasons I don't look too deeply into it is because much of the arguments for and against are mixed up with the politics of the Balkans and the relatively recent ethnic violence there. I am sure that many people have returned to their faith after visits there, and this is a good thing. But that alone is not sufficient argument for the validity of Medjugorje. I know my Mum visited it years ago and had nothing bad to say about it. Unfortunately at the time she visited I didn't have the wit to talk to her at length about it.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 3, 2020 22:14:19 GMT
What are your own thoughts on Medjugorje, Annie? I have become a fan of E Michael Jones over the last years or so, mainly due to his historical perspective on usury and the degeneracy of our times (from his book Degenerate Moderns). But I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said. I don't know enough about Medjugorje to have an opinion. One of the reasons I don't look too deeply into it is because much of the arguments for and against are mixed up with the politics of the Balkans and the relatively recent ethnic violence there. I am sure that many people have returned to their faith after visits there, and this is a good thing. But that alone is not sufficient argument for the validity of Medjugorje. I know my Mum visited it years ago and had nothing bad to say about it. Unfortunately at the time she visited I didn't have the wit to talk to her at length about it. The problem with Dr. Jones' "analysis" is that it is full of overt antisemitism and totally ignores the fact that there are not an insignificant portion of Jews who oppose the trends he describes (one might wonder for instance what he thinks of the anti-pornography campaigner Dr. Gail Dines, who is Jewish). It's depressing to see that man being treated as a prophet in Irish alt-right circles.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 4, 2020 12:05:50 GMT
What are your own thoughts on Medjugorje, Annie? I have become a fan of E Michael Jones over the last years or so, mainly due to his historical perspective on usury and the degeneracy of our times (from his book Degenerate Moderns). But I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said. I don't know enough about Medjugorje to have an opinion. One of the reasons I don't look too deeply into it is because much of the arguments for and against are mixed up with the politics of the Balkans and the relatively recent ethnic violence there. I am sure that many people have returned to their faith after visits there, and this is a good thing. But that alone is not sufficient argument for the validity of Medjugorje. I know my Mum visited it years ago and had nothing bad to say about it. Unfortunately at the time she visited I didn't have the wit to talk to her at length about it. The problem with Dr. Jones' "analysis" is that it is full of overt antisemitism and totally ignores the fact that there are not an insignificant portion of Jews who oppose the trends he describes (one might wonder for instance what he thinks of the anti-pornography campaigner Dr. Gail Dines, who is Jewish). It's depressing to see that man being treated as a prophet in Irish alt-right circles. I agree that he should counterbalance more the Jewish influence, showing the good and the bad. My main liking for him and his work is his attempt to spell out the influence (or lack of it) of Logos in history. By Logos I mean concepts like order, truth and natural law, all ordained by God. As he has written about a wealth of different subjects such as music, literature, movies, history, economics and philosophy I find his work mixes the old and the new and gives a new perspective that you won't find anywhere in mainstream media.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 4, 2020 14:08:17 GMT
The problem with Dr. Jones' "analysis" is that it is full of overt antisemitism and totally ignores the fact that there are not an insignificant portion of Jews who oppose the trends he describes (one might wonder for instance what he thinks of the anti-pornography campaigner Dr. Gail Dines, who is Jewish). It's depressing to see that man being treated as a prophet in Irish alt-right circles. I agree that he should counterbalance more the Jewish influence, showing the good and the bad. My main liking for him and his work is his attempt to spell out the influence (or lack of it) of Logos in history. By Logos I mean concepts like order, truth and natural law, all ordained by God. As he has written about a wealth of different subjects such as music, literature, movies, history, economics and philosophy I find his work mixes the old and the new and gives a new perspective that you won't find anywhere in mainstream media. I don't think you can separate the antisemitism in Dr. Jones' work that easily, Assisi, as it is so fundamentally central to his worldview. He believes that because of the Crucifixion, the Jews are an accursed people perpetually conspiring to undermine the Christian order. I've heard his apologists say that he only wants them to convert, but in that case, why does he refer to Jewish Catholics like Dawn Eden, Simcha Fischer (who is a cradle Catholic btw) and others as "conversos", a highly loaded term dating back to the Spanish Inquisition which implies that they are a fifth column in the Church? Why does he engage in scandalous outreach to the likes of Willis Carto, David Duke and other Nazi sympathisers? Somebody who refers to the Holocaust as an excesive overreaction to the excesses of “the Jewish/Bolshevist takeover of Russia and large segments of Eastern Europe, which in turn set up the mechanism of reaction against that reign of terror, namely, National Socialism under Hitler" should not be touched with a bargepole, even if a stopped clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 5, 2020 1:09:54 GMT
E. Michael Jones has and always had a mind like a flypaper, even before he became obsessed with the Jews above all. He is very fertile in thinking up bright ideas, with little or no ability of self-criticism. For example, in DIONYSIUS RISING he has clearly absorbed racist polemics about "negro music" when he claims that syncopated music is uniquely evil, and Africa particularly given over to the Devil, because of its long history of paganism and human sacrifice - given that most European countries also practised paganism and human sacrifice for long periods, this is completely off the wall. He also claims, for example, that Thomas Mann's novel DOCTOR FAUSTUS is not merely inspired by Nietzsche, but constitutes independent evidence about Nietzsche's biography. His claims that Jews who are not Christian are necessarily anti-Christian and enemies of the Logos is pretty similar to Fr Denis Fahey's ravings. Here is a recent piece by a Jewish commentator on Jones's activities, including making propaganda for the current Iranian regime. (The reference to the American Civil Rights movement is to Jones's claims, e.g. in his book THE SLAUGHTER OF CITIES, that racial desegregation was a plot by Jews and WASPs to undermine Catholic identity by destabilising traditional Catholic-ethnic inner city communities. This does have some legitimate points e.g. about the extent of anti-Catholicism in 1950s US liberal, but on this foundation he erects a vast tower of madness and paranoia.) blogs.timesofisrael.com/e-michael-joness-war-on-the-jews/ Jones's book on Medjugorje was written in the late 1980s, before he was nearly as insane as he is now, and parts of it are well documented, but his techniques of guilt by association and building supposition on supposition are already visible, e.g in his claims that the visionaries were smoking marijuana. (I say this as someone who doesn't believe in Medj.) So far as I'm concerned, life is too short to devote much time to Dr Jones's insanity, except to warn people against him.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 7, 2020 22:46:57 GMT
In light of the above, I thought I'd take a peek into the sewer that is Mr Jones's site, which I generally avoid. Sure enough, he is currently denouncing Jewish converts to Catholicism who accuse him of anti-semitism of being "conversos" (the implication being that their conversion was insincere). He also complains that no-one has produced anything he wrote which is anti-semitic; given his peculiar definition of anti-semitism (which includes, for example, maintaining that the only legitimate form of Catholic-Jewish ecumenical dialogue is represented by mediaeval disputations at which the Jewish participants were forbidden to state that their religion was true on the grounds that this would constitute blasphemy) and the sheer volume of ravings which pour from him, this is like asking someone to prove that water is wet while claiming the exclusive right to define wetness. Incidentally, he also seems to maintain that the portrayal of Pius XII in John Cornwell's HITLER'S POPE is accurate and that the (in)actions attributed to Pope Pius in that volume are positively meritorious.
|
|