|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 3, 2009 12:40:55 GMT
In that case you know more than I do, Guillaume. So what is the LMSI position? I will e-mail your answer to the LMSI board and see if you get it right. No waste of time, buddy, AS I KNOW, you are the LMSI chief. Don't worry about it. Telling the Truth is a Christian virtue ! If you don't want to waste time: why did you say you know the LMSI position? I say I don't and I said earlier I don't speak for the LMSI. I don't. I describe their activities, which are usually a matter of public record anyway. The only positions I give on anything are those of Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha. Now - the truth is a virtue as you have said. You have also said you know the LMSI position on the excommunications. Now let's hear it. And if you cannot give the LMSI position, then withdraw your allegation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 3, 2009 18:46:43 GMT
Excuse me, Guillaume. Accusing other members of lying breaches the rules of debate. So, too, in my opinion does speculating publicly about other members' identities when they choose not to reveal them. I can't speak for alasdair but as a LMSI member I welcome the prospect of the SSPX being reconciled with the Church, where they may yet do good work - but this can only happen if the SSPX realise that, while they do have some legitimate grievances, it is they who must be reconciled with the Church rather than the Church being reconciled with them. Bishop Williamson has already done considerable harm to the whole process and to the good name of the Church and the Pope; I hope his colleagues can keep him under control and welcome their statements distancing themselves from him.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 4, 2009 15:50:53 GMT
Forgive me folks, but what exactly has Bishop Williamson said which is un-Catholic, or what has he said on certain topics which hasn't been said before by churchmen of his rank and position?
What, for instance, is wrong with his assessment of television? There are valid arguments supporting the idea that television is an evil, and from what I have seen from some your statements and arguments on this forum, a great deal of your worldviews seem to have been shaped by television news, and the position of the established media, which is virulently anti-Catholic.
Many have spoke of the evil of the Internet, yet when compared to television, it is hardly evil at all. Such is the unrestricted nature of the Internet, that you can seek out and find items of truth, objectivity and piety, in the same way you can seek out and find pornography, gratuitous violence and gambling websites. The point is, you have the choice to exercise your free will.
With television however, it is different. You have a set number of channels, with schedules and content controlled by men and women with little or no respect for Catholicity. It is like a large, walled room with no doors, or no gaps through which fresh air can enter.
Unless you want to look at EWTN all day, it's better to just ignore it.
Re. what he said on Swedish television, he was expressing his personal opinion, based on the historical evidence he had seen, and not emotion. What is un-Catholic about this? Did he laugh at the fact that Jews died in the camps, and if not, how is he an anti-Semite?
While I enjoy The Sound of Music myself, he is expressing his own personal opinion about what he sees as moral ambiguity in the story. What is un-Catholic about this?
With regard to what he said about 9/11 - while some people are sold on the crazy Muslim hypothesis, what is wrong with expressing a different opinion based on valid, compelling scientific investigations which have been carried out? Since the Freemasons and Zionists in the Bush administration are as anti-Catholic as the alleged hijackers, why would you believe them, and persecute the Bishop? Just who is being un-Catholic here?
Finally, his stance on women wearing trousers. Some of us mightn't agree, but what is he saying that is inherently anti-Catholic?
I get the feeling that some people have created a vision of the world that's comfortable for them. Everything happens as the mainstream media says it happens; politicians make correct decisions, and no matter how corrupt they are, their right to rule is God-given (i.e., sedition is anti-Catholic); Muslims are the bogeymen who can be hated and slandered without fear of censure, while on the other hand, criticising the Jews is a taboo which nobody could even contemplating breaking, no matter how anti-Catholic some of them they may be; there is no such thing as conspiracy in the modern world - an amazing thought, considering that Christ Himself died as a result of conspiracy and betrayal.
Bishop Williamson upsets all of these comfort cushions, which is why some people here want a sanitised, respectable SSPX devoid of his talents; one where people can hate Muslims but fear the Jews, abandon the Social Teaching of the Church, and instead remain as nothing more than loyal citizens to corrupt politicians and clerics.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2009 11:04:12 GMT
Speaking for myself, I harldy ever watch television, and if I was a slave of the anti-Catholic media as you suggest I wouldn't be posting on this forum in the first place. What is the evidence that Bishop Williamson claims to have seen which leads him to dissent form the generally accepted view on the scale of the Holocaust? Is it perchance the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that notorious forgery which he regularly quotes in his public letters as if it was part of Scripture? He has stated publicly at his eulogy for the wretched Doug Christie that the story of the Holocaust is all lies, invented by the Jews so that they could more easily rule over the Gentiles. Someone who starts from this assumption will never be convinced that the Holocaust happened, since he will assume in advance that all the evidence to the contrary was concocted by the supposed conspirators, and all the survivors are money-grubbing liars. Using the same sort of "logic" it would be possible to argue that the Great Irish Famine never happened and the whole thing was concocted as part of a nefarious Papist conspiracy- www.revisionism.nl/Potato/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm [NB - while the above site is a parody, it should be noted that many nineteenth-century American nativists claimed that Catholic immigration to the United States represented a concerted Papal conspiracy assisted by European monarchs to undermine republican institutions, just as the lunatic Bat Ye'or, who is every bit as reliable as Sceilg's heroes Israel Shamir and Bishop Williamson, claims Islamic immigration to Europe is the product of a concerted Islamic conspiracy. I would also state that there are legitimate areas of debate about how far the British administration and influential policy-makers were responsible for the scale and mishandling of the Famine, just as there are legitimate areas of debate over the Holocaust - e.g. between intentionalists who believe it represents the working-out of a concerted plan and functionalists who believe it arose out of policy improvisations as the Nazis tried to work out how to deal with the Jews under their control; but to deny the Holocaust happened is like denying that the Famine happened.] I might add that Bishop Williamson is also on record as saying the British Empire ought still to exist because the British are naturally superior to their former subject peoples, who ought to be content to labour for their benefit. Rumour has it that with characteristic vanity he voiced these opinions on a visit to the SSPX congregation in Dublin, which did not receive them with patience.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2009 11:12:31 GMT
On other matters, the objection to Bishop Willaimson's views are that they are put forward not just as personal opinions but as possessing some sort of authority from his possession of episcopal orders. THE SOUND OF MUSIC is pretty saccharine (though there are some nice visuals) but it is not pornography and to describe it as such leaves one helpless in dealing with real pornography. Similarly, it is quite reasonable to argue that the contrast it draws between authority based on obedience and authority based on affection is overdrawn, but Williamson's criticism appears to take the view that there is nothing at all wrong with the style of parental authority displayed by the Captain in the early stages of the film, and that affection is unnecessary or even undesirable betwen superiors and subordinates. This is pretty rich coming from an excommunicated schismatic who thrust himself into the episcopate as King Uzzah thrust himself into the Holy of Holies.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2009 11:18:03 GMT
Similarly, Willaimson's views on women and trousers are presented not as a personal opinion but as having episcopal authority behind them. HE has also said that women should not receive higher education or teach men, and has denounced the naming of SS Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux as Doctors of the Church on the same grounds. This amounts to (a) second-guessing the Pope on who deserves to be a Doctor of the Church (b) downgrades the witness of female saints and religious: generally it suggests a misogyny more akin to Gnosticism than to Christianity, and resembling that of Julius Evola, whom Sceilg thinks has much to teach us (though Sceilg does distance himself from Evola's paganism). Sceilg is to Evola as Williamson is to the Unabomber Manifesto; much too close for comfort.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2009 11:20:57 GMT
I also note that Sceilg is a 9/11 truther, who simulatneously presents Williamson's views as an opinion and insinuates that they are correct without reference to hte refutations which have been made of them. Sceilg is essentially a Gnostic; once you embrace his version of True Catholicism all will be made clear, if you do not no dialogue is possible. I agree on one point - no dialogue is possible; if you pay any attention to Sceilg's views it must be with the same spirit as the pest control officer inspecting the sewers to see how many rats are theirein so he knows how much rat poison to order.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2009 11:26:24 GMT
Meanwhile, those of you who read today's IRISH TIMES will see that in Seanad Eireann David Norris and Ivana Bathory (sorry, Bacik) have been using Williamson's antics to attack the Pope and call for the Irish Government to make diplomatic representations to the Vatican; when Ronan Mullen pointed out that this was an internal Church matter outside the state's concern, Bacik sneered that she was glad to see he had been converted to separation of church and state, which she then defined as requiring the secularisation of Catholic schools and hospitals (though of course the Church authorities have been doing more to secularise them in recent decades than even Bacik and Norris might wish). Bacik and Norris will throw mud what ever happens, but shame on Bishop Williamson for providing them with ammunition. Acknowledgment is also due to the late Archbishop LEfebvre for conferring episcopal orders on a lunatic who is not fit to be in charge of a goldfish bowl.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Feb 5, 2009 23:40:28 GMT
Acknowledgment is also due to the late Archbishop LEfebvre for conferring episcopal orders on a lunatic who is not fit to be in charge of a goldfish bowl. I have to agree. Was there no other English-speaking priest who could have been made a bishop, or did the Archbishop think Williamson was a normal Englishman?
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 0:49:26 GMT
I also note that Sceilg is a 9/11 truther, who simulatneously presents Williamson's views as an opinion and insinuates that they are correct without reference to hte refutations which have been made of them. There have been just as many refutations of those who dispute the refutations of 9/11 as there have been original refutations of the original story. Unlike Bishop Williamson, I don't really see the relevance of 9/11, either to my country or the rest of the world; particularly as to how Catholics should view the world. I don't, as some would, believe that "the world changed after 9/11"; to me it's heading in the same direction it's been going since the French Revolution. Tell me, in all that has been done since 9/11 and the name of those who died, has it brought the world closer to Christ? It is irrelevant. I'm sorry, this is just too funny. (i) You call me a Gnostic; (ii) you say I don't believe in dialogue, yet here I am "dialoguing" with you, and (iii) you declare that you don't believe in dialogue anyway. I am extending the hand of decent argument to you, showing respect to you in the process, and you are throwing it back in my face. Who exactly is the "Gnostic" here? I'm confused, I really am. Then you finish off with a couple of "rat" comments. I do believe that the moderator here has called for decency in debate; that doesn't sound like it to me.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 0:59:16 GMT
Similarly, Willaimson's views on women and trousers are presented not as a personal opinion but as having episcopal authority behind them. HE has also said that women should not receive higher education or teach men, and has denounced the naming of SS Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux as Doctors of the Church on the same grounds. This amounts to (a) second-guessing the Pope on who deserves to be a Doctor of the Church (b) downgrades the witness of female saints and religious: generally it suggests a misogyny more akin to Gnosticism than to Christianity, and resembling that of Julius Evola, whom Sceilg thinks has much to teach us (though Sceilg does distance himself from Evola's paganism). Sceilg is to Evola as Williamson is to the Unabomber Manifesto; much too close for comfort. Firstly, Bishop Williamson has no real degree of episcopal authority outside the Society of St. Pius X; he is not in charge of a diocese, for instance. Secondly, re. "second guessing the Pope", His Holiness is surrounded by liberals and politicos who are second guessing him all the time, plotting against him I might even say. I would rather have "an old dinosaur" (his own words) like Bishop Williamson as a friend than the cold counsel of apostates like, for example, Cardinals Kasper or Martini. The only value of Evola (and, I repeat, the only value) is reaching an understanding that when society has reached the pinnacle of decay, the only answer to it is to retreat to tradition. That tradition must not be Evolian, but 100 per cent Catholic. But what I'm hearing here, and in American trad circles, is the ramblings of neoconservative capitalists who would rather do a pact with the Devil than make any effort to fundamentally change society for the better; to make society Catholic once again.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 1:11:33 GMT
Speaking for myself, I harldy ever watch television, and if I was a slave of the anti-Catholic media as you suggest I wouldn't be posting on this forum in the first place. What is the evidence that Bishop Williamson claims to have seen which leads him to dissent form the generally accepted view on the scale of the Holocaust? Exactly what he said in the interview. He has seen no evidence to support it. This has also been the conclusion of ample investigations by Russians scientists which, not surprisingly, haven't seen the light of day in the Western world. You or I cannot stand over any of this, but we can do one thing: since we all hear talk about the Koran, have you ever read the Jewish holy books? Particularly the Talmud? I'm not quite sure where you're going with this... "Legitimate areas of debate". This is ridiculous language, straight out of Brussels. All debate is legitimate, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for some people. If an argument is horribly wrong, it will fall in the face of a truthful counter-argument on a level playing field. If someone is telling lies, you refute it with the truth; you do not lock them up in prison, or threaten re-excommunication in the case of a bishop. But when there is debate on this particular subject in western Europe - and this subject alone - immediately all dissenters are denounced as frauds and anti-Semites. No argument takes place, no evidence examined, no investigations carried out. Jail results, or in BW's case, a threat of re-excommunication. To any sensible person this would denote that it is not Bishop Williamson who has something to hide. Rumour has it? Can we see some evidence please?
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 1:17:27 GMT
Meanwhile, those of you who read today's IRISH TIMES will see that in Seanad Eireann David Norris and Ivana Bathory (sorry, Bacik) have been using Williamson's antics to attack the Pope and call for the Irish Government to make diplomatic representations to the Vatican; Norris is a liberal homosexual and Bacik is a militant feminist and abortionist. This is the problem with you people, you put too much value in these miscreants, their "positions", and what they say about anything. Who gives a damn what these non-entities say, especially given the fact that in the current climate, their "cushy numbers" might not have much lifespan? In addition, what kind of an Irish Catholic holds any respect for the Irish Times as a credible source - a paper known for its historic association with the Protestant and Masonic ascendancy, now replaced by the chattering classes of Dublin 4? Shame on you for putting any stock in what degenerates like Bacik and Norris have to say, and I question the common sense of Ronán Mullen - our "respectable/don't-rock-the-boat-conservative" in the Senate - for giving these people any credence either. God forgive you for mocking Archbishop Lefebvre, a holy man who has gone to his grave.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 1:21:41 GMT
Excuse me, Guillaume. Accusing other members of lying breaches the rules of debate. So, too, in my opinion does speculating publicly about other members' identities when they choose not to reveal them. You have accused me of worse. It seems that the rulebook is the rulebook according to Hibernicus. Anyway, what kind of ridiculous statement is that from a Catholic? "Accusing other members of lying breaches the rules of debate"? That means that if an actual egregious liar came onto this board spreading the most wicked falsehoods about people, you would tolerate them? Remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 6, 2009 7:22:54 GMT
Anyway, according to a rumour posted on the usually well informed "leforumcatholique.org", Bp Williamson had been dismissed from all his responsibilities within the SSPX, including being the Superior of the Seminary in Argentina. But, at the moment, it is only a rumour (coming from a guy who heard it IN the SPPX).
|
|