|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 6, 2009 12:19:38 GMT
I have absolutely no respect for Bacik and Norris. The point is that by his ego-trip Williamson has supplied them with ammunition which they can use to mislead the unwary by tarring the Pope with Williamson's abominations. I have exactly as much respect for Bacik and Norris as I have for Sceilg; it is the uninformed who may be misled by their misstatements that I am concerned about. Note the exquisite double standard; the neocons are the Devil, any contact with them puts you outside the pale, and anything they say can be assumed to be false merely because they say it, but Evola, an occultist who denounced Mussolini's regime for not being anti-Christian enough and praised the SS as exemplifying the spiritual aristocracy he sought is someone from whom Sceilg thinks we can usefully learn. I notice that Sceilg has incidentally confirmed that he is the Sceilg who writes the IRISH BULLETIN blog. Those who care to dip into its paeans to the Martyr Jorg Haider etc. will soon judge for themselves whence his opinions come and whither they return. (Hint - What did St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who condemned the massacre of Jews during the First Crusade, say about the House of ANjou? Answer on Monday.)
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 6, 2009 22:57:48 GMT
I have absolutely no respect for Bacik and Norris. The point is that by his ego-trip Williamson has supplied them with ammunition which they can use to mislead the unwary by tarring the Pope with Williamson's abominations. I have exactly as much respect for Bacik and Norris as I have for Sceilg; it is the uninformed who may be misled by their misstatements that I am concerned about. The more pressing issue here is who in the Pope's circle of cardinals and archbishops had a hand in facilitating this very timely "scandal". I would like to know the story of the third party in all of this, rather than flagellate Bishop Williamson. Firstly, yes, the neocons are of the Devil. Do you dispute this? Secondly, this obsession with Evola is nonsensical. I am not an advocate of Evola nor do I endorse a vast bulk of his worldview. But I do agree with some of his arguments re. the evils of the modern world, and the importance of tradition and the triumph of the moral in man. You have clearly never read any of Evola's stuff, otherwise you would know what I am getting at. I know of people who have come to a Catholic view of the world by beginning with Evola, with the latter being a starting point on the road to a new view of the world, finally culminating in their eventual conversion from paganism to Catholicism. I am interested as to how else you would you go about the conversion of souls? The portrayal of me as an out and out Evolian fan club member is at best an exaggeration, and at worst a deliberate red herring designed to set alarm bells off for our fellow board members. I suspect it's the latter. For instance, if you agreed with Marx's assessment of capitalism - which is to a large extent correct - would it be fair of me to call you a Marxist? Absolutely not, for Marx and his afterbears got everything else horrifically wrong after that point. It would be remiss of me to even call you a socialist. But some people like to throw mud to see if it sticks. Are you looking for praise for this discovery? Haider was a lot of things, a good bit of which I would not agree with, but he certainly stood head and shoulders over the Fianna Fáilers of this world. There are one or two devout FFers here, I'm sure of it..
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 7, 2009 3:53:06 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 ! Now I know I've been away for a bit but this is a bit of a bombshell to drop Guillaume...that Peadar Laighléis is in fact Alaisdir6. I say that coz I know Mr Lawless quite well. In theory if you are sure that he writes on this forum why single out Alaisdir? Why not Hibernicus,Askel or Sceilg? In any event I couldn't give a monkeys. By the way did you see that Fr Abrahimowicz SSPX has been expelled by the Italian district of the SSPX. Looks like they are preparing everyone for the departure of Darth Vader. Its a bit late in the day though...he has done a lot of damage both within the SSPX in drawing in extremists and giving them a voice and to the Church herself.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 7, 2009 4:00:20 GMT
Forgive me folks, but what exactly has Bishop Williamson said which is un-Catholic? Where would you like me to start ? The internet is a large place and the lad has made so many statements over the years I could be here until the rapture(!). I'll give you one for starters.."Women do not have the use of their reason".
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 7, 2009 4:10:54 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? Too true,Lefebvre consecrated 4 men whom I believe were university educated-I don't think the same could be said for alot of their clergy now as I have read in some of Mons Williamsons missives a very derogatory attitude to university education in general. Those who don't know how to think are all the more easily controlled. A kind of negativistic view of the virtue of obedience is the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 7, 2009 11:39:40 GMT
Where would you like me to start ? The internet is a large place and the lad has made so many statements over the years I could be here until the rapture(!). I'll give you one for starters.."Women do not have the use of their reason". I would have to see Bishop Williamson's actual statement, but surely you know that women are ruled by emotion rather than reason? This is not a failing, or indicative of any brain defect, nor is it a misogynistic argument - it's just in their make-up as natural mothers. That is why women should never serve in political office, and it explains why so few of them are rarely ever interested in politics in the first place. Margaret Thatcher? Angela Merkel? The homosexual who's just taken charge of Iceland (who, I may note is the mother of two sons)? These aren't women, they're wannabe men who at the end of the day, will be dominated by the men in their establishment circle.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 7, 2009 11:46:18 GMT
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? Too true,Lefebvre consecrated 4 men whom I believe were university educated-I don't think the same could be said for alot of their clergy now as I have read in some of Mons Williamsons missives a very derogatory attitude to university education in general. Those who don't know how to think are all the more easily controlled. A kind of negativistic view of the virtue of obedience is the outcome. Perhaps it takes an experience of academia to understand its shortcomings? Whatever university education Bishop Williamson has received has obviously evaporated, because he does not speak as a man who is the product of British education. As far as I know, the Bishop did not become a Catholic until his mid to late 20s, so obviously his view of the world changed post-university. So, your argument about BW being some kind of intellectual élitist who's keeping his priests in the dark just doesn't hold any water. Either that, or you're advocating that the priests of the SSPX would derive value from being indoctrinated in humanism, which is the main objective of most modern universities.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 8, 2009 7:20:34 GMT
By the way did you see that Fr Abrahimowicz SSPX has been expelled by the Italian district of the SSPX. Looks like they are preparing everyone for the departure of Darth Vader. Its a bit late in the day though...he has done a lot of damage both within the SSPX in drawing in extremists and giving them a voice and to the Church herself. Yes I Did. He got the same opinion as "Willy" (the new nickname of Bp Williamson, according to some Forum....) regarding gas chambers, which he found to be only "purifying items". It is a bit late, surely. According to some forum also, the SSPX is doing some revamp of their Websites, and are deleting some controversial texts. But regarding "extremists", if the SSPX is on its way to a kind of purification, which i think and hope, those extremists will be very disappointed. And certainly will leave. Sound like the SSPV and others, will have soon new members.... Willy had done a lot of damage indeed. And he persists in an recent interview to Der Spiegel, in which he says he is going to study (again the case of the gas chambers) in order to make up his mind, but says it will take time. So he reaffirms his opinion on a Newspaper, despite the interdiction of Bp Fellay for him not to speak about it any more. However, he had being asked to retract by the Vatican. So, on somehow, he also has to express his opinion in order to respond to the demand of the Pope. Well God has mercy. I think Willy had become a bit coocoo, mad, nuts, loco, suicidal... even, on some sort. The ugly duck. Darth Vader, as you say. He is not only damaging the Church, the Vatican, the Pope and the SPPX. Soon enough, he will be revoked for the last. He might join his sedevacs, anti Semites and pro-nazi friends. Because they all linked. Negationism is anti Semite and is actually a way to justify the National Socialism and hitlerism.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 8, 2009 12:52:38 GMT
Well God has mercy. I think Willy had become a bit coocoo, mad, nuts, loco, suicidal... even, on some sort. The ugly duck. Darth Vader, as you say. He is a bishop, have a bit of respect. Amazing how some of you can turn on the Marxist-style anti-clericalism when the cleric in question doesn't suit your comforts. Firstly, the term anti-Semite is nonsense and racist, as Arabs are also Semites. Secondly, there is nothing anti-Catholic or wrong (both morally and ethically) about demanding clarifications, investigations or evidence into an event of such historical importance. The very fact that historians who have attempted to investigate this event - and this event alone - have been jailed, ridiculed or beaten up by the far left indicates more than ever that access to files re. this event should be opened to all historians. What Bishop Williamson is pointing out is that we have had sixty years of emotion, anecdotes and establishment history on one hand, and violence, oppression and censorship on the other. Regardless of what one believes happened, the above is true, and none of you can deny this. If something is true, why won't it stand up to scrutiny, and why are people jailed or beaten into a pulp once they ask questions about it - and about this alone? If I wanted to go out in the morning and investigate whether or not the purges happened in Russia, I could do it freely. If I wanted to write a book about the JFK assassination, or even perform a scientific investigation of 9/11, I could do it. But why the censorship and persecution over this one particular subject?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 8, 2009 17:58:52 GMT
Well God has mercy. I think Willy had become a bit coocoo, mad, nuts, loco, suicidal... even, on some sort. The ugly duck. Darth Vader, as you say. He is a bishop, have a bit of respect. Amazing how some of you can turn on the Marxist-style anti-clericalism when the cleric in question doesn't suit your comforts. Firstly, the term anti-Semite is nonsense and racist, as Arabs are also Semites. Secondly, there is nothing anti-Catholic or wrong (both morally and ethically) about demanding clarifications, investigations or evidence into an event of such historical importance. The very fact that historians who have attempted to investigate this event - and this event alone - have been jailed, ridiculed or beaten up by the far left indicates more than ever that access to files re. this event should be opened to all historians. What Bishop Williamson is pointing out is that we have had sixty years of emotion, anecdotes and establishment history on one hand, and violence, oppression and censorship on the other. Regardless of what one believes happened, the above is true, and none of you can deny this. If something is true, why won't it stand up to scrutiny, and why are people jailed or beaten into a pulp once they ask questions about it - and about this alone? If I wanted to go out in the morning and investigate whether or not the purges happened in Russia, I could do it freely. If I wanted to write a book about the JFK assassination, or even perform a scientific investigation of 9/11, I could do it. But why the censorship and persecution over this one particular subject? On somehow, you are quit right. If I was a bishop of a controversial Fraternity and said "I don't believe in the Vendéen genocide" or "the Maoiste genocide" or said "I don't believe the gulags exist...", or even worst "I don't believe in the Rwanda genocide", the media won't be THAT chocked, unfortunately. Maybe they would, actually, but not in such proportion. The Rwanda genocide killed millions of innocents, so did the Stalinist gulags and Mao killed millions and millions of poor peasants. Certainly communism killed more people that national-socialism. But Nazism didn't last as long as communism. Nazism is really a German thing. While communism is international. The vomit of Satan had managed to spread to the biggest country in the World, Russia and China and many others, in Africa as well. While Nazism managed to spread from Germany only and via conquer and command, via war. But Bp Williamson should know better, indeed, that speaking about the Holocaust of the Jews (and others, prisoners of war, homosexuals, gypsies, etc....), is indeed extremely risky. He put fire on the oil. His comments are the proof that he is a sedevac. Many comments he made proofed it. For that, as a Bishop, he did not act wisely. He did not think he was big represent of the SSPX within the English speaking world. Maybe too many years in Argentina (country in which many Nazis tried to hide by the way), made him forget the European rules regarding this issue. I followed some sedevacs websites, and of course, as they always did, condemned Bp Fellay and support Williamson and negationism. (follow "traditio" if you like). I appreciate your frankness. It is for me a sine-qua-non of following a discussion. You have the right to express your opinion here, as soon as they are not offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Feb 8, 2009 18:39:42 GMT
I followed some sedevacs websites, and of course, as they always did, condemned Bp Fellay and support Williamson and negationism. (follow "traditio" if you like). Guillaume is right. There is some absolutely barking mad stuff here www.traditio.com/comment/com0902.htm. They have a strange notion of obedience. It is good to see that Bishop Fellay has expelled another nasty.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 8, 2009 18:53:57 GMT
On somehow, you are quit right. If I was a bishop of a controversial Fraternity and said "I don't believe in the Vendéen genocide" or "the Maoiste genocide" or said "I don't believe the gulags exist...", or even worst "I don't believe in the Rwanda genocide", the media won't be THAT chocked, unfortunately. Maybe they would, actually, but not in such proportion. The Rwanda genocide killed millions of innocents, so did the Stalinist gulags and Mao killed millions and millions of poor peasants. Certainly communism killed more people that national-socialism. But Nazism didn't last as long as communism. Nazism is really a German thing. While communism is international. The vomit of Satan had managed to spread to the biggest country in the World, Russia and China and many others, in Africa as well. While Nazism managed to spread from Germany only and via conquer and command, via war. If Nazism is German, then it is worth pointing out that Soviet Communism, particularly from 1917 and throughout the 1920s and 1930s, was not Russian but essentially Jewish in character. This is well documented, but something which is rarely discussed in western European academic circles. My judgment on the whole affair was that the Bishop's comments were ill-timed, and that he walked into a pre-meditated trap set both for him and the Pope. I don't believe that for one second. Just because somebody recognises the smoke of Satan in the Vatican (which is billowing out of the place at this stage), doesn't mean one is disloyal to the Papacy. I believe His Holiness is a prisoner of the characters around him. It is these "European rules" which are the problem, not Bishop Williamson. Any Catholic who bows down to the supposed emotional need for these thought laws is surrendering his or herself to Communists in Brussels. This is a logical fallacy. Just because A or B supports what Bishop Williamson says, does not make Bishop Williamson A or B. This would be like saying that just because an Irishman supports a free Palestine - which is also supported by Hamas - then that Irishman is automatically a Hamas militant. That sounds like a directive from Brussels! What exactly defines offensive? What may be offensive to your or me may be subject to healthy discussion by other men. This is a Catholic board, so naturally if some spam artist were to come on here and start a thread advertising places where women could get an abortion, or promoting porn websites, then that thread should be rolled up and that person banned. But other than that, everything should be up for discussion. That which is indefensible before God will fall flat on its face, and that which is truthful and in line with Catholic teaching will come out as such. The liars will be exposed, those who believe in truth vindicated, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 8, 2009 22:28:56 GMT
On somehow, you are quit right. If I was a bishop of a controversial Fraternity and said "I don't believe in the Vendéen genocide" or "the Maoiste genocide" or said "I don't believe the gulags exist...", or even worst "I don't believe in the Rwanda genocide", the media won't be THAT chocked, unfortunately. Maybe they would, actually, but not in such proportion. The Rwanda genocide killed millions of innocents, so did the Stalinist gulags and Mao killed millions and millions of poor peasants. Certainly communism killed more people that national-socialism. But Nazism didn't last as long as communism. Nazism is really a German thing. While communism is international. The vomit of Satan had managed to spread to the biggest country in the World, Russia and China and many others, in Africa as well. While Nazism managed to spread from Germany only and via conquer and command, via war. If Nazism is German, then it is worth pointing out that Soviet Communism, particularly from 1917 and throughout the 1920s and 1930s, was not Russian but essentially Jewish in character. This is well documented, but something which is rarely discussed in western European academic circles. Yes Sceilg, I read 'The Rulers of Russia' too, but I wasn't impressed. Strange sort of conspiracy, if when Lenin died (and he wasn't a Jew - regardless of Father Fahey's fantasy that he was), Stalin was the only gentile on a committee of five leading Bolsheviks (the others being Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bucharin) but ended up in charge with all the others dead. Swedish Television had enough of an agenda to forestall a secret deal three months in advance? If one of the rest of us said something along these lines about one of your pet projects you would rightly demand evidence. Williamson's views on the Jews were well known - the timing issue is a red herring. Why should the smoke of Satan be any more noxious now than at any other time? Rome is no longer ruled by a prostitute as it was in the 9th century beginning two centuries of absolutely disgraceful popes who make the Borgias look like pious boys. If you ask me, the lowest points in the papacy were during the much exalted Middle Ages. And every genuine Communist in the 27 member states is saying 'Communists in Brussels? Where?'
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 8, 2009 22:32:40 GMT
I followed some sedevacs websites, and of course, as they always did, condemned Bp Fellay and support Williamson and negationism. (follow "traditio" if you like). Guillaume is right. There is some absolutely barking mad stuff here www.traditio.com/comment/com0902.htm. They have a strange notion of obedience. It is good to see that Bishop Fellay has expelled another nasty. Yes - quite.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 8, 2009 22:46:56 GMT
He is a bishop, have a bit of respect. No. If I have to have respect for Dickie Williamson just because he is in episcopal orders, I would have to have to accord respect to Michael Cox or Pat Buckley. Dickie got the priesthood and episcopacy without due canonical process - you might say he stole it. And don't give me your tales of Mgr LeFebvre being a saintly old man - few outside the SSPX believe this. His own family attest he was never a great judge of character and three of the four bishops he selected in 1988 attest to that (Fellay is the only one I exclude). Hair splitting. The problem with this is that Williamson is adept at picking and choosing the evidence he likes. There are a number of refutations of the Leuchter report - the Polish Professor Markiewicz comes to mind, but there are others - as there are grave question marks over the Loose Change thesis about the 11 September attacks. Williamson goes in for what Damien Thompson calls Counterknowledge. But I will concede one point to Sceilg - he is perfectly right that evidence is to be examined and sifted. The bone I have to pick is that I don't believe Dickie Williamson is a good example of someone who does son. The concentrated evil of 12 years of National Socialism in Germany has marshalled a formidable array of forces against it. I wish the same would happen in relation to communism. But as Hibernicus has pointed out, there is a whacky website out there saying the Famine never happened. What way do we Irish react to this nonsense - reject it out of hand or give it respectability by sifting the evidence?
|
|