|
Post by guillaume on Feb 27, 2009 12:19:15 GMT
Speaking of Mel Gibson (in a different thread) and Williamson, the sedevac website traditio, "understand" that Willy may flight to Mel Gibson's mansion in Malibu. (Hutton Gibson, the father of Mel, is also a sedevac and questions the extend of the Holocaust (but not the Shoah itself) ). Mel Gibson however is not particularly known to be sedevac. He is a Trad tough.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 27, 2009 22:57:33 GMT
Here is a link to Deborah Lipstadt's blog for her coverage of the Williamson affair, including material about Williamson's links to David Irving. lipstadt.blogspot.com/search/label/Vatican%20Reinstates%20Bishop%20who%20Denies%20Holocaust Note: Professor Lipstadt, who has written a book on holocaust denial, is an observant Jew and consequently her views on Catholicism are not what one would expect from a faithful Catholic. In posting this link I do not necessarily associate myself with any of her views other than that the Holocaust really occurred and that Williamson is a creep. The blog has some useful links for anyone who wishes to engage in further exploration on the slanders and falsehoods perpetrated by holocaust deniers, and on the details of the crimes committed by the Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Mar 2, 2009 21:34:49 GMT
Here is a link to Deborah Lipstadt's blog for her coverage of the Williamson affair, including material about Williamson's links to David Irving. lipstadt.blogspot.com/search/label/Vatican%20Reinstates%20Bishop%20who%20Denies%20Holocaust Note: Professor Lipstadt, who has written a book on holocaust denial, is an observant Jew and consequently her views on Catholicism are not what one would expect from a faithful Catholic. In posting this link I do not necessarily associate myself with any of her views other than that the Holocaust really occurred and that Williamson is a creep. Perhaps then you might have benefited from learning logic in school. Lipstadt, like much of her ilk in academia, is a devout anti-Christian. You mention that she's an "observant Jew", which would lead me to believe that you're aware that she is a strict opponent of intermarriage. I can't argue with her on that point, but the basis for her opposition to intermarriage is a racial one, and is governed by the idea that Jews are a superior race, and bear the sole right to salvation, unlike us damned goyim. So, you would rather take as gospel the word of a woman who is an anti-Christian, Jewish extremist, rather than listen to the arguments of a Catholic bishop who committed the "crime" of simply asking a question about history. Your ridiculous bluster and agitprop about Nazism aside, I'm struggling to understand how you see that as Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Mar 3, 2009 12:20:07 GMT
Here is a link to Deborah Lipstadt's blog for her coverage of the Williamson affair, including material about Williamson's links to David Irving. lipstadt.blogspot.com/search/label/Vatican%20Reinstates%20Bishop%20who%20Denies%20Holocaust Note: Professor Lipstadt, who has written a book on holocaust denial, is an observant Jew and consequently her views on Catholicism are not what one would expect from a faithful Catholic. In posting this link I do not necessarily associate myself with any of her views other than that the Holocaust really occurred and that Williamson is a creep. Perhaps then you might have benefited from learning logic in school. Lipstadt, like much of her ilk in academia, is a devout anti-Christian. You mention that she's an "observant Jew", which would lead me to believe that you're aware that she is a strict opponent of intermarriage. I can't argue with her on that point, but the basis for her opposition to intermarriage is a racial one, and is governed by the idea that Jews are a superior race, and bear the sole right to salvation, unlike us damned goyim. So, you would rather take as gospel the word of a woman who is an anti-Christian, Jewish extremist, rather than listen to the arguments of a Catholic bishop who committed the "crime" of simply asking a question about history. Your ridiculous bluster and agitprop about Nazism aside, I'm struggling to understand how you see that as Catholic. I for one would prefer is Sceilg would leave his anti-semitism off this forum. And don't give me Faheyesque nonsence attempting to justify it from a Catholic point of view: that belongs to the lunatic fringe of the SSPX disavowed by Bishop Fellay, Fr Schmidberger and even Fr Angles (thanks to Guilluame for the link to the SSPX Ireland website. Sceilg, you are running out of corners to hide.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 3, 2009 13:42:03 GMT
Perhaps then you might have benefited from learning logic in school. Lipstadt, like much of her ilk in academia, is a devout anti-Christian. It remains to Sceilg to prove this allegation. If he cannot, the only course is to withdraw it.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Mar 3, 2009 20:24:50 GMT
Perhaps then you might have benefited from learning logic in school. Lipstadt, like much of her ilk in academia, is a devout anti-Christian. You mention that she's an "observant Jew", which would lead me to believe that you're aware that she is a strict opponent of intermarriage. I can't argue with her on that point, but the basis for her opposition to intermarriage is a racial one, and is governed by the idea that Jews are a superior race, and bear the sole right to salvation, unlike us damned goyim. So, you would rather take as gospel the word of a woman who is an anti-Christian, Jewish extremist, rather than listen to the arguments of a Catholic bishop who committed the "crime" of simply asking a question about history. Your ridiculous bluster and agitprop about Nazism aside, I'm struggling to understand how you see that as Catholic. I for one would prefer is Sceilg would leave his anti-semitism off this forum. And don't give me Faheyesque nonsence attempting to justify it from a Catholic point of view: that belongs to the lunatic fringe of the SSPX disavowed by Bishop Fellay, Fr Schmidberger and even Fr Angles (thanks to Guilluame for the link to the SSPX Ireland website. Sceilg, you are running out of corners to hide. I don't think I am, not for one second. In fact, you are the one hiding behind insults and faux outrage. I have put forward an argument, and pointed out Lipstadt's Jewish extremism, which is at base even more anti-Christian than some of you claim Islam to be. Despite invalidating me, you have still not come up with any kind of explanation as to how or why Bishop Williamson's expression of an opinion on an historical matter has anything to do with the Pope's ability to implement Catholic doctrine or dogma. Instead you throw numbskull remarks like "anti-Semite" or "racist", and expect to win an argument through gang-based intimidation. If the liberals and their attack dogs drew up a European arrest warrant for Bishop Williamson in the morning for his manifold comments about homosexuality, what will we expect Bishop Fellay or His Holiness to do then - just roll over and apologise for Church teaching on sodomy? And Askel, when you refer to a "lunatic fringe", do you believe Bishop Fellay and Frs. Schmidberger and Anglés are in the majority? How do you think people in SSPX Masses are reacting to how Bishop Williamson has been treated? For years many LMSI types wouldn't even cast an eye on the Society, but now that Fellay et al look like people with whom "business can be done", they are suddenly relevant, and Bishop Williamson - and God knows who else - is the subject of a purge to bring the Society in line with Vatican II Rome, or even a setup to undermine the Pope. You all know the Apostles were the first bishops; and you all know that even though they were so close to Christ, one of them was still prepared to betray Him for thirty pieces of silver. Or might that be a cardinal's zucchetto?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 4, 2009 10:36:44 GMT
I don't think I am, not for one second. In fact, you are the one hiding behind insults and faux outrage. I have put forward an argument, and pointed out Lipstadt's Jewish extremism, which is at base even more anti-Christian than some of you claim Islam to be. Dr Libstadt has made a career out of making the world aware of a great outrage perpetrated against her nation. I applaud her. I wish there was an Irish historian as dedicated to perpetuating the memory of the Famine or the Cromwellian Invasion. Ascribing this to anti-Christianity is beyond being a red herring. Am I to say that an old dear or an old man hobbling to schul in Terenure early on Saturday morning is anti-Christian. If you applied Father Fahey's reasoning, you would have to say yes, but the exercise is twisted. Jewish identity depends on accepting the OT but rejecting the new. So they don't believe Our Lord is the Christ? That is more our failure than theirs as we have not used the abundant gifts of the Holy Ghost to convince them of that truth...and the lamentable tradition within Catholicism which Sceilg affects will only drive them more deeply into this anti-Christianity he perceives. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Hibernicus has explained that there is no mid-way argument on the Holocaust - it either happened or it didn't. If it happened it is gravely insulting to those who suffered (and I remember the gypsies as well as the Jews. And the communists. And the Jehovah's Witnesses. Even the homosexuals and freemasons. Now this outrage is not based on affection for any of these four last groups - it is based on outrage against the National Socialist regime in Germany between 1933 and 1945 which I have come to the conclusion was thoroughly evil. And there are victims of the regime that are still suffering as a result of it - the German nation. On the other hand, if the holocaust didn't happen, then those purported victims of whatever nation or denomination or other status - handicapped, Esperantists, clergy and religious of a cross-section of Christian churches - are frauds. The weight of evidence is on the side of the former. Academics and judges have borne this out. What we are discussing is a character who acts within a small enclave purporting to be Catholic who have isolated themselves from the Universal Church, who flies in the face of what the rest of humanity believe. For someone who is paraded as 'extremely intelligent' by SSPX followers (I am quoting an SSPX seminarian), Bishop Williamson needs to choose his sermon topics carefully. It's not just the Holocaust - his uncharacteristically careful remarks on Swedish TV were by no means careful enough - he quoted the Leuchter Report, an extremely sloppy study by an amateur, unqualified engineer which has been torn to shreds by several reputable scholars acting independently. He has also said that the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' were put into the hands of men by God. To move away from the subject onto 9/11 - we have all heard his anlaysis of this. Well, as observed by critics of Loose Change, no representative of a reputable demolition firm has accepted the thesis that the Twin Towers were destroyed by demolition charges. In other words, Bishop Williamson has a serious credibility problem - before going into his mysogonism. What was that you said about 'numb-skull' remarks? Anyway, how someone who would not have been either ordained to the priesthood or consecrated a bishop as soon after conversion as he was without any process, other than selection by an aging archbishop acknowledged even by family and supporters as being a poor judge of character, would be enthrusted any serious role in implementing Catholic dogmata is beyond me. No. This is not an adequate comparison. I referred to the Nazi persecution of homosexuals above. If he was to deny the fact that this took place and the pink lobby made noise about it, they would be correct. If on the other hand, his condemnation of sodomy was the issue, which would be the issue for many NO bishops including the Pope (who already as Cardinal Ratzinger was a frequent target for David Norris'es ire). If Bishop Williamson left nonsense (as Bishop Fellay told Der Spiegel) about the Protocols or Holocaust revision out and just pointed out the differences between Christianity and Judaism and why Jews needed to accept Christ, it would be another matter. Askel can answer for himself. But the minority/majority thing is interesting. People like Guillaume would state that the majority of Pixies are reasonable people and that the trio Askel mentioned are representative of them. (It must be pointed out that none of the lay following at SSPX Masses are members of the Society of St Pius X). I take your point, Sceilg, and I am willing to suspend judgement on the proportions of support until if and when a deal is effected with the Holy See to see which way a majority go. I would hope that Guillaume is more accurate, but I accept (and fear) Sceilg nearer the mark. Forget the nonsense about undermining the Pope, the only lesson here is that Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, in his hurry to retire with a visible achievement, didn't do his homework. Leave the cant about Vatican II behind unless you want to admit you are actually a sedevacantist. And leave out second-guessing the LMSI - it is one of the view trad bodies not to have made a statement on this matter. I challenged Guillaume on his statement that he knew the LMSI position already and his response was to break forum rules by attacking me. Sceilg is driving at something different. In point of fact, the LMSI carried the SSPX Mass times in Ireland for couple of years up until the site was redesigned in 2007: I think it was there since 2003. The reason it was dropped was lack of reciprocation. Good meditation of the sacrament of holy orders, Sceilg. I don't believe Bishop Fellay is enough of a fool to believe he'll get a red hat. Rather he is smart enough to see if the SSPX continue the way it is going, it will become a caricature of itself before it knows it - going the same way as the 'Old Catholics' did after Vatican I. The central problem is that Bishop Williamson and those like him are unwillingly to give up their positions of not having to take responsibililty for their two-decade long abuse of power.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 13, 2009 12:31:32 GMT
Going back to Sceilg's reply: I fail to see how my statement about Professor Lipstadt is lacking in logical coherence. You may dispute its accuracy, but that is another matter; a statement may possess perfect internal logic and still be false. The issue about Professor Lipstadt's opposition to Jews marrying Gentiles was raised in Irving's libel suit against her, when Irving used it to state that they were morally indistinguishable. Lipstadt's stated reason was that intermarriage leads to the cultural (and presumably religious) absorption of Jews by Gentiles; she expressly denied that it had any racial element, whereas she claimed Irving's opposition to such intermarriage was based on racism. Is your "agreement" with Lipstadt based on racial or religious grounds, Sceilg? (Put this another way - do you believe that a Catholic of Jewish descent is as acceptable a marriage-partner as any other Catholic?) By the way, Sceilg, you claim to know that Lipstadt's motives for opposing intermarriage are different from those which she has stated in public. Do you have any ascertainable grounds for stating this, or do you just assume that the maintenance by Jews of a separate Jewish identity is equivalent to racism, or did the Elders of Zion broadcast the Awful Truth through your dental fillings when you incautiously took off your tin-foil hat?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 1, 2011 19:18:26 GMT
The Pope's comments on Bishop Williamson in the new book by Peter Seewald are interesting - he states that Williamson should have been treated differently from the other three bishops not just because of his holocaust denial (which though reprehensible is not in itself grounds for excommunication) but because in the same interview Williamson stated that he thought the excommunication was beneficial since it preserved the SSPX from "contamination" by the conciliar church. Those who ahve read Williamson's subsequent publications (generally flagged on the execrable IGNIS ARDENS forum as if they were THE UTTERANCES OF A dOCTOR OF THE cHURCH) will know that Williamson has frequently reiterated that view, which shows how much the apology
|
|