|
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 13, 2009 20:12:36 GMT
I read about Abramowicz, Abrahamowicz and Abrahomowicz. Did Abramowicz change his name to Arahamowicz when the family became Christian or vice versa?
I read:
"To which other exterminations are you referring? If Bishop Williamson had gone on television to deny the genocide of 1.2 million Armenians by the Turks, I don’t think that all the newspapers would have talked about his statements in the same terms they’re using now. Who has ever talked about the Anglo-American genocide in the bombing of German cities? Who has ever talked about Churchill, who ordered the phosphorous bombing of Dresden, where there were not only many civilians, but also many Allied soldiers? Who has spoken about the English air force, which, in the bombing of the cities, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians? And the Israelis certainly can’t tell me that the genocide they suffered from the Nazis is less serious than that of Gaza, simply because they’ve taken out a few thousand persons, while the Nazis took out six million. This is where I fault Judaism, which exasperates rather than honoring the victims of genocide decently. It’s as if there were only one genocide in history, that of the Jews during the Second World War. It seems like you can say anything you want about all the other exterminated peoples, but no one at the global level has spoken in the terms in which people are speaking today after the declarations of Bishop Williamson."
Does our friend Abrah****owicz have a point?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 14, 2009 0:14:02 GMT
A tu quoque is never a good argument. The official Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide is utterly disgraceful, but that doesn't mean denial of the Nazi genocide of the Jews is any less abominable.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 14, 2009 4:51:23 GMT
The extremities of Islam aside - and there are many - any Catholic who openly sympathises with Zionism (which is as anti-Christian as it is anti-Muslim) should be denied the Sacraments.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 14, 2009 21:12:34 GMT
Monkeyman,
You wrote: "And so too should you be my boy for your extreme lack of Charity. True charity consists of loving those who hate us (as God does) your incapable of this it seems loving only those that agree with you..."
Do you show extreme lack of charity? Do I show exteme lack of charity for saying you show extreme lack of charity because you said that an extreme lack of charity was shown ....?
Let debate prevail.
Robust, charitable, sincere debate will help us all in our search for the truth and in our efforts to get closer to God.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Feb 16, 2009 10:33:06 GMT
Loving someone who hates you just seems unatural to me. It may be the ideal as set out in the bible but I'm afraid I have to admit here and now I have never loved anyone who hates me.
Why should I?
Anyone else feel this way?
Lets be honest. How many of you good catholics actually LOVE someone who hates you?
|
|
|
Post by eircomnet on Feb 16, 2009 11:23:24 GMT
Loving someone in this context means wishing them well, doesn't mean having tender feelings in their regard. Even this love from the will requires the help of God's grace.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Feb 16, 2009 12:42:09 GMT
Loving someone in this context means wishing them well, doesn't mean having tender feelings in their regard. Even this love from the will requires the help of God's grace. My understanding of the word "Love" must be flawed.....
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 16, 2009 22:47:29 GMT
Pity, perhaps - or sympathy; the realisation that however hateful this person may be they are fellow human beings. It depends how close the hater is to you and how violently the hatred is expressed. (I remember seeing quite recently a review of the film THE READER which criticised it on the grounds that it did not really challenge the audience, because it invited them to pity a mass murderer without ever considering the possibility that under certain circumstances they might become mass murderers themselves.)
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 17, 2009 1:18:27 GMT
Monkeyman, You wrote: "And so too should you be my boy for your extreme lack of Charity. True charity consists of loving those who hate us (as God does) your incapable of this it seems loving only those that agree with you..." Do you show extreme lack of charity? Do I show exteme lack of charity for saying you show extreme lack of charity because you said that an extreme lack of charity was shown ....? Let debate prevail. Robust, charitable, sincere debate will help us all in our search for the truth and in our efforts to get closer to God. Noelfitz, How do I show lack of charity?-If I do show me. I had hoped by admonishing Sceilg (an act of mercy by the way which we are commanded to do) for his self-righteousness with regard to his statement that people who supported Zionism should be denied the sacraments, that he might row back from what he said as such statements are incendiary. I said it seems he is incapable of charity toward his neighbour-I did not rule out the possibility that can/could be. Its all very well to say let debate prevail but one can't be pschizophrenic when it comes to practising the faith-most of us are after all practising members of the Church. Pax tecum.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 17, 2009 16:13:39 GMT
Monkeyman,
Thanks for your post.
If I were to claim you lacked charity, would I by this show a lack of charity? I suppose it all depends on motives. Who can say what the motives of another are?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 18, 2009 23:51:07 GMT
Noelfitz: It would not be uncharitable to say that a person lacks charity if that person does in fact lack charity. Your definition would imply that Our LOrd was tremendously uncharitable towards the Pharisees.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 26, 2009 16:37:45 GMT
If there is one thing to be learned from the Bishop Williamson business, regretfully, that is there are still more than enough Catholic anti-semites out there and worse, they do not see themselves as anti-semitic.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 16, 2009 14:58:33 GMT
This is a link to a very good overview of present-day Catholic antisemitic conspiracy theories circulating among some Catholic traditionalist groups, "Tilting at Windmills" by Sandra Miesel. It appeared in CRISIS magazine several years ago and has now been re-posted on Inside Catholic, where I found it through a link from Mark Shea's site. (I might add, before Sceilg informs us, that Sandra Miesel is a cradle Catholic of Jewish descent. This is completely irrelevant to her arguments, but Sceilg will not agree.) insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5770&Itemid=48 Mark Shea's associated post may also be of interest, as are the comments in the comments box. Apparently one of the SSPV's criticisms of the SSPX relates to the latter's monarchist critique of the American constitution. The discussion of E. Michael Jones may also be of interest. markshea.blogspot.com/2009/04/funny-and-ironic-stuff.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 16, 2009 15:04:46 GMT
Here is a link to another schismatic group on the SSPV-SSPX row over Americanism. The "bishop" is, I think, Robert McKenna of the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement but this is not clear from the site. www.olfatima.com/August%20301%202006.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 3, 2009 13:15:13 GMT
Here is an interesting link by an American blogger about Bishop Williamson. J. Christopher Pryor is a former student of the bishop's who has reacted against his terachings and writes from a Catholic perspective. His post discusses how Williamson's holocaust denialism is not a mere historical error of detail but reflects an underlying mentality which holds Jews responsible for all the world's evils. Pryor then uses Cassius' recruitment of Brutus in JULIUS CAESAR to illustrate how a conspiracy theory can be used to persuade someone to engage in actions which they would previously have recognised as immoral. christopherpryor.blogspot.com/2009/02/have-men-about-me-who-are-fat.htmlBTW it sadly appears from Mr. Pryor's recent posts that Bishop Williamson has not obeyed Bishop Fellay's instruction to be silent. Expect Williamson, out of his usual spiritual pride and pseudo-intellectual vanity, to provide more ammunition for those who attack the Pope.
|
|