Author Topic: "Hillel" Angelus Article Reprinted from "Daily Catholic"! (Read 1907 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** November 28, 2010, 04:31:54 PM »

From AQ

Quote

I can tell you it has absolutely nothing to do with whoever this Krah fellow is.

That ridiculous and stupid Saint of the Sanhedrin article which appeared in the December 2009 Angelus was taken straight from the Daily Catholic (sic), which is affiliated with the wicked Traditio site which Bishop Fellay stated was a mortal sin to receive one's information from.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Aug/sumrtrea.htm

William of Norwitch apparently didn't know that but could have done a simple Google search before including it as some sort of plot to take over the SSPX.

It was a terrible article to publish but the blame should really be put at the door of the Angelus, which has done other dumb stuff like print that revised edition of Michael Davies' Pope John's Council. Taking an article from Daily Catholic (sic) that was just plain wrong in its assertion of Hillel is really really stupid though.

However, it doesn't really have anything to do with Krah or secretive forces taking over the SSPX.

Makes one wonder about the lucidity of the other claims of William of Norwitch.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 28, 2010, 07:44:43 PM »

The problem was never just publishing the article. It was the fact that they stood by it. Moreover, the editors of the Angelus can read and know very well what they are publishing. It makes me wonder about Traditio (not that I ever read them), if it really is true that this is from the "Daily Catholic."

Do we have any idea who this Scott Montgomery is?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 28, 2010, 07:49:26 PM »

Check the weblink!

It is from the August '08 Daily Catholic.

Have you written or called the Angelus regarding the article?

It would be interesting to see what they say.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 28, 2010, 08:02:10 PM »

Where is the Angelqueen thread?

MauricePinay · « **Reply #4 on:** November 28, 2010, 08:03:01 PM »

I'm pleased to see this article finally receive the suspicion it deserves, but saddened that the suspicion is based upon a mere association rather than the extremely problematic content of the article itself already covered at length HERE.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 28, 2010, 08:11:07 PM »

Link to Daily Catholic:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Aug/sumrtrea.htm

There isn't an AQ thread on the Hillel article itself, I quoted a random post at the end of this thread:

"Williamson agrees to drop Nahrath but it has not happened"

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 28, 2010, 08:14:25 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Link to Daily Catholic:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Aug/sumrtrea.htm

There isn't an AQ thread on the Hillel article itself, I quoted a random post at the end of this thread:

"Williamson agrees to drop Nahrath but it has not happened"

Did you read the article they deleted about Maximilian Krah?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 28, 2010, 08:41:29 PM »

Just did. AQ is a complete joke and "ECS220" is chief clown.

I'm not saying I agree with the article, but the fact it can't even be discussed on their site is further proof their forum is useless.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 28, 2010, 08:46:58 PM »

Ingis Ardens Debate on that article here:

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=5423&st=0

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #9 on:** November 28, 2010, 11:41:15 PM »

The Daily Catholic site is run by a layman and his wife. Although Daily Catholic may reference the Traditio site, it is not connected to Traditio or the owner/s of Traditio.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2010, 10:48:31 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Ingis Ardens Debate on that article here:

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=5423&st=0

Fascinating thread(s) over there! The poster known as Pilgrimage of Grace has an interesting point of view.

GregorianChat · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2010, 05:39:08 PM »

I'm not sure I understand the problem. I didn't read the article, what's wrong with it?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** November 29, 2010, 05:59:08 PM »

Quote from: GregorianChat

I'm not sure I understand the problem. I didn't read the article, what's wrong with it?

If you don't know anything about it why don't you use internet searches to familiarize yourself?

GregorianChat · « **Reply #13 on:** November 29, 2010, 06:21:50 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: GregorianChat
I'm not sure I understand the problem. I didn't read the article, what's wrong with it?

If you don't know anything about it why don't you use internet searches to familiarize yourself?

I didn't feel like reading the whole article and trying to figure out what the problem is with it, I thought you could just tell me.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:12:55 PM »

Quote from: GregorianChat

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: GregorianChat
I'm not sure I understand the problem. I didn't read the article, what's wrong with it?

If you don't know anything about it why don't you use internet searches to familiarize yourself?

I didn't feel like reading the whole article and trying to figure out what the problem is with it, I thought you could just tell me.

It has been discussed in depth. Is it really the case you haven't read about it? If so, why not, if you are interested?