Quote from: SJB

My defense of Rama Coormaraswamy was based on a sense of justice, because I have read much of what he has written.

Have you read MUCH of what he published, or ALL of it (as you first stated)?

Contact Maurice Pinay if you have a problem.

I have read all of what was published on his website. I saw nothing strange or unorthodox in those writings. I have also read some other writings that were not on his website.

then why do so?

There is a difference between judging and keeping a wary distance.

For instance, I would keep a wary distance from roscoe until he stops making unsubstantiated statements such as that Benedict VIII was an anti-Pope, or that Franz Joseph was a Freemason, apologizes for the same statements, or backs them up with proof instead of just splattering them all over the Internet.
That doesn't mean I'm judging him.  Just that I don't trust him and he comes off as a "troll" as they say.

His habit of proclaiming the fancies of his own imagination as truth also has two negative effects ( a ) Reinforces the erroneous impression that sedevacantists, due to their lack of a shepherd, and the perceived "power" that comes with this freedom from hierarchical control, have taken it upon themselves to rewrite Church history and ( b ) Distracts from the current crisis and those who come to this board hoping to resolve it in their minds, to know whether to go to SSPX or a sede chapel, etc.

Meanwhile, I have an instinctive trust of gladius_veritatis or Dawn or, from what I have seen, Caraffa and lover_of_truth.   I would expect these people to recant if they made an error, because they strike me as honestly seeking the truth and doing the best they can to conform to God's will, whatever speedbumps are hit along the way.  Among the SSPXers, the erstwhile Prodinoscopus seemed like a good guy, with no deliberate malice, even if we were separated by the Pope/no-Pope divide.

But I have never seen roscoe or Catholic Martyr correct themselves about anything and that to me is a big red flag -- not that they can't change.

----

This may seem like a pointless post, but what I'm trying to say is that we live in a time where, to protect your soul, you must develop a sense of who can be trusted and who can't.  It strikes me as laughable that in an era where it is a proven fact that the entire Vatican hierarchy has been infiltrated by Masons, that someone can be accused of being paranoid and conspiratorial because they don't automatically trust so-and-so!  

There are too many infiltrators, weirdos, distractors and charlatans lurking about.  The devil, not content to sneak into the Vatican, and to reduce the true Church to a mere particle of what it used to be, will then continue with unrelenting mercilessness to smash up even that particle.  He will put his agents into your home, into your family, into your church group.   Oh, yeah, and lest I forget, he will use YOU against yourself, by preying on your weaknesses and sins.  Not very comfortable, is it?  

In such a paranoid predicament, reminiscent of a Body Snatchers film, where your neighbors, boss, even father and mother might all be brain-transplanted aliens, or any day become one, we have to avoid the two extremes -- being blindly trusting, or being blindly paranoid ( the home-aloners ).

The sedevacantist position, which to me is the true Church, holding all the dogmas together, will come in for particular brutality, and the devil will try to portray us as wackos who can't even agree amongst ourselves.  He will use our own weaknesses and sins against us to discredit us.  He will try to associate us with dubious types.  

Satan has always attempted this, even from the earliest days of the Church.  That is why Christ taught us how we must be -- "Wise as a serpent and soft as a dove."  We must combine MERCY and JUSTICE.  One without the other will not do.  Do we call St. Peter a heretic because he denied Christ three times?  No, because he repented.  Do we call Mary Magdalene a floozy?  No, because she repented.  Do we call St. Paul a killer of Christians?  No, because he not only repented, but called himself "the least of all the apostles," thereby becoming closer to the greatest of them.  

These examples were given to us deliberately to show us that anything can be forgiven, except obstinacy and pertinacious heresy and/or just plain old lies.  So when I see someone who is constantly on the defensive, saying crazy things but never apologizing, my alarm bells go off.  Catholics do not always become perfect, but we are OBLIGATED to aim at perfection.

----

Finally, to tie this in with Rama Coomaraswamy, I don't trust him, and I'll tell you why.  It is not that he has a Hindu father and Jєωιѕн mother, making him a Hindu Jew before his conversion.  It is not even just that he associated himself with the "80% factual" Malachi Martin ( Father Fiore once said Malachi boasted of Windswept House being "80% factual," which I thought was amusing -- a successor of the apostles aiming for 80% ).  The deal-breaker for me is that Rama never RENOUNCED the works of his father, who was a syncretist and New Ager spreading his errors throughout the West.  Rama was actually more inclined to speak highly of him and with pride.  Now, it's one thing to love your father; but not to publicly decry his errors strikes me as incautious at best, especially for someone who was born of the most bohemian parents imaginable ( a guru and his fourth, Jєωιѕн wife, who was an Englishwoman fascinated by the East ).  

But yeah, also the association with Martin.  Martin, like Cagliostro, seems to have crossed paths with literally everybody, from the altar boy in my church to Wojtyla to Droleskey.  But he and Rama didn't just cross paths, they were close.  And Martin is someone who there is very much reason to suspect was a peddler of disinformation.  Whether that is true or not, there is a REASON to be cautious of him, as so many people who I do trust are.  He mixed truth with fiction in his books, and if he recanted of those fictions later, as some claim, I've never heard anything at all like humility from him.  Unlike St. Paul, the "least of the apostles," Malachi did nothing but boast of his insider knowledge, posing as an expert, yet he was wrong almost his entire life, and one must at least suspect this of being deliberate considering his cultivation and learning.  
But then, how can I expect people to understand this when they will defend a so-called POPE with years of seminary training who appears not even to know the basics of the catechism, saying we can't judge his internal intentions?  

So, as far as I'm concerned, if Malachi is Rama's close friend, we have a problem.  Throw in the guru father and the Hindu-Jew parentage and the career as a heart-surgeon and Mother Theresa, and it all feels too fantastic.  In my opinion, someone with his demon-haunted parentage should have done much more to separate himself from any HINT of scandal.  Instead he associates with one of the most mystifying men of the 2nd half of the 20th century.  The impression of some kind of scam or hoax in the offing is definitely present.

There is a difference between judging and keeping a wary distance.

For instance, I would keep a wary distance from roscoe until he stops making unsubstantiated statements such as that Benedict VIII was an anti-Pope, or that Franz Joseph was a Freemason, apologizes for the same statements, or backs them up with proof instead of just splattering them all over the Internet.
That doesn't mean I'm judging him.  Just that I don't trust him and he comes off as a "troll" as they say.

His habit of proclaiming the fancies of his own imagination as truth also has two negative effects ( a ) Reinforces the erroneous impression that sedevacantists, due to their lack of a shepherd, and the perceived "power" that comes with this freedom from hierarchical control, have taken it upon themselves to rewrite Church history and ( b ) Distracts from the current crisis and those who come to this board hoping to resolve it in their minds, to know whether to go to SSPX or a sede chapel, etc.

Meanwhile, I have an instinctive trust of gladius_veritatis or Dawn or, from what I have seen, Caraffa and lover_of_truth.   I would expect these people to recant if they made an error, because they strike me as honestly seeking the truth and doing the best they can to conform to God's will, whatever speedbumps are hit along the way.  Among the SSPXers, the erstwhile Prodinoscopus seemed like a good guy, with no deliberate malice, even if we were separated by the Pope/no-Pope divide.

But I have never seen roscoe or Catholic Martyr correct themselves about anything and that to me is a big red flag -- not that they can't change.

----

This may seem like a pointless post, but what I'm trying to say is that we live in a time where, to protect your soul, you must develop a sense of who can be trusted and who can't.  It strikes me as laughable that in an era where it is a proven fact that the entire Vatican hierarchy has been infiltrated by Masons, that someone can be accused of being paranoid and conspiratorial because they don't automatically trust so-and-so!  

There are too many infiltrators, weirdos, distractors and charlatans lurking about.  The devil, not content to sneak into the Vatican, and to reduce the true Church to a mere particle of what it used to be, will then continue with unrelenting mercilessness to smash up even that particle.  He will put his agents into your home, into your family, into your church group.   Oh, yeah, and lest I forget, he will use YOU against yourself, by preying on your weaknesses and sins.  Not very comfortable, is it?  

In such a paranoid predicament, reminiscent of a Body Snatchers film, where your neighbors, boss, even father and mother might all be brain-transplanted aliens, or any day become one, we have to avoid the two extremes -- being blindly trusting, or being blindly paranoid ( the home-aloners ).

The sedevacantist position, which to me is the true Church, holding all the dogmas together, will come in for particular brutality, and the devil will try to portray us as wackos who can't even agree amongst ourselves.  He will use our own weaknesses and sins against us to discredit us.  He will try to associate us with dubious types.  

Satan has always attempted this, even from the earliest days of the Church.  That is why Christ taught us how we must be -- "Wise as a serpent and soft as a dove."  We must combine MERCY and JUSTICE.  One without the other will not do.  Do we call St. Peter a heretic because he denied Christ three times?  No, because he repented.  Do we call Mary Magdalene a floozy?  No, because she repented.  Do we call St. Paul a killer of Christians?  No, because he not only repented, but called himself "the least of all the apostles," thereby becoming closer to the greatest of them.  

These examples were given to us deliberately to show us that anything can be forgiven, except obstinacy and pertinacious heresy and/or just plain old lies.  So when I see someone who is constantly on the defensive, saying crazy things but never apologizing, my alarm bells go off.  Catholics do not always become perfect, but we are OBLIGATED to aim at perfection.

----

Finally, to tie this in with Rama Coomaraswamy, I don't trust him, and I'll tell you why.  It is not that he has a Hindu father and Jєωιѕн mother, making him a Hindu Jew before his conversion.  It is not even just that he associated himself with the "80% factual" Malachi Martin ( Father Fiore once said Malachi boasted of Windswept House being "80% factual," which I thought was amusing -- a successor of the apostles aiming for 80% ).  The deal-breaker for me is that Rama never RENOUNCED the works of his father, who was a syncretist and New Ager spreading his errors throughout the West.  Rama was actually more inclined to speak highly of him and with pride.  Now, it's one thing to love your father; but not to publicly decry his errors strikes me as incautious at best, especially for someone who was born of the most bohemian parents imaginable ( a guru and his fourth, Jєωιѕн wife, who was an Englishwoman fascinated by the East ).  

But yeah, also the association with Martin.  Martin, like Cagliostro, seems to have crossed paths with literally everybody, from the altar boy in my church to Wojtyla to Droleskey.  But he and Rama didn't just cross paths, they were close.  And Martin is someone who there is very much reason to suspect was a peddler of disinformation.  Whether that is true or not, there is a REASON to be cautious of him, as so many people who I do trust are.  He mixed truth with fiction in his books, and if he recanted of those fictions later, as some claim, I've never heard anything at all like humility from him.  Unlike St. Paul, the "least of the apostles," Malachi did nothing but boast of his insider knowledge, posing as an expert, yet he was wrong almost his entire life, and one must at least suspect this of being deliberate considering his cultivation and learning.  
But then, how can I expect people to understand this when they will defend a so-called POPE with years of seminary training who appears not even to know the basics of the catechism, saying we can't judge his internal intentions?  

So, as far as I'm concerned, if Malachi is Rama's close friend, we have a problem.  Throw in the guru father and the Hindu-Jew parentage and the career as a heart-surgeon and Mother Theresa, and it all feels too fantastic.  In my opinion, someone with his demon-haunted parentage should have done much more to separate himself from any HINT of scandal.  Instead he associates with one of the most mystifying men of the 2nd half of the 20th century.  The impression of some kind of scam or hoax in the offing is definitely present.

Scroll down for a pic of the throne of the anti-pope.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=4268&min=0&num=15

This is blasphemous and a Pope cannot commit blasphemy without becomming an anti-pope.

Franz-Joseph was a freemason who acc to the Judaic author Kertzer was 'surrounded by Jews'.

Quote from: roscoe

Scroll down for a pic of the throne of the anti-pope.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=4268&min=0&num=15

This is blasphemous and a Pope cannot commit blasphemy without becomming an anti-pope.

Franz-Joseph was a freemason who acc to the Judaic author Kertzer was 'surrounded by Jews'.

Huh?  Blasphemy causes one to lose the papacy?

You have to be told this?

Here you go radtrad --

1 Edited a book of his guru father's writings after he had converted to traditional Catholicism, speaks about him in laudatory terms, and generally acts as if a syncretist could somehow make a "contribution" to society

2 Praised Titus Burckhardt

3 Suggests that we can learn something from the "metaphysics" of Rene Guénon, a Muslim-Catholic-Freemason hybrid, and acts generally as if we have something to learn about metaphysics from scholars of many other religions.  

Of course Catholic theology is the only theology that has true knowledge of God, and is thus the only true metaphysics; though the Greeks made certain discoveries that were observable from nature, Aquinas completed these discoveries of Aristotle by bringing in what was revealed by God through Jesus Christ, and Aquinas never suggested by commission or omission that we had something to learn from the metaphysics of other RELIGIONS.  Just from the metaphysics revealed by science and observation.

4 Hangs out with Malachi Martin

5 In the interview about Rene Guenon you can find by following my link, he speaks of his father having studied the "traditions" that were revealed by God.  Plural.  The only way this can be justified is if he means the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Catholicism of the New Covenant, but we know that his father studied other traditions.  Therefore Rama is saying that there are traditions revealed by God that have nothing to do with the Old or New Covenants, and that is blasphemy.

Just watch the interview about Guenon and the others.  He uses the word "tradition" with two interchangeable meanings -- the tradition of all religions that man has known, and traditional Catholicism.  He obfuscates and fudges and brings all kinds of irreconciliable concepts together with fuzzy wordplay.  And on a basic level, he is far too concerned with false religions for a so-called traditionalist Catholic, there is no way you can watch these clips and come away thinking that he has rejected them utterly.  He continually implies that they have something to tell us.

P.S. Roscoe, again you just state that Franz Joseph was a Freemason.  Give me proof.  He had ONE Jew in his inner circle, an advisor, but then so did Isabella of Spain.  And yes, he did help emancipate the Jews, but it doesn't take much guesswork to figure out why.  All over the world, the Freemasonic republics were prospering because they had "liberated" the Jews.  Franz Joseph was presiding over a Catholic-monarchist backwater that was lagging behind, because the republics had the unfair advantage of conscience-free, industrious Jewry at their disposal.  The Jews, who at this point had already become enormously financially powerful, could have used the countries under their control to swallow up Austria, as they eventually did in World War I.  But before that happened, Franz Joseph tried to use Jews to the advantage of his country.  

Do you think that the Vatican was free of Jєωιѕн monetary connections during the last few centuries?  Get real.  We are ALL living on Jєωιѕн money.  And give Franz Joseph credit for this much -- the Jews were still blocked from many professions, including teaching Catholic children, so that they had no influence over morals in Austria.

As for Boniface VIII being an anti-Pope, all you have shown me is the picture of a throne.  How do I know that's his, or that it wasn't doctored?  

I know I've written too much in this thread already, and I was feeling my usual guilt after posting anything.  Did I say too much?  Was I guilty of slander in any way?  Was I unfair or unjust?

Well, I just found this:

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/authors/Rama-Coomaraswamy.aspx?FilmID=

This is Rama Coomaraswamy on "World Wisdom."  Watch the video about Titus Burckhardt.  Here Coomaraswamy is praising a convert to the Muslim "religion."  Not only that, but he praises him in the same breath as Ernst Jouin as having helped his father travel "the spiritual path."  ( Ernst Jouin was the counter-revolutionary priest who blew the whistle on Rampolla ). As if a Muslim is equally helpful as a Catholic in helping someone travel the "spiritual path," which in this case, by the way, was guru-ism.
Well, just in this one short clip alone, we see the syncretist apple doesn't fall far from the mystical tree.

On top of that, he is wearing an EXTREMELY ill-fitting suit.  I'm close to belly laughs over here.

What purpose does Rama serve, if he is an infiltrator?  Probably just to make sedevacantists look barmy, since he is associated with us.

Correction indeed--   Jouin was the counter-revolutionary preist who was duped by a forged piece of paper into believing the Rampolla scam being perpetuated by Franz-Joseph and the Judaics ' who surround him'.