Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: gladius_veritatis on August 04, 2009, 02:29:26 AM
-
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/12/rama-coomaraswamy-and-great-game.html
In light of recent happenings, I thought it might prove useful to some to read the above piece. Dr Coomaraswamy came to the SSPX seminary in CT shortly before the split. His own shady background should not be ignored.
-
It should be noted that, although The Nine left at the same time and for similar (if not the same) reasons, they are NOT all cut from the same cloth. Yes, there ARE some strong similarities among some of them, but this is not true in all cases.
-
-
So Dr. Coomaraswamy is married? He is also an ordained priest? Or not?
I'm confused. I didn't know anything about this.
Some of the info sounds like "guilt by association", but still...
Thanks
Robert
-
He is now deceased - +RIP. He reportedly became a priest and then a bishop.
-
He is now deceased - +RIP. He reportedly became a priest and then a bishop.
Gladius,
You don't seem to know very much about Rama P. Coomaraswamy. You are judging him based on a blog you read?
All his writings were on his website before his death (they have since been removed). He seemed very solidly Catholic, and I have read all of his published writings.
His discourse with Mother Theresa is quite interesting. Have you ever read it?
SJB
-
You are judging him based on a blog you read?
You seem to be judging my knowledge about him from one, very short thread. What is more, most of the thread is the content from the blog, not statements from me.
-
You are judging him based on a blog you read?
You seem to be judging my knowledge about him from one, very short thread. What is more, most of the thread is the content from the blog, not statements from me.
His own shady background should not be ignored.
-
SJB iseems to be focusing his attacks on gladius and chant specifically just like the others from the SGG Cult. I think it is another member of the cult or another sock puppet.
-
SJB iseems to be focusing his attacks on gladius and chant specifically just like the others from the SGG Cult. I think it is another member of the cult or another sock puppet.
Look at what I have said. My defense of Rama Coormaraswamy was based on a sense of justice, because I have read much of what he has written.
Why don't you stick to the issues. I am not attacking anyone here, I am attacking errors where I see them. If you think I am wrong, then answer my posts instead of questioning my motives.
-
You are judging him based on a blog you read?
You seem to be judging my knowledge about him from one, very short thread. What is more, most of the thread is the content from the blog, not statements from me.
His own shady background should not be ignored.
And...?...?
-
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.
-
Why don't you stick to the issues. I am not attacking anyone here, I am attacking errors where I see them. If you think I am wrong, then answer my posts instead of questioning my motives.
"Hello, Kettle. This is Pot. You're black."
If you think Maurice Pinay is wrong, let him know, whether by email (which he provides) or by answering his words within this thread.
-
He is now deceased - +RIP. He reportedly became a priest and then a bishop.
You don't seem to know very much about Rama P. Coomaraswamy.
So, he isn't dead? He didn't reportedly become and priest/bishop?
-
If you think I am wrong, then answer my posts instead of questioning my motives.
That's funny. :wink:
-
He is now deceased - +RIP. He reportedly became a priest and then a bishop.
You don't seem to know very much about Rama P. Coomaraswamy.
So, he isn't dead? He didn't reportedly become and priest/bishop?
I can see why you misunderstand me here. I was not very clear. When you said "reportedly", I took that to mean you didn't know for sure he was ordained a priest. This is common knowledge for those who knew of him.
I read the Maurice Pinay piece. And what exactly did Coormaraswamy do that was deceptive?
-
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.
-
Although it is wrong to judge someone on the strength of their name alone, the guy does seem to have a creepy one.
-
then why do so?
-
If I had that name and was converted to Catholicism, I would change it. Are you a supporter of the Swami?
-
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.
-
Oh, but as regards that Pinay article, that strikes me as lies WITHIN lies. Because the accusation there is that Coomaraswamy was doing harm to the traditionalist movement by breaking up their happy home at SSPX. Well, those people have a false theology anyway. Pinay of course is an SSPX apologist, he won't even post stuff if it's too sedevacantist in tone.
Notice also that everything is about the Jews with him. One way the devil tries to keep people in SSPX is by appealing to anger against Jews. This may be the purpose behind the Bishop Williamson side-show. I was even tempted to start going to SSPX because they tell more truth about the Jew-corrupted American government than CMRI or sedevacantist outfits, who are mostly Republican and patriotic, as if unaware of Jєωιѕн control of both sides. However, the sedevacantists have the correct theology, i.e. Catholic theology. I can go their chapel and keep my own thoughts about the Jews, the Iraq war, or the American constitution, even if no one else there agrees with me.
The important thing is that I am holding the faith whole and inviolate by attending the true Church -- within that true Church, some have higher degrees of knowledge than others.
Now, I know very well what the Jews are up to, and I'm the one who goes around saying that there is no difference between "αѕнкenαzι" and "Sephardic" Jews considering they both deny Christ and do the work of the devil, while others have fallen for the good Jew/bad Jew false Hegelian dichotomy. But this crisis is not all about the Jews. You don't get to heaven by being anti-Jew. When I first discovered what they had done to the world, turning it into a giant filthy ghetto, I developed that kind of Pinay/Hoffman one-track mind -- but I finally overcame it. It's a trap.
-
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'.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Correction: "Of course Catholic theology is the only theology that has true knowledge of God, and is thus the only true metaphysics."
Not that theology and metaphysics are the same! I mean that without the correct theology, the Catholic theology, our knowledge of metaphysics will be faulty and incomplete.
-
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'.
-
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?
There are numerous sources that I have noted in the past for my belief that Franz-Joseph was a mason and therefore in on the anti-christ cabal.
The last Rothschild loan taken by a Pope was in 1860. There is no business connection with Judaics after that. If you can find the specifics on a loan of this nature please post the source. This is one reason why Pius XI(XII) is forced to recognise the Italian Kingdom-- he is in dire financial straights in spite of the Peter's Pence that was coming in.
The answers to your questions re: the throne of Boniface--they have been given if you read through the remarks I have made prev.
-
Today I've been reading some of what Rama Coomaraswamy has written, and if he is a heretic, he's a subtle one. More so even than Ratzinger.
He often quotes Hindu "metaphysics" in the same breath as Catholic saints and theologians, a questionable approach, but usually with the intention to show the superiority of the Catholic theologians. USUALLY. Sometimes the impression is given, deliberately or not, that the Catholic religion only refines the kernel of truth found in other religions, when in reality no other religion except the one revealed by God -- the Old Covenant of Judaism which became the New Covenant of Christ as guided by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church -- has any value whatsoever, nor do they come from Him.
He does this subtly enough that you can't pin him down as a heretic or blasphemer. But it still feels slippery. And I'm pretty sure his approach was condemned by Pius X, if someone wants to go out and dig up the exact quote.
Why, for instance, does a Catholic need to quote someone like Frithjof Schuon, a "perennialist" who believed in the eventual unity of all religions? In his essay "On the Nature of Evil" Rama C. writes:
"As Frithjof Schuon has put it, 'One cannot ask of God to will the world and at the same time to will that it be not the world.'"
By quoting this in the context of a Catholic article, Rama is suggesting that Frithjof Schuon is speaking of the same God that a Catholic speaks of, but he is not. Frithjof Schuon's god is the devil. This is either Ratzingerian in its sneakiness, or it was an honest mistake. But in the age of Vatican II, why would any traditional Catholic want to associate themselves with another Teilhard? Whether he was one himself or not, Rama was certainly not very careful about disassociating himself from charlatans.
I am also not comfortable with a Catholic going on a New Age website called "World Wisdom" and one look at their home page will tell you why. Books about Catherine of Siena sit side-by-side with titles like "Native Spirit: The Sun Dance Way," "Gnosis: Divine Wisdom" and "Wisdom's Journey: Living the Spirit of Islam in the Modern World." And Rama's own anti-VII book is sold here! Syncretism meets sedevacantism, what a mess!
http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/home.aspx
The question is, was Rama a syncretist himself? I think I have suggested the answer. Take this passage of his, also from The Nature of Evil:
"The world is a whirlpool of contrasts as is so well expressed in the Hindu word samsara. It is not a unity in its own right. It is no limitation on the Almighty that He cannot produce another Himself, a second Absolute. The world is there to prove it."
First of all, Rama uses way too many terms and concepts from false religions. I realize that he was a very learned man in the study of false religions before he became Catholic, and perhaps he doesn't want to let all that knowledge go to waste. Well, too bad. "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
Secondly, what does this quote of his even MEAN? "A whirlpool of contrasts"? "The world is not a unity in its own right"? Ratzingerian gobbeldygook! The usual Ratzinger tactic of setting up an argument no one has ever made in order to "heroically" destroy it, while subliminally leaving you with a false impression, in this case that the world is DISUNIFIED.
Saying that the world can be described as "samsara" or as a bunch of "contrasts," right before saying "it is not a unity in its own right," leads to the conclusion that it must not be a unity at all. But it is. And there is no "whirlpool of contrasts." In this world you only have those who do God's will, corresponding with His grace, and those who reject it. Two types of people, period, full stop: Does that sound like a "whirlpool"? Take your samsara elsewhere, Mr. Coomaraswamy!
The world is a unity through its creation by God. God is One and Indivisible and God created the world. The world, like everything that ever has existed or will ever exist, is also therefore part of this One. Even hell is part of this One, as it was also created by God. That is why every knee on the earth, above the earth and UNDER the earth bows to the name of Christ. It's why those in hell are aware of their separation from God. Evil is not an alternate principle to God, but is in itself the rejection of God's goodness. The point being, God created everything, and everything is thus unified.
Aquinas Pt. 1 Q.45 Art. 1:
"As said above, we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from a universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation."
After Rama says that the world is not "unified in its own right," he seems to correct himself by saying that the misuse of our free will is what leads the world away from unity. Actually, misuse of our free will leads us away from God, as creatures who were MADE by Him yet SEPARATE from Him. But our choices do not lead the WORLD away from unity. No matter how chaotic we make the world, God is still in control of this chaos, and he has planned for every misuse of free will, right up until the final apostasy and the consummation of the world in glory.
And who ever suggested that there would be any purpose for God to create "another Himself, a Second Absolute"? Again, these hints at duality.
Is Rama flirting with Manicheanism? Augustine was a Manichean before conversion, but when he did convert, he became that sect's worst enemy. When he wrote about Manichean concepts, it was very clear that he was on the attack. I don't feel that kind of hatred of his former life from Rama. Instead, he seems to feel a nostalgia and continued fascination with his Hindu/theosophist/syncretist upbringing, and with his father. And like his father, he comes off as a syncretist, though a far more guarded one.
He's dead now, so no one will ever be able to judge him except God. But if he were alive, and the Church had a Pope, I would definitely expect Rama to be called to give an account of himself. In the current crisis we do not need Frijthof Schuon and Rene Guenon and Ananda C. and Hindu terminology kept in circulation. At the BEST, this behavior was incautious. At worst, it was heretical. You can call me judgmental if you want but I lean towards "heretical." He had a long life to think about what he was doing, as well as a fantastic brain... But he kept doing it.
-
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?
Raol,
Thank you, sincerely. These are all legitimate problems with him. I had read some of his articles but did not know him as well as I should have. I was not convinced of the "guilt by association" charges from earlier, but the info something more.
Robert
-
The name's Mike, actually, but thanks.
Don't overlook the "guilt by association" stuff, though. Why is he promoting his father's writings, or those of Guenon, or Burckhardt? All this "Pereniallist" mumbo-jumbo? This is like a Jєωιѕн convert to Catholicism retrospectively praising the тαℓмυd.
Quote from an interview:
"But after my father's death I returned to America, where my mother was essentially alone. As it was impossible for me to live as a Hindu in America at that time, and as living without any traditional affiliation was in my mind to live on an animal level, I entered Catholicism which I found completely compatible with my Hindu outlook."
Or at least you warped Catholicism to make it seem so... More:
"How do your remember your father?
"I remember my father as a most saintly man and learn from him every day."
This is not as innocent as it may appear; it's not just a son praising his father. His father poisoned the West with Eastern mysticism. His father was an occultist and "Perennialist" -- those who believed that all religions would blend into one super-religion.
Wikipedia on Pereniallism:
"The Traditionalist School of thought, also known as Integral Traditionalism (in the sense of Integralism) or Perennialism (in the sense of perennial philosophy, or Sophia Perennis) is an esoteric movement inspired by the interwar period writings of French metaphysician René Guénon and developed by authors such as German-Swiss philosopher Frithjof Schuon, the Ceylonese-British scholar Ananda Coomaraswamy, Italian occultist Julius Evola,[1] Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings, Huston Smith, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The movement divided in 1948-50 after a split between Guénon and Schuon."
No wonder it is so confusing when Rama uses the word "Traditional"!
And on a purely gossipy level, Ananda Coomaraswamy was married four times, and the last two times were to women thirty years younger than himself, including Rama's mother.
Rama should have felt SHAME about his father, and about this Pereniallist tripe. He should have taken extraordinary measures to put distance between himself and all of this Rosicrucian mysticism, as well as between himself and Ananda. Yet, far from doing that, this supposed sedevacantist Catholic is describing him as a saint who he "learns from him every day"! This would be like St. Augustine, after his conversion, editing a book of Manicheanism and saying "I consider Mani a saint, he taught me a lot." No. No no no no no. NO. A thousand times no.
And this interview gets even more shocking. He seems to unveil himself as a Pereniallist just like daddy.
"I don't consider Schuon as between and above Guénon and my father. I think that Guénon, Schuon and my father expounded the Philosophia Perennis - each in their own way. None of them are without minor errors, but the errors are not important."
Listen to him! Do you see what he's doing here? He's not speaking of the entire Pereniallist system of metaphysics as being contemptible, but discussing the various errors of the authors WITHIN it, as if there is a purer strain of Pereniallism, not tapped into by any of these authors, that he himself has reached!
He acts as if Guenon and Schuon and Bert and Ernie and Phyllis Diller failed with their expositions of the "Philosophia Perennis" ( another term for Pereniallism ), when it is the Philosophia Perennis ITSELF that is a major HERESY from some kind of Renaissance gnostic Kabbala tradition. It doesn't matter how it is "expounded" or by whom.
Rama -- don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm getting angry now and don't feel that many nice things will come out of my mouth if I keep typing, so I'm off to walk the dog. Here is a link to the interview:
http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/JoaquinAlbaicin/RamaCoom-English-frame.php
HERESIES DON'T SLEEP. BUT NEITHER DOES RAOUL76 ( imagine that being said as the voiceover to a rain-soaked film noir about an embittered, tired detective )
P.S. Big things are being prepared, I can tell you that, and it is out of the tiny sedevacantist movement of today that I am almost positive that the unimaginably glorious Triumph of the Immaculate Heart will occur. That is why we are under attack by the devil and his gang of charlatans and infiltrators.
-
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0553287893.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
-
Raoul, do you think the above is a little revelation of the method?
-
Interestingly enough, Fr C mentioned Dr/Fr/Bp Coomaraswamy in a very recent sermon - in fact, he did so right about the time SJB decided to join the fun around cathinfo. :scratchchin:
Anyway, Fr C, from what I have heard (I do not have access to a computer with speakers), mentions him in a rather kindly manner.
Well, some years ago Fr C told me, during a conversation in his office, that Coomaraswamy was a plagiarist. Coomaraswamy's book The Problems with the New Mass was, Fr C claimed, was really, at least in the main, the work of Fr C.
Why did Fr C mention this man, publicly and in a positive light, right as attention is being drawn to his shady past? Toe-knee? Come come, now.
Why hasn't SJB answered my questions about his name, what brought him to this off-the-beaten-path site in the first place, etc?
Why haven't I already gone to get my first cup of coffee on tonight's vampire shift? :sleep:
-
Btw, Fr C is not the only one to tell me Coomaraswamy was a plagiarist. While Fr C's penchant for lying COULD be taken as good reason to doubt his claim, the other source cannot be so easily gainsaid. However, for the present, I shall leave his identity private. Let us just say he is, and has long been, the REAL DEAL where writers in the world of traditional Roman Catholicism are concerned.
-
So, as far as I'm concerned, if Malachi is Rama's close friend, we have a problem...
"Well, Houston, we HAVE a problem."
-
Pinay of course is an SSPX apologist, he won't even post stuff if it's too sedevacantist in tone...
Do you know him? Do you know Hoffman?
I know Mr Hoffman personally, and he is NOT a man with a "one track mind." Neither is the man behind the Maurice Pinay blog.
He is a rather sound-thinking sede, rather than an "SSPX apologist." He is a good young man, dedicated to exposing the works of darkness. Yes, he focuses on the Judaics, but he also understands their shenanigans far better than most. When he moves to expose something, it gets exposed. Did you ever read anything he posted while a member of FE a few years ago? Go search the archives there. The folder (which I will link in a moment) is FULL of evidence that indicates the contrary of your claim.
That said, I am really glad you have returned. I am very much enjoying your comments, Raoul. Thank you.
-
Coomaraswamy's book The Problems with the New Mass was, Fr C claimed, was really, at least in the main, the work of Fr C...
Please scratch one of my uses of "was" above.
-
Here is the link to the archived folder from FE:
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=802894345975d5655402ab28ab2432f0&board=4.0
-
Thanks for the compliment, Eamon. But my name is Michael as I wrote you in an E-mail last night. I guess I'm stuck with "Raoul," ha ha. My mother was going to name me that and I think it's funny because I am about as little like a "Raoul" as you can imagine, being a pale spindly Polak and not having much of the swarthy Italian gigolo about me.
Maurice Pinay didn't post one of my comments and I assumed it was because I had defended the sedevacantist position. I'm sorry that I made assumptions that as usual turned out to be wrong.
I would say in the case of both Hoffman and Pinay that they need to concentrate more on God and less on the devil. I've been down that road and I know how easy it is to get consumed by wrath, to tangle yourself up trying to UNtangle all the lies.
Yes, picking apart Jєωιѕн lies can be a full-time job. People even on this site who are generally aware actually believe in "conservative" Jews like Henry Makow not realizing that Jews are behind the whole "truther/American patriot restore-the-Constitution" movement AS WELL AS the overtly communist side of Obama. Alex Jones is every bit as much of a Jєωιѕн-led shill as Obama, as Hoffman knows.
I know how certain individual Jews often denounce their own race as a diversionary tactic to make you think that some Jews are OK, it's not ALL of them, etc. while the plans are advanced. Whenever there is a strike on Palestine or Lebanon you'll always see Jews protesting on the street, supposed anti-Zionist Jews -- yeah right. If you're anti-Zionist, join the Catholic Church. It doesn't cost them anything to make a show of protest while actually getting their own way.
They are so subtle and insinuating with their lies that it obsesses you. But at a certain point you have to leave this behind or it eats you up. Pinay and Hoffman remind me of the guys who wrote the Malleus Malleficarum, wallowing in descriptions of witchery, with an unhealthy fascination with evil. Hoffman's white-slavery stuff and the interviews with nαzιs are also barking up the wrong tree, in my opinion. Notice how his obsession with Jews led him to the defense of nαzιs, who are just evil in a different way.
Rama is a plagiarist, eh? That brings up a question. There's a sedevacantist Catholic who plagiarized a fairly well-known book on his website, taking an entire chunk out of it and making it seem as if he wrote it. Is that a sin? I ignored it but it somehow makes me mistrust this person, just a little.
-
Hi, I am also enjoying your thoughts on this thread, Raoul.
Can we have a teensie hint as to whom is the plagerist?
Also, Fr. C hinting that Coomaraswamy copied off his homework is just a hoot.
I still am not convinced of Malachi Martin being an evil infiltrator, but I must admit this thread is affecting my opinion of old Rama Coomaraswamy's influence. I had no idea he had a teaching position in the seminary, for example.
:popcorn:
-
Don't worry, Elizabeth, the person I'm referring to is not at all well-known. He is someone I admire, though, and when I caught him regurgitating a chunk from someone else's book without giving her -- the female author -- any credit I thought "Hmmm." It was just a couple paragraphs but would it have really hurt to give her the credit?
It was very odd that I had discovered this book on the same day that he plagiarized it. My first impulse was to pridefully write this sedevacantist and say "I'm onto you!" But then I realized he might hold it against me. I also realized his virtues outweigh his faults. So I let it pass.
Rama Coomaraswamy is one of those figures that may drive people away from sedevacantism. If you associate the movement with him, it makes us look weird. This may not be his fault but he didn't exactly try very hard to stop it, going on the "World of Wisdom" web site and expatiating on "Pereniallism." Roscoe may be right in advising him posthumously to change his name, too. Maybe Father Rama Mary would have been better -- hey, that's darn catchy!
P.S. I'm not convinced of Malachi being an evil infiltrator either, nor am I calling Rama C. an infiltrator. Just suggesting that infiltrators may be out there.
Malachi strikes me more as someone who really loves to talk and be the center of attention than a calculating infiltrator.
He may have even done more good than harm by at least alerting the mainstream that SOMETHING is wrong in the Vatican, even if he sensationalized and mixed truth with lies. At least he gives the general impression that not all is at it seems and from that point people can do their own individual research. I go back and forth on Malachi but ultimately his heart is for God to judge ( isn't that generous of me? )
-
P.S. I'm not convinced of Malachi being an evil infiltrator either, nor am I calling Rama C. an infiltrator. Just suggesting that infiltrators may be out there.
We would be brain-dead to think otherwise. It worked like a charm up to V2. Do you think they would just STOP, leaving the resisters in peace? NO WAY!!!
-
If no one else will say it, I will risk being admonished as brain dead and clearly state that Martin and Cooms whatever are indeed 'infiltrators' aka Communists.
-
TCW claims that M Martin dies repentant-- let's hope that is so.
-
Infiltrators 'may' be out there. Boy-- I guess we'll just have to be more careful.
I continue to find it most odd that some who will defend clowns like Martin and Cooms will accuse Card Rampolla. This is some kind of incredulous joke--no??
-
I'm just trying to be cautious when I say someone "may" be an infiltrator, in the sense of "Only God can judge internal intentions." God doesn't like it when you step on His toes, and take vengeance for Him. The only ones authorized to investigate, root out and punish heresy are higher clergy and I'm not even lower clergy. One has to know one's place.
My priest told me I can't call people names like "stooge," "plant," "charlatan" or "infiltrator." The Catholic way, I've learned, is to simply state facts and let people make up their own minds.
Leaving behind Fathers Coomaraswamy and Martin, I even used to dare to make serious allegations against a figure as generally revered as Abp. Lefebvre until I realized that as a Catholic you can't do this unless you are 100% sure of your accusations -- and I'm not. So I can only repeat the party line that he often "wavered." I can only state that it is a fact that he got lots of publicity and TV face time while other traditionalists were cast into outer darkness. And I can only point out that his organization the FSSPX are indirectly blaspheming the Church and keeping their people in spiritual danger with the false assertion that the VII Popes are true Popes and the VII Church is the real Church. But can I say for SURE that this was a deliberate plot and not just unfortunate happenstance? No -- not for sure.
See what I'm driving at? I can't even say that someone who was as full of contradictions as Malachi Martin was an infiltrator. He might have, like me, simply have loved to talk and to be the center of attention. I am trying to learn to stay silent on subjects I know nothing about ( hence I didn't respond to roscoe's query about geocentrism. ) Maybe Malachi never learned it.
Or maybe he even acted Jesuitically, as an undercover agent, who used "faction" to give people a sense of something being amiss in Rome and to lead them on to further research. Because I'm an idealist, the idea of telling "80% truth" struck me as ludicrous. But the more I think about it, that IS Jesuit procedure, in the early days of the Reformation to disguise yourself as a Protestant in order to ferret out information from them, or as a communist in Russia, etc. And if you are in disguise, you can't tell 100% truth, because then you'd have to say you're a Catholic at which point you'd get your throat slit.
I will tell you, I read most of Windswept House long before becoming a Catholic, and threw it down with disgust, saying it was full of contradictions in portraying JPII as somehow apart from what was happening in the Church. In some odd way, now that I think about it, the book almost uses a dialectic that could LEAD those who are disposed in that direction to the sedevacantist truth. Except that, in my recollection, it never mentions the Novus Ordo mass but pits JPII against an economic-political nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, which he wants his "Catholic Church" to control even as it is plagued by Satanists ( huh? ). So for those who are inclined to see the Vatican itself as serving Mammon, this book gives them ample "proof." Just as it inadvertently or deliberately helped me become sedevacantist, it could just as easily inadvertently or deliberately "help" someone else to become a Protestant or atheist, or reinforce the "truthers" like Jew-puppet Alex Jones who spread that old canard about the Jesuit-Vatican plot for world control ( to which I'd say hey, if it were the real Jesuits and the real Vatican we were talking about, let them have world control! )
I don't know about Malachi Martin. If you judge him by his fruits, I'd say they are more bad than good -- more confusing than clear. Especially compared to the fruits of someone like Patrick Henry Omlor.
In the case of Rama we have facts -- we know he never renounced his theosophist-"Pereniallist" father's work and to the end of his life promoted it and acted as if his father had wisdom to impart. That is heresy, I'd say, unless someone disagrees with me.
P.S. Roscoe, I'd say that TCW made the claim that Malachi Martin died repentant because they use his theories about the Siri election. If you take away Martin, whoosh, there goes the Siri thesis. That is what I call a shaky foundation!
This is quite odd though. TCW defends Martin but then says that he "died repentant." Repentant for what? Freudian slip! What are the sins that he needed to repent for, according to them/him?
-
Raoul, we are all sinners. Of course Malachi Martin died repentant. That's what Last Rites are for. Everyone is a sinner and needs Last Rites. He was lucky to have gotten them. Often he went on death calls because the NY priests couldn't be bothered.
Have any of you ever read Malachi Martin's books or listened to his interviews with Bernard Jansen?
-
I did not ask Raoul about geocentrism-- I asked if he believed Earth/Sun or Sun/Earth
There are many more sources on the Siri election than M Martin. Until reading this just now, I was not aware that he even thought this. i have not read any of his work.
The Siri electin by no means goes away without M Martin.
-
Interestingly enough, Fr C mentioned Dr/Fr/Bp Coomaraswamy in a very recent sermon - in fact, he did so right about the time SJB decided to join the fun around cathinfo. :scratchchin:
I read Coomaraswamy a long time ago and I know all of what he had posted on his website. I have copies of all of it.
I think the idea that he was an infiltrator into the SSPX seminary is without merit. What did he do there (as an infiltrator)? It is nice to believe the infiltrator thing if it fits into an existing anti-sede slant that many SSPX adherents have developed (rightly or wrongly).
The fact of a sermon mentioning Coomaraswamy has nothing to do with my comments here.
Well, some years ago Fr C told me, during a conversation in his office, that Coomaraswamy was a plagiarist. Coomaraswamy's book The Problems with the New Mass was, Fr C claimed, was really, at least in the main, the work of Fr C.
There was also an article written about "the Canonically Unfit" that Coormaraswamy claimed was directed at him:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=64&catname=11
Why did Fr C mention this man, publicly and in a positive light, right as attention is being drawn to his shady past? Toe-knee? Come come, now.
After Coormaraswamy passed away (2006, I believe), this article appeared:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=85&catname=14
Why hasn't SJB answered my questions about his name, what brought him to this off-the-beaten-path site in the first place, etc?
Why haven't I already gone to get my first cup of coffee on tonight's vampire shift? :sleep:
Why do I need to do this? Because you asked?
I googled gladius veritatis. Somebody mentioned the pseudonym to me and I knew it from Fisheaters and CML. You know why they mentioned it to me, but I didn't come here for that reason.
I've been around many forums over a number of years and what I post is pretty consistent (although it has grown over the yaers). I have never publically criticized a trad clergy member, even when I do not agree with his positions. I will however, address the positions as erroneous (IMHO), and have done so in the past.
You don't need to see a conspiracy everywhere, do you?
-
SJB, you said you were leaving the forum. Are you a liar? Did you decide to come back after your tantrum?
-
Right this minute I am listening to an interview with Fr. Martin by Bernard Jansen, called "The Storm Breaks" A very dear person who was banned from AQ for defending MM sent me a set of CDs with 100s of hours of interviews. My dear son helped me use them, as I had been unable to on the other computer.
I am still curious as to why people call him "double agent" and so forth. Is it because Michael Hoffman and Servitium say so?
Because I never see any of you explain WHY you hold this very poor opinion of Fr. Martin, except by emotion.
25, 35 years ago he was decrying the V2 and the destruction of the Mass, the "new ceremony" by the freemason Bugnini, a creation of a one-world religion, the invalidity of the Novus Ordo mass, etc.
-
Elizabeth, after writing and then deleting a long post after some mental prayer, I've decided to say no more about Malachi Martin. Whether Mr. Martin was a good or a bad man is not germane, has nothing to do with whether the sedevacantist or SSPX or Novus Ordo position is correct.
Disinformation surrounds his person like a cloud of flies. This is inevitable when so many Novus Ordo figures pass in and out of his life, whose specialty is disinformation and lies-within-lies. But if you lay down with dogs you'll get fleas, as the localism goes, and Malachi never avoided questionable figures -- quite the opposite. It seems that everyone and their grandmother has had a mysterious encounter with this man, from the VII anti-Popes to the biggest publishers and New York socialites to Thomas Droleskey to personal acquaintances of mine at Church!
It seems it's impossible to even talk about him without getting entangled in contradictions and disinformation. It's frustrating until you finally ask yourself, who cares about Malachi Martin? Who is he? What is the point of him and why is he so well-known? He's someone who was good at getting publicity, and whose books were published by Jews, who own the publishing industry as surely as they own Hollywood, who gave him high exposure. Good for him. Then he doesn't need any more exposure from Raoul76.
Okay, then you had to go and post this --
Elizabeth says
25, 35 years ago he was decrying the V2 and the destruction of the Mass, the "new ceremony" by the freemason Bugnini, a creation of a one-world religion, the invalidity of the Novus Ordo mass, etc.
Actually he said the Novus Ordo mass was valid. He never wrote about the Novus Ordo in any of his books. You are creating a fantasy-Malachi in your head. If I were you I'd ask myself "Why?"
Is that Jansen interview the one where he said "Sedevacantists will never see the face of God"? Yet he attended the ordination of a sedevacantist priest and he himself supposedly ordained the self-proclaimed sedevacantist Rama Coomaraswamy, having suddenly become a bishop for the occasion...
On the Validity of My Ordination by Rama Coomaraswamy:
"However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source."
CathInfo favorite Father Cekada says that near the end of his life Malachi Martin told Rama C. that he was consecrated a bishop by, get this, PIUS XII. So he hid his episocopal status for decades afterwards, even from the "Pope," Paul VI?
Elizabeth, plenty of proof has been given you of the almost countless contradictions of this man's behavior. Here is one that is irrefutable: This non-sedevacantist laicized priest near the end of his life suddenly became a bishop conditionally re-ordaining a sedevacantist.
I know, I know, the poor man was just confused, the eternal victim...
It's also a fact that he wrote a book under the pen name Serafian called The Pilgrim where a fictional Pope obviously representing John XXIII is portrayed favorably as someone who is trying to open the ecuмenical door to the Jews. Malachi Martin himself is of Jєωιѕн stock and attended Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He was periti to the Jєωιѕн Cardinal Bea, friend of the most-likely Jєωιѕн Wojtyla, etc.
These are facts, not rumors, though the rumors about what he did during Vatican II are truly horrible. But I'll refrain from reprinting them because I have no way to know if they're true. I'm trying to be totally objective.
-
"You don't need to see a conspiracy everywhere, do you?"
Careful SJB. Saying something like that is almost surefire proof that someone IS part of the conspiracy. It's just like saying "Trust me."
Anyone who tries to make you feel stupid for being paranoid, in a time like this, must be disingenuous at best and a conspirator himself at worst.
I'm not sure what gladius is saying about Father Cekada and "Father" Rama. He seems to be suggesting a plot of some kind between the two, but to me it seems less like Cekada is praising Coomaraswamy than knocking Malachi Martin.
If he is saying that Father Cekada, Coomraswamy AND Malachi Martin are all untrustworthy in different ways, he may indeed be right. Although Father Cekada does not strike me as a heretic. Perhaps -- and I say PERHAPS -- he is unstable because of the forbidden affections which gladius has so delicately suggested he ails from, or greedy, or whatever. But a heretic, or even a conspirator who has deliberately set out to confuse and divide? Don't see it.
Whatever his personal faults, Father Cekada is a priest with valid Holy Orders and I would go to him for the sacraments. Rather nervously, after all this, but I'd go. Meanwhile I would have absolutely nothing to do, under any circuмstances, with a priest ordained by Malachi Martin.
-
Not that gladius has ever called Father Cekada a heretic. I didn't mean to give that impression.
-
SJB, you said you were leaving the forum. Are you a liar? Did you decide to come back after your tantrum?
Do you always call people liars? Don't you think it is rash, given the facts? Here is my "tantrum", as you call it, with the word "truths" spelled correctly (Gladius) :cheers: :
We can be certain of the truths that the Church teaches us. Those truths will lead us to heaven. Other worldly truths are less certain and even uncertain. These are not required for salvation.
We need to love the truths of our Faith. We can only love what we know, and if we can't know something with certainty, how can we love it? We must hate sin and evil if we truly love good, but we must not see evil in things when there is no evil. We are not infallible in this area and these are dangerous times. Humility is what is needed.
"In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity."
Btw, I believe I am finished here. I wish you all the best.
So I had a few PM exchanges with some more reasonable people and decided to post here again. Why can't you understand that without calling someone a liar? It seems to me that it is required of you; and not optional.
Do you think you should say anything that pops into your head; and the post it on a forum where you can't even edit it?
-
So, Raoul you have not answered which books (published by Jews, as if everything you eat doesn't have a Kosher symbol on it's label, as if...)of Fr. Martin's you have actually read and which interviews you have listened to.
Your description of disinformation is frankly ignorant. Knowing people from all walks of life, being fluent in 11 languages, hearing confessions doesn't by its very nature cause problems. What, do priests get to choose only special, nice people to try to save their souls?
I didn't ask you for more exposure, I have asked which books you have read, and which interviews, and say, what about Fr. Fiore? He was an heretic, too? And Fr. Alfred Kunz?
I am creating a fantasy martin in my head? :roll-laugh1:
No, actually I am notrelying on gossip from Fr. Cekada.
And why do you take the word of Rama Coomaraswamy about MM if you find him so dubious? Perhaps you could find out for yourself what MM has said and written, by actually reading and listening instead of relying on what you yourself admit is disinformation?
You can't even explain why Fr. Martin is so well-known because you have not ploughed through his work.
Maybe you should ask yourself why does anyone care about Michael Hoffman and his obsession with Jews? He offers zero love of Our lady, zero hope, faith or charity. Decades of an obsession with Jews, instead of faithful devotion to Christ and His blessed Mother. So now having studied Hebrew along with ten other languages is, what? :roll-laugh1: Is he also a stasi if he is fluent in German, and kgb if fluent in Russian? Can't you see how Hoffmann plays on ignorance and prejudice?
This cooties thing would be funny if you all didn't actually take it seriously. Do you make certain there is no Pareve mark on everything you consume, and do you know if your merchandise was sold to you by a Jew? Is it bad to eat a bagel? :laugh2:
Who would you suggest should have published Fr. Martin's books, which you obviously have not read?
-
And why do you take the word of Rama Coomaraswamy about MM if you find him so dubious? Perhaps you could find out for yourself what MM has said and written, by actually reading and listening instead of relying on what you yourself admit is disinformation?
Coomaraswamy and Martin were friends.
-
SJB, I am glad people encouraged you to stick around.
:sign-party-time: :wine-drinking: :jumping2: :alcohol:
and even :argue:
:dancing:
-
Careful SJB. Saying something like that is almost surefire proof that someone IS part of the conspiracy. It's just like saying "Trust me."
I wasn't saying we should trust anybody who writes anything these days. As a matter of fact, I believe we should limit reading modern laymen and even trad priests. We should be reading pre V2 authors approved by the Church before we read any unauthorized writings.
-
SJB, I am glad people encouraged you to stick around.
:sign-party-time: :wine-drinking: :jumping2: :alcohol:
and even :argue:
:dancing:
They didn't encourage me, their prudence did; a thing that is somewhat lacking here.
Now Gladius, is "that" or "which" correct here, or may I use either?
-
And why do you take the word of Rama Coomaraswamy about MM if you find him so dubious? Perhaps you could find out for yourself what MM has said and written, by actually reading and listening instead of relying on what you yourself admit is disinformation?
Coomaraswamy and Martin were friends.
He had also been friends with Scott Peck. :scared2: And undoubtedly many, many others in a very busy life.
What about Fr. Fiore? What about Steven Brady? Will these man be acceptable? Fr. Kunz?
-
As usual I must correct myself. I said --
But if you lay down with dogs you'll get fleas, as the localism goes, and Malachi never avoided questionable figures -- quite the opposite. It seems that everyone and their grandmother has had a mysterious encounter with this man, from the VII anti-Popes to the biggest publishers and New York socialites to Thomas Droleskey to personal acquaintances of mine at Church!
Very bad segue. I didn't mean that Droleskey or the people at my Church were questionable figures. On the contrary Droleskey is one of the few who has my total trust. I just was trying to make the point that Malachi Martin gets around.
Elizabeth, forgive me, but it appears you are having a meltdown right before my eyes. You keep talking about people who speak many languages -- JPII who was one of the worst anti-Christs that ever walked the Earth and he spoke many languages. I don't know what you're trying to say.
You didn't answer any of the facts I presented but again brought up Michael Hoffman, whose thoughts on Malachi Martin I'd never even read until today after you mentioned it. In this very thread I said he was getting inordinately consumed with the Jews. I quote --
I would say in the case of both Hoffman and Pinay that they need to concentrate more on God and less on the devil. I've been down that road and I know how easy it is to get consumed by wrath, to tangle yourself up trying to UNtangle all the lies.
But I understand why he is obsessed, as anyone would be when they realize the extent of the deception.
Then you essentially accuse me of suffering from Jew-paranoia and that is when I lose interest. That is such old-hat mind control -- whenever someone hits the truth, call them an αnтι-ѕємιтє.
The Jews control all the sources of information and no one gets famous like Martin without their say-so, or unless you somehow serve their agenda. Martin was a known friend of the Jєωιѕн publisher Straus of Farrar, Straus and Giroux who published his early books. Okay? It's not Hungarians that own all the media; it's Jews who despise Christ and His children with every ounce of their being and want revenge after what they consider centuries of oppression by taking away peoples' reverence of God and leading them to hell. This, again, is FACT, proven by a quick glance at any TV program, as well as the mindset of the average brainwashed "worldling" today. This did not happen by accident. Oh, and now they have taken over the Vatican structures along with their Gentile agents, the Freemasons, as well as those gαys who are slaves to their twisted desires and will do or say anything to be around little boys.
See, it isn't pretty, but this again is REALITY. And yes, Hoffman strikes me as someone with a threadbare prayer life and I'd even written on the Pinay blog asking him to make a profession of faith. He doesn't write with much love about Mary, if he writes about her at all, nor does he seem to be brimming over with charity, because he is overtaken with the Jews. He has also made the classic mistake of sympathizing with nαzιs, seeing THEM as the opposite of Judaism when it is Catholicism that is the opposite of Judaism. nαzιs were pagan socialists led up the garden path by Jews just as Americans are led up the garden path by Jews through "constitutional patriotism" -- how ironic that Hoffman, expert on Jєωιѕн deception extraordinaire, defends their masterstroke, the Freemasonic Constitution, which gave Jews their long desired "religious" liberty!
Again, Hoffman is not my mentor or hero -- that would be more like Droleskey. However Hoffman is BRILLIANT beyond belief on the occult media, public Freemasonic ritual and the Jews, and I've certainly taken what I feel are the good aspects of his researches.
As for Malachi Martin's books, I have talked about his work over and over and over again. Do you even read my posts? I told you I read most of Windswept House and read about many of his other books -- I'm not going to plough through them because by reading the synopses I get the point. He portrays real-life people under fictitious names and then changes their motives. Just what our time needs -- more confusion.
I also listened to the Art Bell interview. I've seen other interviews where he said the Novus Ordo Mass was valid if performed in a certain way, whatever that means.
I shouldn't say "Who cares" about Malachi Martin. God cares about him, as He cares about all of us. I'm sure that many times in Malachi's life God advised him to shut up and stop digging himself in deeper. Because I cannot see much of a positive contribution that he has made to the traditional movement unless I really tie my brain into a knot, like I did a couple posts ago, saying his books were perhaps designed to be deliberately unconvincing when they say JPII or the "Slavic Pope" were conservative hold-outs against the encroaching nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. I was trying to be nice about your personal favorite by saying even this much. Notice I haven't even brought up all the double-agent rumors because I'm trying to stick to pure facts; inconsistencies that cannot be disproven.
-
Correction: "I'm sure that many times in Malachi's life God advised him to shut up and stop digging himself in deeper."
I'm not "sure" of anything God does, let's say "I suspect."
-
Elizabeth said
And why do you take the word of Rama Coomaraswamy about MM if you find him so dubious? Perhaps you could find out for yourself what MM has said and written, by actually reading and listening instead of relying on what you yourself admit is disinformation?
You know, you are right. It just hit me.
What if Rama is lying and he was not conditionally re-ordained by Malachi Martin? Father Cekada says on Fisheaters that they did know each other, and that MM told Rama he was a bishop. And most people on the Internet say they were friends. But on the Internet so far I have only seen Rama talking about this relationship, and not Malachi. Malachi himself never said that he re-ordained Rama Coomaraswamy, to my knowledge. If they were friends it seems rather one-sided.
You know, there is also someone at my Church who told me Malachi died a sedevacantist and that he was pals with Rama. I put this together with Rama's story and just took this at face value. But as you point out, Elizabeth, I'd just finished showing how untrustworthy Rama is.
Sorry I accused you of having a meltdown. I was not connecting all the dots.
This doesn't excuse Malachi, mind you. His theological position is still false and he was involved in many contradictions. But this is what we need to find out -- did he ever embrace sedevacantism at any time? If so, when? Did he really re-ordain Rama Coomaraswamy and if so who can prove it?
-
Why are you trying to slam the Gregory XVII election by saying that M Martin is the only source of the story? The sources are all over the place and have been discussed here many times over.
-
Sorry Raoul but you have only revealed that you do not know what you are on about. Of course you cannot even possibly have understood what Fr. Martin's books were about without actually reading them.
The Final Conclave, The Keys to this Blood, Rich Church Poor Church, The Jesuits...
Are you a high school student? You "get the point" of The Keys to this Blood by reading a synopsis of it? If you are a teenager, I can see why you might be able to convince yourself that you have "gotten the point" of Fr. Martin's books by reading an online synopsis.
So what about Fr. Fiore?
If you are worried about sede vacantists being poorly judged, perhaps you might consider taking a more... reasoned approach?
You state "The Jews control all the sources of information and no one gets famous like Martin without their say-so..."
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
Are you serious? Never mind, I don't even want to know.
-
This is from someone named "Susanna" on Constance cuмbey's blog, who is against sedevacantist as well as SSPX "schismatics" and in fact uses Rama Coomaraswamy against us sedes, for the exact reasons I warned about.
The "sedevacantists" appear to be "conservative" and "orthodox" on the surface, but at least one of them - Rama Coomaraswamy - was an advocate of the "perennial philosophy" or so-called "traditionalism" while he professed to be a "traditional" Catholic.
The only thing "traditional" about the "perennial philosophy" is that it is little more than the "tradi tional" gnostic error (which now includes Sufism, Hinduism and the occult elements of other pagan "traditions")all tricked out in a brand-spanking-new label that has come to be known as "perennialism."
Our good friend "Susanna" continues:
Whatever Rama meant by "Catholicism" it certainly appears to have been a "Catholicism" either of his own devising or of the so-called "Catholic Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ" being concocted by neo-gnostic organizations in Europe such as the Hieron du Val d'Or and/or in the "salons" of "Catholic Rosicrucians" such as Josephin Peladan. Rene Guenon, who along with Frithjof Schuon and Ananda Coomaraswamy formalized the concept of the so-called "Traditionalist School" in the 20th-century (neo-gnostic)was probably involved with both.
This last paragraph is EXACTLY right. I think Rama was bringing some of that Cocteau-style "blue apples" Da Vinci Code stuff into the sedevacantist orbit. Rama was also pro-monarchy and this all goes back to the Priory of Sion. My guess is that, as I suspect of Charles Coulombe, he might be trying to discredit the Great Monarch already or make people think that such a personage would be a theosophical Anti-Christ.
Wikipedia on the Priory of Sion:
"Primarily motivated by delusions of grandeur, a romantic reactionary ideology, and the prospect of financial gain,[14] Plantard set out to have the Priory of Sion perceived as a prestigious esoteric Christian chivalric order, whose members would be people of influence in the fields of finance, politics and philosophy, devoted to installing the "Grand Monarch", prophesied by Nostradamus, on the throne of France. Plantard's choice of the pseudonym "Chyren" was a reference to "Chyren Selin", Nostradamus's anagram for the name for this Great King."
The plot thickens.
By the way, Matthew, is it permissible to quote from comments made on blogs? I don't know if this crosses some kind of legal boundary but I don't see why it would.
----
P.S. Yes, Elizabeth, I got the point of Keys to this Blood without reading it. It is well-known that the book defends "Pope" John Paul II and claims that he is somehow a conservative force working against the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. That is the exact same premise of Windswept House, which I spent many miserable hours suffering through. Do you really think that I am going to spend a precious afternoon wading through yet more pages that treat of the same nonsensical premise, this time in the realm of "non-fiction"? I can read JPII's encyclicals or watch the Assisi debacle -- there is nothing conservative about him. Why do I need to read Martin's delusional fable?
You have provided absolutely no cogent defense of Malachi and then you accuse me of being overemotional. Your one good point was that you alerted me not to take Rama at face-value. I do thank you for that. But otherwise you're kind of scaring me. Why do you collect his tapes, read his books, defend Malachi so fervently? Do you realize you may be brainwashed and that I'm trying to help? I am not the guy with the plummy accent and ingratiating manners -- I'm the one telling you the truth.
I am speaking reason, Elizabeth. Jews published Martin's books and they control the publishing, television and film industries, as well as almost all newspapers. An Internet search will reveal this for you. Add this together with his numerous Jєωιѕн connections and the rumors about him, along with the fact that he studied at Hebrew University, wrote a book praising his fictitious John XXIII for ecuмenism regarding the Jews... Come on.
Are you one of those who don't believe that there is any conspiracy? If so, I am not the one you should be speaking with, as it's hard for me to even get into that mindset. But your own Bishop Williamson or Matthew/ChantCD, also an SSPXer, would agree with me on this. If you are on the liberal wing of SSPX I think our minds will never meet.
-
Elizabeth said
And why do you take the word of Rama Coomaraswamy about MM if you find him so dubious? Perhaps you could find out for yourself what MM has said and written, by actually reading and listening instead of relying on what you yourself admit is disinformation?
You know, you are right. It just hit me.
What if Rama is lying and he was not conditionally re-ordained by Malachi Martin? Father Cekada says on Fisheaters that they did know each other, and that MM told Rama he was a bishop. And most people on the Internet say they were friends. But on the Internet so far I have only seen Rama talking about this relationship, and not Malachi. Malachi himself never said that he re-ordained Rama Coomaraswamy, to my knowledge. If they were friends it seems rather one-sided.
You know, there is also someone at my Church who told me Malachi died a sedevacantist and that he was pals with Rama. I put this together with Rama's story and just took this at face value. But as you point out, Elizabeth, I'd just finished showing how untrustworthy Rama is.
Sorry I accused you of having a meltdown. I was not connecting all the dots.
This doesn't excuse Malachi, mind you. His theological position is still false and he was involved in many contradictions. But this is what we need to find out -- did he ever embrace sedevacantism at any time? If so, when? Did he really re-ordain Rama Coomaraswamy and if so who can prove it?
For heaven's sake, you need to read and listen to Fr. Martin's words. The Art Bell interview is not going to help, it's just plain lazy!
There is an immense body of serious work by MM, and hour upon hour of very serious Catholic recorded conversation.
Was he a sede vacantist? He says over and over that the Superforce has the whole of Rome in its grip. He says the pope no longer exercises any authority. But that is too simplistic. I wish I could send you a CD. You might say he is more SV than a SV....he is saying that the satanism goes all the way to the top.
I am listening to an interview I have never heard before as I type. He says JPII has no power over the Superforce. This is a very old interview, he is saying they are not even Catholic in the sense that Catholicism has ever been understood.
-
Raoul, you do not know Fr. Martin's theological position so you really do not know if it is false or not.
-
Elizabeth says:
Was he a sede vacantist? He says over and over that the Superforce has the whole of Rome in its grip. He says the pope no longer exercises any authority. But that is too simplistic. I wish I could send you a CD. You might say he is more SV than a SV....he is saying that the satanism goes all the way to the top.
The "Superforce" goes all the way to the top and the "Pope" is powerless to fight, is that what you're saying? The Pope is cringing somewhere in the Vatican praying hard day and night while surrounded by evil advisors? Yes, that really happened, but it was during the reign of Pius XII.
This idea that the "Pope" is a prisoner in the Vatican is the premise of his books and it is sheerest balderdash. Wojtyla and Ratzinger and Montini were heretics long before their "elections" as "Popes" and continued being so once they were elected.
Do you really believe that Malachi Martin didn't know during the entirety of JPII's life that the guy was a heretic? In 1990 and 1996, AFTER Assisi, AFTER his Modernist encyclicals, Martin went out of his way to praise the guy as the last bastion of Catholic strength, in one doorstop-sized tome after another. Could he have done any more to keep the sedevacantist ideas from taking root? Here he is in one of the last interviews before his death, conducted with Uri Dowbenko, pushing the same premise:
"No," explains Dr. Martin. "What it means is that for the moment, Lucifer the biggest archangel, the leader of the revolt against God, has a big in with certain Vatican officials. Enthronement doesn't mean that he rules. It means that they did their best to put him there. The ideal would be to have their man as Pope. In that case then Satan would be enthroned."
If the devil doesn't have his agent in the throne of Peter, I would be in SSPX right now... Hm. Now I'm starting to get why you are where you are. Too much Malachi.
-
Too much Malachi.
Oh goodness! yes. Purge it from your brain.
-
Raoul76. Can a pope be a public heretic and still be pope?
-
This Malachi Martin/Uri Dowbenko interview is amazing:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg101032.html
"It was a grave decision," he says. "I could see the way the Church was going, the way churchmen were going in their decisions and all the anchors I had for morality and zeal were being undone. Then when the Vatican Council started in 1962, I could see the way the flow of opinion was going in the Vatican by a group of cardinals from Belgium, Germany and France. They were maneuvering the Church into totally new ecclesiology. I couldn't accept this."
As an advisor to three Popes, Dr. Martin has had his fair share of romanita, that uniquely Roman methodology of connivance and power politicking. "I started off as an advisor on Judaism," he continues. "I was trained in Semitic languages and I spent a year and a half studying the тαℓмυd... Then my superiors in Rome also found that I understood Judaism very well. They wanted someone to explain it, since they were studying the whole question of Jєωιѕн-Christian relations. So I was drafted into helping with that."
And the outcome? "They produced a docuмent in which they sort of absolved the Jєωιѕн people of the death of Christ."
Based on his research? "No, not on my research," argues Martin. "I was only a cog in the wheel. I didn't agree with the final docuмent either. It went too far. And then there were conclusions about the need for Catholics to study Judaism and get to know them better."
He studied the тαℓмυd. He's an expert on Judaism. He's even admitting that he worked on an ecuмenical docuмent. But when it comes to VII absolving Jews of the death of Christ he then says that "they went too far" for him.
Then why under the pen name Serafian did he write the book The Pilgrim where the Pope character is favorably portrayed for exactly that -- trying to absolve the Jews of the death of Christ?
From an obituary:
In ''The Pilgrim,'' written under the pseudonym Michael Serafian in 1964, he divulged Vatican efforts to renounce Pope John's ''Jєωιѕн docuмent,'' which retracted the Church's doctrine blaming Jews for Christ's death.
Notice the tenor of the obituary. It is acting as if he were telling a brave truth, that the book was a harsh expose of those who were AGAINST ecuмenism, like such people would be the bad guys and Martin did good work in attacking them.
In this book, from what I have gleaned, the Jew-friendly Pope is portrayed as the hero, against the evil conservative cardinals and bishops who are blocking his efforts at Judaization. Too bad those "evil" conservative cardinals didn't really exist in great enough numbers. I have heard conflicting reports and I'm not sure if the "Pope" he was portraying was John XXIII or Paul VI, not that it matters, as both were liberals surrounded by liberal cardinals en masse.
It is of course possible, though not at all certain, that in the many intervening years MM repented of his earlier mistakes. Yet he compounded those mistakes with his books that propped up JPII as a real Pope and beleaguered conservative. In his very last interviews he is still claiming that Satan never got his man on the Throne of Peter. Wrong again.
I am buying a copy of The Pilgrim and I will report back when I've received and read it. This book dates from 1964 and should give a fair impression of where his "morality and zeal" really were directed at that time. By the way, would anyone reading this ever describe your own "morality and zeal" or does this sound utterly phony to you as well?
-
Here is my "tantrum", as you call it, with the word "truths" spelled correctly (Gladius) :cheers:
You have to admit, misspelling such a common word FOUR TIMES IN A ROW unintentionally is practically impossible!
Are you involved in some conspiracy involving the high priests of Ebonics, hoping to subvert the English language?
-
Here is my "tantrum", as you call it, with the word "truths" spelled correctly (Gladius) :cheers:
You have to admit, misspelling such a common word FOUR TIMES IN A ROW unintentionally is practically impossible!
Are you involved in some conspiracy involving the high priests of Ebonics, hoping to subvert the English language?
Actually, it is quite easy for me. :) As for truths, the way I say it is truthZ, which sounds like it should be truthes not truths. I did think about it when I wrote it, if you must know. However, this forum does not have spell check nor does it allow you to make a correction. Nobody really ever writes well, but we can all rewrite well.
Who has the time to write a response in Word, spell check it, proof it, and then paste it into a post? I don't.
But I assume you're just having some fun here, and that's alright with me. :cheers:
-
If he is saying that Father Cekada, Coomraswamy AND Malachi Martin are all untrustworthy in different ways, he may indeed be right.
The evidence does seem to point rather strongly in this direction.
-
Why do I need to do this? Because you asked?
Who said you NEED to do anything? I did ask. This is a fact. You are free to do as you please, just as I am free to ask and question why you have not answered.
I googled gladius veritatis. Somebody mentioned the pseudonym to me and I knew it from Fisheaters and CML. You know why they mentioned it to me, but I didn't come here for that reason.
Good for you. I have no idea why anyone mentioned it to you, although I suppose someone may have mentioned the Ode to Reality, etc. Life is far too wild for me to be guessing who said what to whom about g_v, etc.
You don't need to see a conspiracy everywhere, do you?
Not only do I not NEED to do so, I do not, IN FACT, do so. :wink:
Carry on...
-
Just for the record, I don't think there is anything even potentially occult about Father Cekada.
He did defend Rama C. on Fisheaters, saying "Rama was a parishioner, a medical advisor and a friend of mine. I knew him very, very well. He was an honest, direct man, and would never lie."
I don't think I could even say my dear mother "wouldn't lie," let alone that Rama Coomaraswamy wouldn't lie. But this doesn't seem like a conspiracy or anything. Just that for some reason Father Cekada was charmed by Rama while he has a deep loathing for Malachi Martin, who he doesn't hesitate for one second to call a liar.
Rama and Martin both seem like the type who could have an agenda. Father Cekada does not strike me that way. He may be a priest with faults but that is nothing unusual for the Church in any age.
I know the site mostly hates him for the Terri Schiavo issue but I have not yet studied that thoroughly.
-
Just for the record, I don't think there is anything even potentially occult about Father Cekada.
Just for the record, I do.
He did defend Rama C. on Fisheaters, saying "Rama was a parishioner, a medical advisor and a friend of mine. I knew him very, very well. He was an honest, direct man, and would never lie."
Why would a busy priest be on FE? He is at least 'quasi-addicted' to modern gizmos, being on the net, etc. Ask anyone who has been in MHT seminary. He spends more time online than many a modern teen.
Btw, does plagiarism count as dishonesty/lying in Fr C's "conscience"? Well, if so, then he believes Coomaraswamy not only would lie, but did so.
Father Cekada does not strike me that way [potentially having an agenda - g_v]...I know the site mostly hates him for the Terri Schiavo issue but I have not yet studied that thoroughly.
I am not sure anyone hates him (I do not), but there are certainly those who vehemently disagree with some demonstrably-wrong and arguably-wicked positions he has taken on some rather hot-button issues.
Btw, have you ever met him? If so, have you spent more than a few moments' time with him? I have.
-
However, this forum does not have spell check nor does it allow you to make a correction.
The spell check on this site operates a little differently. I am going to misspell a word now - truthes. Hit the quote/reply button. When it opens the reply window, you will see that the misspelled word is underlined by small, red dots (for lack of a more accurate description). No, you are not given alternative spellings, but you ARE notified that you have misspellings. I hope that helps you (and anyone else) moving forward.
-
SJB, you said you were leaving the forum. Are you a liar?
Do you always call people liars? Don't you think it is rash, given the facts?...
...So I had a few PM exchanges with some more reasonable people and decided to post here again. Why can't you understand that without calling someone a liar? It seems to me that it is required of you; and not optional.
How is he supposed to "understand" that when he did not even know it? Even IF one argues that he spoke too forcefully, etc., to act as if he could have or should have known about your private exchanges with others is, well, ridiculous. To what "facts" (i.e. info that was public knowledge prior to your posting the above) are you referring?
Fact: You DID say you were leaving.
Fact: You did NOT actually leave.
Fact: sedetrad did NOT call you a liar, but asked if you are one.
Fact: Barring a miraculous power, sedetrad could not have known about your private communications with others. Your response to his comments seems to be the first mention of said communications. If you stated this earlier, please indicate where. Thank you.
If you want him to cut you some slack, why not begin by realizing such is a two-way street?
Do you think you should say anything that pops into your head; and the post it on a forum where you can't even edit it?
For whatever it is or is not worth, the first portion of the quote directly above sounds a lot like a portion of William's advice to me when he first came to the site. That said, I have heard several people say similar things over the years.
-
Maybe you should ask yourself why does anyone care about Michael Hoffman and his obsession with Jews? He offers zero love of Our lady, zero hope, faith or charity...
Not that we need further excuse for tangential discussions, but this description of Mr. Hoffman is not quite accurate. In my albeit-limited personal interaction with him, I found him to be gracious, charitable, and pious (and far from obsessed with the Judaics, etc). Carry on...
-
I don't doubt for a moment that Mr. Hoffmann is as you describe him. But I just visited his website and could find nothing about the Antidote for the issues he writes about.
In other words, his website gives no clue that he is a devout Catholic. Now, that may be for a sound reason that I don't know about,
But his site mentions that he is the most knowledgable English speaking scholar of Judaism. (or words to that effect) Fr. Martin studied at the Hebrew College and that was used as evidence against him. I object to the double standard, that's all.
-
SJB, you said you were leaving the forum. Are you a liar?
Do you always call people liars? Don't you think it is rash, given the facts?...
...So I had a few PM exchanges with some more reasonable people and decided to post here again. Why can't you understand that without calling someone a liar? It seems to me that it is required of you; and not optional.
How is he supposed to "understand" that when he did not even know it? Even IF one argues that he spoke too forcefully, etc., to act as if he could have or should have known about your private exchanges with others is, well, ridiculous. To what "facts" (i.e. info that was public knowledge prior to your posting the above) are you referring?
Fact: You DID say you were leaving.
Fact: You did NOT actually leave.
Fact: sedetrad did NOT call you a liar, but asked if you are one.
Fact: Barring a miraculous power, sedetrad could not have known about your private communications with others. Your response to his comments seems to be the first mention of said communications. If you stated this earlier, please indicate where. Thank you.
If you want him to cut you some slack, why not begin by realizing such is a two-way street?
Do you think you should say anything that pops into your head; and the post it on a forum where you can't even edit it?
For whatever it is or is not worth, the first portion of the quote directly above sounds a lot like a portion of William's advice to me when he first came to the site. That said, I have heard several people say similar things over the years.
Fact: sedetrad did NOT call you a liar, but asked if you are one.
Oh, yes. I guess that's okay then. It wasn't a rhetorical question then...how do you know that? Has the cat got his tongue or are you and he the same person? Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.
And why does sedetrad care whether I come or go here?
Fact: Barring a miraculous power, sedetrad could not have known about your private communications with others. Your response to his comments seems to be the first mention of said communications. If you stated this earlier, please indicate where. Thank you.
He could have realized that I might have just changed my mind. A normal person would assume this before thinking that I might be a liar. He had to have thought it, because he asked the question, right?
-
Oh, yes. I guess that's okay then.
If you think it is okay, then I guess it is. I said nothing about it one way or another. I just pointed out the fact.
It wasn't a rhetorical question then...how do you know that?
I have not said what I know or do not know, what I believe or do not believe, etc., about the exchange, in part or as a whole.
Has the cat got his tongue or are you and he the same person?
I do not know if he possesses any pets, and, if he has a cat, I do not know if it is presently preventing him from using his speaking apparatus, but, exercising my free will, I decided to reply. You, having chosen to NOT answer my question about your name (something I fully respect as your right), ought to respect my right to reply to your comments.
There must be something behind it.
Who is seeing cօռspιʀαcιҽs where none exists?
And why does sedetrad care whether I come or go here?
I suggest you ask him.
He could have realized that I might have just changed my mind. A normal person would assume this before thinking that I might be a liar. He had to have thought it, because he asked the question, right?
I cannot speak for what he did or did not think. Although I do speak with him on the phone from time to time, I cannot read his mind. I could not do so from across a table. I certainly cannot do so from 2500+ miles. Godspeed.
FWIW, I noticed lamentabili sane has the exact same quote that you have in his signature over at FE.
-
He could have realized that I might have just changed my mind. A normal person would assume this before thinking that I might be a liar. He had to have thought it, because he asked the question, right?
I cannot speak for what he did or did not think.
Well, we normally don't say things unless we've thought about them before hand. Are you suggesting that sedetrad might have some form of Tourette syndrome?
Although I do speak with him on the phone from time to time, I cannot read his mind. I could not do so from across a table. I certainly cannot do so from 2500+ miles. Godspeed.
Yes, but that's irrelevant isn't it?
FWIW, I noticed lamentabili sane has the exact same quote that you have in his signature over at FE.
Yes, I did as well. His posts are very similar to mine too. :)
-
I rarely agree with the v2 Eliz but in this case she is correct that Hoffman's website gives no clue that he is a Catholic. I might add that his writings are very vague and ambiguous in this matter as well. It is also of note that his partner Mr Hiembichner defames Card Rampolla( just like almost everyone else here on Cathinfo). For those who still don't get it, St Pius X appointed Card Rampolla as Chmn of Pontifical Commission of Biblical Studies. This is the congregation set up to spearhead the fight against Modernism. This is what the Papacy of St Pius is all about and if anyone doubts the Popes wisdom in this matter they are taking it upon themselves.
I am just as suspicious of Hoffman as I am of M Martin.
-
Eliz may want to consider that Mr Hoffman apparently accepts the v2 anti-popes just as she does.
-
Eliz may want to consider that Mr Hoffman apparently accepts the v2 anti-popes just as she does.
Roscoe, I actually have a personal theory
about the V2 popes, but I do not have any authority whatsoever to make declarations either way. For the time being, let us just say that I am a pre V2 person who knows the difference between the two churches.
:dancing:
-
Eliz may want to consider that Mr Hoffman apparently accepts the v2 anti-popes just as she does.
Roscoe, I actually have a personal theory
about the V2 popes, but I do not have any authority whatsoever to make declarations either way. For the time being, let us just say that I am a pre V2 person who knows the difference between the two churches.
The expression of a personal theory does not require that one be in a position of authority. You may wish not to disclose it, but that decision is a personal one as well. It is not the lack of authority that prohibits the expression.
-
You're authority Eliz is the first amemdment. Please tell us your secret theory.
-
OK. My opinion is that Paul VI was either an anti-pope or had a body-double imposter. Anyway he ditched the Tiara and elevated the UN to savior staus on television, and had that abomination built for large gatherings and promulgated the New Mass and ran off all the Religious in droves.
My heart tells me that the Swiss exorcisms which revealed the Paul VI imposter are correct, but feelings are not facts.
I believe that the devil was enthroned at the Vatican at some point, and that is why the 300 exorcisists were refused entry to St. Peter's Square by JP Deuce.
I havn't got JPI figured out, but I believe he was murdered.
JP2. Oh, many years ago I was reading Malachi Martin, and oddly enough it was his work, I THINK it was The Final Conclave that encouraged my sense of the pope not being a real pope. It may have been another of his books. It most certainly was not The Keys to This Blood, because although he lays it all out, he insists on making excuses and excuses for JP2. The charity he showed only had a reverse effect upon me.
So anyway, I already knew the N.O. religion was not the same Catholic Church, no doubt about it, and I was always trying to figure it out, and find the "underground church" MM used to speak of, but my resources were not so huge...But my husband and I did go see JP2 when he visited Baltimore, even though I had such misgivings, because I wanted so badly to love the Holy Father.
We took a photo of him in the Popemobile and there are mystical rays pouring onto his head, it really looks like the Holy Ghost, I kid you not.
Well, sadly I was never able to sustain any good popish Catholic reverence for JP2.
I remember when the Pope was the Pope, how it was knowing this. (and I'll hand Michael Hoffmann this, his friend that old guy who wrote that KING KILL 33 I think was on target with what was going on, in a sense.
So, I am very guilty of not believeing these have been true popes for a very long time. Personally, if a pope says the UN is mankind's last great hope, or he prays with VooDoo devil worshippers I just can't believe he's Catholic.
BUT I have seen such disarray among the SV groups as to be very, very wary of believing the whole enchilada.
Also, I have nightmares about certain SSPX affiliated clergy.
It's a big mess. I have been trying only to be Catholic in a crisis that I can't understand even though I read about it every day. The past year or so I have been trying to live according to my station in life and stop the amateur theologian role.
At this point, I have backed off of the SV Theory, although I as far as I am able to know it is not a forbidden subject, it is most certainly allowable for Catholics to debate.
And then I can't stand superior, elite sede vacantists being uncharitable about good souls who were raised Catholic and presume that whomever is in the Vatican is the pope Having a Pope is one of the Four Marks of the Church and I cannot comprehend that some people act scandalised when a Catholic believes that so and so is the Pope. I say, lucky for them, because it is miserable doubting all the time. :cry: :cry:
I don't have time to do a better job of it, other duties call.
I pray that prayer "our Lady Mistress of the Home" against heresy and schism.
I believe we are living the 3rd Secret of Fatima and it concerns the nature of the papacy and the salvation of souls, and that instead of worrying about the pope I need to do my very best to make sacrifices and do penance and pray for souls.
-
That wasn't so hard was it?
James Shelby Downard wrote King Kill 33 and I also would recommend it to others.
All the questions and doubts that Eliz has mentioned re: SV, SSPX etc can be resolved by realising that Gregory XVII was elected True Pope in 1958 for better or for worse. He may not have been the greatest Pope but at least he was one and I beleive he was so until he died in 1989. Ciao
-
You left out John 23 so apparently you do not accept the Siri election.
-
That wasn't so hard was it?
James Shelby Downard wrote King Kill 33 and I also would recommend it to others.
All the questions and doubts that Eliz has mentioned re: SV, SSPX etc can be resolved by realising that Gregory XVII was elected True Pope in 1958 for better or for worse. He may not have been the greatest Pope but at least he was one and I beleive he was so until he died in 1989. Ciao[/quote
Yes it was hard and the stupid writing proves my point.
(Hey, but it was MM who was talking about Siri having been elected Pope way before anyone else, look it up! :laugh1)
-
It has only recently been brought to my attention that M Martin is a source for the election of Card Siri. Recall the sophism of Raoul who posted that if MM goes away , the story collapses.
There are numerous sources on the election that have been mentioned here many times.
-
who was first, Roscoe?
-
There were thousands of people present in St Peter's sq that day and the whole scenario received at least wide local coverage. If you sre asking me who was the first to know about the story it probably was Card Siri or the anti-pope John 23. After that I do not know.
-
I cannot speak for what he did or did not think.
Are you suggesting that sedetrad might have some form of Tourette syndrome?[/quote]
Where do you get this stuff, "SJB"? I suggested NOTHING, good, bad, or ugly. Learn to READ a little more closely and remember your own favorite maxim: Contra factum non valet illatio. You probably should have kept this in mind when you declared that "there must be something to it" about the "conspiracy" between sedetrad and me.
Yes, but that's irrelevant isn't it?
It is relevant insofar as, of late, you are manifesting a tendency to see a conspiracy where none exists ("Hello, Kettle, this is Pot. You're black!"). Remember: Contra factum non valet illatio.
-
Sorry for the sloppiness above.
I cannot speak for what he did or did not think.
Are you suggesting that sedetrad might have some form of Tourette syndrome?
Where do you get this stuff, "SJB"? I suggested NOTHING, good, bad, or ugly. Learn to READ a little more closely and remember your own favorite maxim: Contra factum non valet illatio. You probably should have kept this in mind when you declared that "there must be something to it" about the "conspiracy" between sedetrad and me.
Yes, but that's irrelevant isn't it?
It is relevant insofar as, of late, you are manifesting a tendency to see a conspiracy where none exists ("Hello, Kettle, this is Pot. You're black!"). Remember: Contra factum non valet illatio.
-
There were thousands of people present in St Peter's sq that day and the whole scenario received at least wide local coverage.
These people are conspirators. You don't think they could have whipped up some white smoke to lead people astray?
I never said that Malachi Martin was the only source for the Siri theory, go back and check and give me the quote where I said that.
I don't care if Siri was elected because no one has mentioned any scenario that is even remotely plausible about how he would have appointed a successor while under close guard -- so again we're back to sede vacante.
You, Mr. roscoe, seem to have an addiction to anything sensational or novel.
-
It is also of note that his partner Mr Hiembichner defames Card Rampolla( just like almost everyone else here on Cathinfo). For those who still don't get it, St Pius X appointed Card Rampolla as Chmn of Pontifical Commission of Biblical Studies.
For those like you who just "don't get" a lot, Mr Heimbichner and Mr Hoffman are not "partners", although one may purchase the former's book on the latter's website.
[/quote]I am just as suspicious of Hoffman as I am of M Martin. [/quote]
Then I suggest you get your "suspicion-o-meter" re-calibrated.
-
Sorry for the sloppiness above.
It is also of note that his partner Mr Hiembichner defames Card Rampolla( just like almost everyone else here on Cathinfo). For those who still don't get it, St Pius X appointed Card Rampolla as Chmn of Pontifical Commission of Biblical Studies.
For those like you who just "don't get" a lot, Mr Heimbichner and Mr Hoffman are not "partners", although one may purchase the former's book on the latter's website.
I am just as suspicious of Hoffman as I am of M Martin.
Then I suggest you get your "suspicion-o-meter" re-calibrated.
-
Then I suggest you get your "suspicion-o-meter" re-calibrated.
Mine has been set to high alert ever since M-B.
-
Mine has been set to high alert ever since M-B.
Only so recently? :wink:
After 55 posts in two days, M-B has gone silent. Incidentally, one of my points to him was that it would be foolish for me, a long-time regular here, to listen to him, a complete newbie, about how I write, etc., when he could very well be gone tomorrow. Well...
I honestly hope he comes back, as I encouraged him to do more than once. Time will tell.
-
If he does, maybe he can publish his agenda and positions so that there can be fruitful dispassionate discussion about them.
That would show some integrity and honesty, and a sincere belief that the positions are correct. Not to mention it would be at least an indication of willingness to be corrected if they are wrong, for why would a person fail to fully reveal their positions in an organized docuмented way unless they were lacking in confidence as to the veracity of the same.
John[/u] 3:20]For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.
-
Not to mention it would be at least an indication of willingness to be corrected if they are wrong, for why would a person fail to fully reveal their positions in an organized docuмented way unless they were lacking in confidence as to the veracity of the same.
Few have the time to do what you have done, CM. Even if they did, most of those would not be naturally inclined to spell it all out when others have done so in other places. I am actually grateful everyone does not see a need to put out some mega-treatise about why he thinks what he thinks in this era of devastation. If everyone did so, you can be sure I wouldn't be reading all that stuff. I have a life, mate. It isn't much, to be sure, but it is what I have and it is short. Godspeed.
-
Sorry for the sloppiness above.
I cannot speak for what he did or did not think.
Are you suggesting that sedetrad might have some form of Tourette syndrome?
Where do you get this stuff, "SJB"? I suggested NOTHING, good, bad, or ugly. Learn to READ a little more closely and remember your own favorite maxim: Contra factum non valet illatio. You probably should have kept this in mind when you declared that "there must be something to it" about the "conspiracy" between sedetrad and me.
Yes, but that's irrelevant isn't it?
It is relevant insofar as, of late, you are manifesting a tendency to see a conspiracy where none exists ("Hello, Kettle, this is Pot. You're black!"). Remember: Contra factum non valet illatio.
I don't really see a conspriacy. Didn't you read what I wrote.
-
Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.
Of course I read it, "SJB"! Did you?
Now, you might understandably focus more on the words above that are NOT in bold, but the bold is pretty clear: "There must be something behind it."
As you and others caught with their pants down often say (in place of the simple admission that your pants are, in fact, down), "it is irrelevant." Carry on, my good man...
-
Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.
Of course I read it, "SJB"! Did you?
Now, you might understandably focus more on the words above that are NOT in bold, but the bold is pretty clear: "There must be something behind it."
As you and others caught with their pants down often say (in place of the simple admission that your pants are, in fact, down), "it is irrelevant." Carry on, my good man...
Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.
Contra factum non valet illatio. :cheers:
-
So if the Wiki piece on Coomaraswamy is accurate, it is quite understandable that Rama is suspected of a negative influence at the Ridgefield seminary.
I also just read an interview with him that did not inspire confidence in his love of Christ. Aside from the Perennialism SP?) I was struck by his cavalier attitude about Abp. Lefebvre's demands for obedience. I could only conclude that his Brahman upbringing was never weeded out. His attitude in the interview seems purely clinical and intellectual.
As a psychiatrist, I can most certainly see his value in determing mental illness as opposed to demonic possession, but it is odd that his family rejected his interest in Traditional Catholicism.
I admit that I have no patience to learn more about Perrenialism. I reject it as a companion to Catholicism on grounds of common sense. Although he did say priests doing Yoga is silly, he didn't say why.
I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of the mystery of Rama Coomaraswamy.
-
Hoffman is suspicious, gladius_veritatis.
Maybe he's even Malachi Martin for intellectuals.
He holds the Constitution above the Catholic Church, and the amount of time he spends defending the former is infinitely greater than the amount of time he spends defending the latter. An obvious red flag. Here is a quote from an interview.
It's not hard to see that W. Mark Felt, the "Deep Throat" informer who passed away yesterday and who helped blow the cover off Watergate, was motivated not by noble Constitutional motives (in 1980 Felt was convicted of violating the Constitutional rights of Americans), but by rage at President Richard Nixon for failing to nominate him to head the FBI.
Our "Constitutional rights" are a Freemasonic farce, and this man is too smart not to see it. No Pope has ever advocated free speech.
Hoffman knows the Founding Fathers were Freemasons. Yet he clearly hates monarchy. What's with the schizo attitude? It seems his position is an immature revolt against all authority.
More:
Public school students have little if any understanding of their hereditary, Common Law and Constitutional rights. They are increasingly herded like assembly-line automatons. The elite among them intuitively revolt. Once our people as a whole would have rebelled. It was a common pastime of the English people to hurl rocks at the royal carriage during the reign of George I (1714-1727). Bill Clinton would have been routinely stoned and spat upon by our ancestors.
More Revolutionary rhetoric that sounds just like Alex Jones, despite their supposed enmity.
Hoffman is a new breed -- he engages in an elite form of populist demagoguery. He is like Robespierre for well-read conspiracy theorists. He constantly pushes some notion of the "people" against the "leaders" without any sort of qualification of who the leaders might be. Are you telling me you don't smell the blood dripping off the guillotine when you read the above paragraph?
He is a promoter of endless revolution, and I'd say seemingly an instigator of the staged "cινιℓ ωαr" that seems to be gearing up in this country. He has a rabble-rousing attitude that equates "freedom" and "truth" with rebelling against authority. The implication of his writings, over and over again, is that we should stand up for the CONSTITUTION -- not for the CHURCH.
Most Americans don't understand why this is bad. That is because they are totally brainwashed, and it is people like Hofmann who have brainwashed them, by insinuating constantly these "values" of liberty and free speech and supposed freedom. The Constitution is not a noble docuмent, it is a form of the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" which was condemned by the Church.
This is endemic with Americans. They are addicted to "freedom" the way some are addicted to alcohol. But they don't know what it is, they just know they never have enough. Same Mel Gibsonian/revolutionary/Freemasonic propaganda.
How about a Catholic monarchy with strict, inescapable rules, and the abolishing of vice? How about faith, order and morality? Is Hoffman for the separation of Church and state? Is he against the Social Reign of Christ the King? All indications would appear to say so. That may be why he's so evasive about being Catholic.
I've never known a Catholic to not mention Mary or make certain comments about being a sinner or discuss the saints or quote doctors of the Church or mention how they missed saying the Rosary on Tuesday -- he rarely does these things. Yet he'll bleat about the Constitution all day and night. It's also worth mentioning that at one point he worked for Reuters which is pure disinfo. If he had integrity I wonder how he could have ever had that job.
P.S. It is interesting that in one of the prophecies that talk about the days leading to the Great Monarch, it says "the good will have little to do" because the "republicans" will be killing each other in cινιℓ ωαrs. Notice the implication here. The good are not those who are tricked by ideals of the republic. These people burn each other out. The good are those whose ideal is restoring the CATHOLIC CHURCH to the place of honor it must have, as the guide of both the temporal and supernatural spheres.
Let those who have ears to hear, hear.
-
There were thousands of people present in St Peter's sq that day and the whole scenario received at least wide local coverage.
These people are conspirators. You don't think they could have whipped up some white smoke to lead people astray?
I never said that Malachi Martin was the only source for the Siri theory, go back and check and give me the quote where I said that.
I don't care if Siri was elected because no one has mentioned any scenario that is even remotely plausible about how he would have appointed a successor while under close guard -- so again we're back to sede vacante.
You, Mr. roscoe, seem to have an addiction to anything sensational or novel.
Your words are on the bottom of a post U made during this discussion on pg 4=== " ...if you take away Martin, whoosh, there goes the Siri theory". This is basically saying that Martin is the only source for the Siri election. This is far from the truth and one wonders why U have to resort to this type of sophistry.
Common sense should tell U that over a 30 yr period, Pope Greg XVII would have had ample opportunity one way or another to appoint a Curia.
-
I guess you are right, I did say that. Touche, my eccentric friend, it looks like "U" have scored one on me.
I must have been thinking about why David Hobson would use Malachi Martin, who he calls "controversial," to bolster his theory.
If Malachi Martin really did know that Siri was elected in 1963 then he also knows that Paul VI was never even a Pope. He didn't even have to lose the throne through heresy because he had no valid election. The Holy Spirit must choose a Pope, and the Holy Spirit cannot be coerced or strong-armed.
Why did Malachi then act as if Paul VI were Pope? Just more misterioso from the Man of Mystery himself.
Hobson then claims on his website that Malachi accepted the V-2 Popes were "anti-Popes" before his death. All I know is his requiem Mass was said by Malachi's confessor, Fr. Wickens, a priest who could be described as a "Novus Ordo conservative" -- he offered the Latin Mass I believe but was no sedevacantist.
So far I've seen no proof that Malachi ever became sedevacantist. I used to believe it because I believed the story that he "ordained" Rama Coomaraswamy but now that has been thrown into doubt.
I recant what I said about the Siri thesis dying along with Malachi. His espousal of the Siri theory means nothing, even less than nothing, because nothing he said could be trusted. It neither helps nor hinders the theory, which as I said, until we have further information, died out not with Martin but with SIRI, because there is no way he could have elected a successor. Some kind of "Pope Michael" may be trotted out claiming to be the successor, however.
-
Roscoe said
Common sense should tell U that over a 30 yr period, Pope Greg XVII would have had ample opportunity one way or another to appoint a Curia.
I'm not sure common sense is your specialty roskie, but what mine tells me is that the notion that he could appoint his own cardinals while being closely watched by murderous Novus Ordo hirelings is altogether unlikely if not impossible.
Just like a Malachi Martin fan -- which I know you are not -- you are trying to have it both ways. You want to say Siri was coerced and didn't WANT to go along with Vatican II, that his life was threatened, and so on. And then you want to give him the miraculous freedom to elect a College of Cardinals.
If they weren't going to let him be Pope, they weren't going to let him go around making cardinals.
-
My post was not to 'score one on U', it was just a valid point. And since I am not familiar w/ the Martin/Siri connection-- did M Martin say that Card Siri was elected in 1958 or 63 or both?
Greg XVII may not have been the best Pope, but I think that over 30 yrs, he would have a chance to make cardinals.
-
My post was not to 'score one on U', it was just a valid point. And since I am not familiar w/ the Martin/Siri connection-- did M Martin say that Card Siri was elected in 1958 or 63 or both?
Greg XVII may not have been the best Pope, but I think that over 30 yrs, he would have a chance to make cardinals.
Yes MM said that Siri had been elected Pope in Keys of This Blood and in various interviews before that book was published.
-
How casually Raoul dismisses Fr. Paul Wickens R.I.P. as a "conservative novus ordo".
Sadly uncharitable , as Fr. Wickens was like the lone pioneer against sex education, he fought the good fight to the bitter end. Also he instructed the American seminarians at SSPX over the years. He was a validly ordained Catholic priest who did much good for souls in his life.
-
Also, for speaking publicly agaianst sex education Fr. Wickens Abp. McCarrick had all money, health insurance stipends -all source of survival removed.
And he set up St. Anthony's in 1984, so the disrespect is most certainly not appreciated for this holy priest.
-
There was no disrespect intended. I should have said "conservative VII priest" though because I don't think he offered the Novus Ordo.
However, anyone who goes along with Vatican II is at least in some sense Novus Ordo and has accepted that a true Pope can promulgate a harmful rite. Just by refusing to offer it they have adopted the schismatic attitude of SSPX. If this is the Pope, he is infallible, and his Novus Ordo nourishes souls -- a true Pope cannot provide liturgy that is absent of grace. So why not offer it?
Elizabeth, have the courage of your convictions. If Benedict is the true Pope then nourish yourself this weekend in the Novus Ordo rite. Bathe in the holy glow. Be assured that no true Pope can provide you with harmful doctrine or liturgy. Take Communion in the hand and rock out with the altar girls. You are safe because the Pope is INFALLIBLE. That is a dogma.
I cannot say Father Wickens is holy and neither can you. He may have very well been well-intentioned, but he failed to put together the correct solution to the crisis, and unfortunately his actions denied papal infallibility. He made up his own traditional religion within an untraditional, heretical and false church, which is more like wishful thinking than reality.
That is why I call him conservative VII or Novus Ordo, just as I'd call Archbishop Thuc a sedevacantist, or Mgr. Gerard des Lauriers a sedeprivationist. Take that as you will.
I am sorry if this is not wishy-washy enough for you and I'm not repeating the old refrain, "The times are so confusing," giving you an excuse to continue to support the great wonder-work of Satan as well as his anti-Christ ministry, which has now been going on for fifty years. I'm sorry if I seem impatient with the way God has been openly blasphemed by liars with seared consciences for half a century. But it's time to cut to the chase. The sedevacantists are the Church. Just because we are few in number does not mean we are wrong. Noah and his family were few in number.
The VII Popes are blasphemers, heretics and about as Catholic as Shaka, King of the Zulus. The Catholic Church cannot have a heretical Pope who provides a defective Mass and harmful doctrine. The Holy Spirit WILL NOT ALLOW THAT. Those who have true faith know the Holy Spirit will not allow it because he has given us the dogmas to help us navigate the crisis, which I've now explained to you I don't know how often. It's not that confusing but has only been MADE TO APPEAR SO by your masters of the SSPX. Read sedevacantist writings and clear your mind of its vagueness. The truth is very clear to those who have asked God for SIGHT and for WISDOM. It is not ambiguous at all, because God Himself is not ambiguous.
****
To get back to Father Wickens, just because he was persecuted does not mean he was in the real Church. That is purely sentimental reasoning. Protestant missionaries sometimes die for their faith. Let's say I'm a Protestant and go to downtown L.A. and am killed by a crazy person who sees my cross and decides he hates Jesus. That doesn't mean I was in the right church.
People in the Holy Land or in Africa are killed for being in the Novus Ordo church, but that doesn't make it the real Catholic Church. It is tragic that they died for an ape of the Catholic Church but knowing that it's tragic and even absurd in its way doesn't make it any less real. THIS IS THE TERRIBLE POWER OF SATAN.
Father Wickens may have been persecuted for upholding one part of Catholic doctrine within an ape of the Catholic Church, but that says nothing about his orthodoxy, because GOD IS NOT THERE, do you see? The true head of the Catholic Church CANNOT be a heretic, and the very fact that the visible "Pope" is a pertinacious heretic shows that the hierarchy supporting him cannot be the Catholic Church. And if you say that God exists outside of the Catholic Church, you are a Protestant.
The VII Church has its false martyrs, its false saints, its false doctors. It is truly a detailed ape. That is part of the vast illusion of our time.
And yes, good people are and were caught in it. But instead of weeping over the dead, I prefer to concentrate on those who are still living -- "Let the dead bury the dead; you who are still living, come with me." You will get nowhere by mourning over the deceived, or showing solidarity with them by repeating their mistakes. Just pray that God has mercy on their souls, and then join the real Church -- the sedevacantists.
****
Simon of Cramaud, Patriarch of Alexandria, quoted in The Great Schism of the West by Louis Salembier, pg. 112 of the English edition --
"If the Pope scandalises the Church, he must be disobeyed: those who submit to him in such a case are guilty of mortal sin. To judge such a Pontiff, two or three judges suffice"
Hear that Caminus? The sedevacantist bishops are the one who have judged the heretical "pontiff" and we are not obliged to wait for the gangsters to police themselves.
"He must be condemned irrevocably, like Lucifer of yore... When the Pope falls into an already proscribed heresy, a new sentence is unnecessary, for he deserves less respect than any other Catholic."
So you see, it very much matters who is the Pope and who isn't. The entire existence of the Church hinges on it, in fact.
-
He got together an independent trad church in 1984, but that's not good enough for you, who only recently was baptised?
Bask in your own little glow.
-
Bask in your own little glow.
You are basking in something of your own, Elizabeth. And it certainly isn't right reason.
-
God Himself is not ambiguous
Care to stand behind your assertion?
-
It wasn't a rhetorical question then...how do you know that? Has the cat got his tongue or are you and he the same person? Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.
You did, in fact, suggest it. The "denial" sandwiched in between the two statements in bold make it clear you did, in fact, think something was up. Now, either you are a master of Orwellian double-speak, "There's nothing behind it, of course, but there must be...", or you are just a little on the slippery side.
And why does sedetrad care whether I come or go here?
Maybe it is because he, as I, smell something a little too 'familiar' about you.
-
It wasn't a rhetorical question then...how do you know that? Has the cat got his tongue or are you and he the same person? Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.
You did, in fact, suggest it. The "denial" sandwiched in between the two statements in bold make it clear you did, in fact, think something was up. Now, either you are a master of Orwellian double-speak, "There's nothing behind it, of course, but there must be...", or you are just a little on the slippery side.
And why does sedetrad care whether I come or go here?
Maybe it is because he, as I, smell something a little too 'familiar' about you.
Except I am now telling you that I don't think it and never have. It was a slight based upon the air of conspiracy that permeates here.
Maybe I write in a manner that is less than clear at times (I've been told that before); and you have a better grasp of composition? So what I wrote wasn't very clear; I can certainly admit that might be the case.
It's only fitting that "Orwellian double-speak" would be assumed first.
-
Maybe I write in a manner that is less than clear at times (I've been told that before)...
Well, to be fair to all, this medium is not the best in the world. I prefer "live" interaction, whether face to face or over the phone, as you can tell a lot from the inflection in a man's voice. Cheerio!
-
I prefer this medium as one can finish what one is saying w/o being hung up on or physically assaulted.
-
Bask in your own little glow.
You are basking in something of your own, Elizabeth. And it certainly isn't right reason.
:laugh2:
-
More on Hoffman and why he is dangerous. Here is a description of Freemasonic activities by one Francois Berckheim, a minister of police, in 1812, quoted in Nesta Webster's "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements" on pg. 260.
Berckheim was a Freemason himself, though of the lower degrees.
"The doctrine of Illuminism is subversive of every kind of monarchy; unlimited liberty, absolute levelling down, such is the fundamental dogma of the sect; to break the ties that bind the Sovereign to the citizen of a state, that is the object of all their efforts. No doubt some of the principal chiefs, amongst whom are numbered men distinguished for their fortune, their birth, and the dignities with which they are invested, are not the dupes of these demagogic dreams... But the crowd of adepts believe in it religiously, and in order to reach the goal shown to them, they maintain incessantly a hostile attitude towards sovereigns."
Now does not this perfectly describe the obsessive-compulsive drive towards "freedom" and hatred of authority and monarchy that characterizes Hoffman, perhaps soon to culminate in yet another cινιℓ ωαr or revolution based on false premises, so that America devolves into the endless revolution of South America, where the revolutionary hero of today is the tyrant of tomorrow? Alex Jones becomes Stalin, let's all brush up on our Orwell.
It can't help but present to the mind the picture of cockroaches fighting in the dirt over a pebble of roach poison that they think is a tasty crumb: FREEDOM they yell, FREEDOM their everpresent mantra, in the midst of the ruins and the ashes of order, this constant insensible refrain of FREEDOM! Tell a medieval peasant about his "liberty," "equality" and "rights," and he'd make the sign of the cross and spit at his feet, before asking you to quickly get out of his sight. That is because these Freemasonic concepts express the devil's credo of eternal disobedience. And Michael Hoffman is preaching Luciferianism under the guise of telling the truth about the Jews.
You cannot be Catholic and disrespect all authority. This is subversive of the very essence of Catholicism which is humility and obedience first to the Pope and then to the temporal ruler, unless he asks you to act against your faith. Hoffman is either an overly intellectual dupe ( an adept ) with a huge blind spot -- my suspicion -- or an Illuminatus ( a chief ).
Of course I know I'm talking to no one, as gladius would rather carry on his personal combat with SJB and SGG, and speak in some kind of code language full of insinuation that I am not privy to, having won for his efforts the plaudits of those in SSPX like Caminus who are in all likelihood not shedding tears at night over internecine sedevacantist squabbling.
If anyone needs me, I'll just be in my corner issuing solitary broadsides, "basking in my little glow." It is indeed little, Elizabeth, but it's what I have to work with; and like you I'm just trying to escape this labyrinth that I'm in.
-
Eliz says ' I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of the mystery of Rama Coomaswarmy'.
Eliz-- do you believe the Earth rev around the Sun?
-
Roscoe,
About our Earth and the Solar System:
Aside from loving to admire what God's Holy Angels do which is hold everything up and help all of what God has made,
I have always been sort of obdurate about Outer Space. I just don't like thinking about it, the infininity of it gives me the heebie-jeebies. I love to see the clouds and weather and the moon, but that's as far as it goes.
When my kids try to tell me about space I give them The Look because I can't stand NASA or the trillions in "space exploration". I don't care what they find out about space. I also hate the Air and Space Museum in DC. I felt nauseous when I watched "The Right Stuff" based on Thomas Wolfe's book (which I couldn't stand to read)
So I'm the wrong one to ask. The name Carl Sagan gives me hives. I don't even want to know the facts of space.
-
Raoul76,
I came to this conclusion in reference to Michael Hoffman awhile ago. You're not talking to no one. I hear you. Now, I shall return to skulking, er, I mean, lurking.
Pax Christi,
Brian
-
I have some major conflicts with Raoul but agree on this one.
-
Same here, and he made much stronger points than I would have been able to have done.
-
Just for the record, I don't think there is anything even potentially occult about Father Cekada.
He did defend Rama C. on Fisheaters, saying "Rama was a parishioner, a medical advisor and a friend of mine. I knew him very, very well. He was an honest, direct man, and would never lie."
I don't think I could even say my dear mother "wouldn't lie," let alone that Rama Coomaraswamy wouldn't lie. But this doesn't seem like a conspiracy or anything. Just that for some reason Father Cekada was charmed by Rama while he has a deep loathing for Malachi Martin, who he doesn't hesitate for one second to call a liar.
Rama and Martin both seem like the type who could have an agenda. Father Cekada does not strike me that way. He may be a priest with faults but that is nothing unusual for the Church in any age.
I know the site mostly hates him for the Terri Schiavo issue but I have not yet studied that thoroughly.
I strongly suggest that you do inform yourself about the Schiavo Case, especially as it relates to Fr. Cekada's position.
Please try this:
http://www.wftsradio.com/Schiavo.html
It would be wonderful if someone could point to the Catholic morality of this very public intervention on the part of Fr. Cekada. I have yet to read a SV defense of this episode-usually it is covered up for some reason.
I can certainly see why a die-hard anti una cuм soul would be embarrassed by this position. But the truth of the SV Theory is not proved by this position; they are seperate subjects.
I hope my linky works and I hope Raoul will take the time to inform himself.
-
-
Eliz says ' I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of the mystery of Rama Coomaswarmy'.
Eliz-- do you believe the Earth rev around the Sun?
In what perpendicular universe are these two ideas supposed to be connected? WTH, roscoe??? :fryingpan:
You are becoming like the EENS-ers: One issue dominates you so much that you work into discussion about badminton, the weather, EVERYTHING.
Your take on the whole thing, and the imbalanced way in which you insert it into all discussions, actually makes the truths that you DO present far less palatable. How can you not see this?
-
What a damnable heresy to suggest that it was acceptable to murder Terry Schiavo by depriving her of water and nourishment. To starve and dehydrate that woman was vile crime, to suggest her adulterous husband had a greater right than her family to make such a decision is also insufferable insolence.
Anyone who supports such a position is not fit to call himself a Catholic. They will face God's judgement for their moral depravity.
-
What a damnable heresy to suggest that it was acceptable to murder Terry Schiavo by depriving her of water and nourishment. To starve and dehydrate that woman was vile crime, to suggest her adulterous husband had a greater right than her family to make such a decision is also insufferable insolence.
Anyone who supports such a position is not fit to call himself a Catholic. They will face God's judgement for their moral depravity.
As you will for your words.
-
Of course I know I'm talking to no one, as gladius would rather carry on his personal combat with SJB and SGG, and speak in some kind of code language full of insinuation that I am not privy to, having won for his efforts the plaudits of those in SSPX like Caminus who are in all likelihood not shedding tears at night over internecine sedevacantist squabbling.
Ah, Raoul, I love you and God clearly love us both.
How often have I explained that my access to the net is at work, and irregular? I often do not read lengthy posts the first day or week they are up, but only when I have extra time online. Normally, I must take care of email, check the news, and take care of other business first, coming here last, often to deal with highly-explosive matters. Once you have walked in my shoes, as they are at present, you may then act as if you know anything about what I do and why. That said, I praise the will of God, as He is taking incredible care to strip the disordered, filthy soul of His most ungrateful, undeserving child. I am presently being stripped of the few things that have brought me any consolation during my time in an horrendously hot and dry desert. So be it. What a good God we have!
Sadly but humorously, you have now turned on me without provocation of any kind. You had mentioned the possibility of me, for example, turning upon Droleskey, etc. Look at what has come to pass.
God, I love you, and wonder why you love me so much!!
Godspeed, my friend. THANK YOU!!!
-
Sorry for the typos. I am on a Mac at a friend's, and the keyboard is not as easy to use (at least not for me). Cheers! :cheers:
-
I often do not read lengthy posts the first day or week they are up, but only when I have extra time online.
Btw, I LOVE your lengthy and often-profound posts, Raoul - I just do not always have time to read them in full, reflect upon them, and respond as they deserve when I first see them. This will soon change, as I am on my way to FL now. Godspeed.
-
-
I post this to further discussion only, not to support any particular view. This was written at the time of the controversy, 2005, I believe, before many other facts were disclosed:
Where are your reading glasses? I'm actually with you on this one, but something is clouding your vision. Are you willing to condemn Thomas Fleming here...or can you at least try to understand him. I don't believe he is actually supporting murder; do you?
-
Who said anything about "condemning" Thomas Fleming?
The article you posted by him is very poor. My eyes got very tired from such garbage as "...her condition and death, so far from being a willing sacrifice, is the result, apparently, of binge dieting."
Actually, that was from Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos in 2003. I am sorry that Fleming was too stupid to know about George Felos, the euthanasia advocate, Hemlock Society member and author of very evil books.
What am I supposed to understand about Fleming? He was too lazy to find out about Terri's "accident"?
When Terri had her "accident" Michael first called Terri's brother Bobby who lived nearby, then he called Terri's Dad, who told him to call 911. But then he called his lawyer, and finally called 911. She was covered in bruises and laying face down. He had made no attempt to help her.
Call me heartless about Thomas Fleming, but he wrote, "I do not know what Mrs. Schiavo's husband ought to do, but I do know that the decision belongs to him and not Jeb or George Bush." I never said I condemned Fleming, but he does a good job of it himself by "not knowing" but not bothering to know the facts. This had been going on for years before poor Mr. Fleming's lame article was published.
I don't know if he was supporting the murder of Terri Schiavo, and it seems that he doesn't know, either. Just like he doesn't know if Terri is in a better place now. Is he supposed to be Catholic?
Why does anyone pretend that the Schiavo case was about anything other than a euthanasia from the get-go? (aside from whatever caused Terri's brain damage in the first place?)
-
Who said anything about "condemning" Thomas Fleming?
I asked if you were willing to condemn him for his opinion. It's a simple question.
The article you posted by him is very poor. My eyes got very tired from such garbage as ...her condition and death, so far from being a willing sacrifice, is the result, apparently, of binge dieting.
Actually, that was from Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos in 2003. I am sorry that Fleming was too stupid to know about George Felos, the euthanasia advocate, Hemlock Society member and author of very evil books.
So Thomas Fleming is stupid. Not just wrong, but stupid?
What am I supposed to understand about Fleming? He was too lazy to find out about Terri's "accident"?
And now he is lazy, too. I'm not sure the "accident" is relevant to the question at the time (2005). Mr. Fleming did state that the law might be changed to remove rights from a spouse such as Mr. Schiavo, who might not have her best interests in mind. A spouse living with another woman might be cause to terminate guardianship.
When Terri had her "accident" Michael first called Terri's brother Bobby who lived nearby, then he called Terri's Dad, who told him to call 911. But then he called his lawyer, and finally called 911. She was covered in bruises and laying face down. He had made no attempt to help her.
Right, and this could be grounds to terminate guardianship...pretty good grounds, I'd say.
Call me heartless about Thomas Fleming, but he wrote, "I do not know what Mrs. Schiavo's husband ought to do, but I do know that the decision belongs to him and not Jeb or George Bush."
I agree with him here. He was saying that the rights of the spouse should not be trampled on to get at Mr. Schiavo. See Thomas More on this one. Even if you don't agree, you should see that it is a reasonable position.
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
I never said I condemned Fleming, but he does a good job of it himself by "not knowing" but not bothering to know the facts. This had been going on for years before poor Mr. Fleming's lame article was published.
I didn't know about it, either. And it really is besides his point.
I don't know if he was supporting the murder of Terri Schiavo, and it seems that he doesn't know, either.
You think he might have been supporting the willful killing of an innocent AS the willful killing of an innocent. If you answer no, it won't be as if you'd agreed with him. But I don't think you can see that, for some reason.
Just like he doesn't know if Terri is in a better place now. Is he supposed to be Catholic?
The truth is that we don't know. If she no longer had the use of reason, required to make any human act, she would be assumed to be in the state she was in at the time of her "accident". The truth is that we do not know. That doesn't mean there was no hope...many people were praying for her. I think this is a question where we do no further inquiry, as it is not our place to know these things.
Why does anyone pretend that the Schiavo case was about anything other than a euthanasia from the get-go? (aside from whatever caused Terri's brain damage in the first place?)
Nobody is pretending. I think there is a valid opinion that the intervention of the government in this case would set a dangerous precedent...allowing the state to control the end of life. Do you allow opinions other than your own?
-
I think there is a valid opinion that the intervention of the government in this case would set a dangerous precedent...allowing the state to control the end of life. Do you allow opinions other than your own?
The government has the obligation to prevent murder. No one can legitimately support the starvation and dehydration of Terry Schiavo. No one can legitimately defend government non-interference in the case. There is no right to do what is wrong.
There's no surer proof that Father Cekada is not Catholic than his position on this.
-
I think there is a valid opinion that the intervention of the government in this case would set a dangerous precedent...allowing the state to control the end of life. Do you allow opinions other than your own?
The government has the obligation to prevent murder. No one can legitimately support the starvation and dehydration of Terry Schiavo. No one can legitimately defend government non-interference in the case. There is no right to do what is wrong.
There's no surer proof that Father Cekada is not Catholic than his position on this.
:applause:
And as it turns out, SJB actually does have an opinion on the article he posted, despite pretending otherwise.
The followers of Fr. Cekada always SWITCH the point and try to manipulate those who point out how utterly depraved the apologists for Michael Schiavo and George Felos are.
Dressing such evil up in gobbldy-gook, intellectual pretentiousness, or in SJB's case, agreeing with Fleming.
Fleming is stupid, because he does not know that the right thing to do would be very easy:
Give Terri back to her Mother and Father who wanted to care for her. It's really simple. Michael wanted to kill Terri, and hired a euthanasia lawyer to finish the job. That was pure evil.
Any child can understand how evil the Terri Sciavo case is, and how depraved are those supporting Michael Schiavo.
Fr. Cekada's position on this is depraved and the Manuals prove it, SJB.
-
I think there is a valid opinion that the intervention of the government in this case would set a dangerous precedent...allowing the state to control the end of life. Do you allow opinions other than your own?
The government has the obligation to prevent murder. No one can legitimately support the starvation and dehydration of Terry Schiavo. No one can legitimately defend government non-interference in the case. There is no right to do what is wrong.
Sure, and I agree. I don't think the refusal of water or ice chips can be defended at all. I quoted Thomas Fleming because I know there is no pre-existing opinion about him. But you didn't condemn him by name, did you? Why? Did he just have his facts wrong? Or is he a non-Catholic?
-
I think there is a valid opinion that the intervention of the government in this case would set a dangerous precedent...allowing the state to control the end of life. Do you allow opinions other than your own?
The government has the obligation to prevent murder. No one can legitimately support the starvation and dehydration of Terry Schiavo. No one can legitimately defend government non-interference in the case. There is no right to do what is wrong.
There's no surer proof that Father Cekada is not Catholic than his position on this.
:applause:
And as it turns out, SJB actually does have an opinion on the article he posted, despite pretending otherwise.
The followers of Fr. Cekada always SWITCH the point and try to manipulate those who point out how utterly depraved the apologists for Michael Schiavo and George Felos are.
Dressing such evil up in gobbldy-gook, intellectual pretentiousness, or in SJB's case, agreeing with Fleming.
Fleming is stupid, because he does not know that the right thing to do would be very easy:
Give Terri back to her Mother and Father who wanted to care for her. It's really simple. Michael wanted to kill Terri, and hired a euthanasia lawyer to finish the job. That was pure evil.
Any child can understand how evil the Terri Sciavo case is, and how depraved are those supporting Michael Schiavo.
Fr. Cekada's position on this is depraved and the Manuals prove it, SJB.
You are so wrong on this one. I can show you my opinions at the time of the controversy and they are not what you think they are. You assume the worst, calling others "stupid" and "lazy". Take your petty hatred and bother somebody else with it.
You and some of your cohorts call others "non-Catholics" all while whining about "una-cuм". There seem to be some striking similarities between you and those you so dislike. You might want to have a think on that one.
You make almost everything turn towards a discussion on Schiavo. Belloc makes everything turn to a discussion on distributism. He's got one up on you. You are dogmatic about this, yet the Church has not weighed in on it DIRECTLY.
-
:shocked:
Is SJB Fr. Cekada?
Sorry you didn't like my opinion of Fleming's article, but you posted it. It seemed to me you were neutral about it. I am not neutral about euthanasia, nor is the Church.
:roll-laugh1: I'm not the one whining about "una cuм".
That would be your clergy at SGG who are whining about "una cuм". Go to an SSPX Mass and see what happens if you try to eneter SGG property. You know full well that a family was expelled and denied access to the property to hear a talk by Dr. Droleskey, because it is a "grave sin" to go to una cuм Benedict Masses. Plus, he was told he may lead to the damnation of others by his very presence. Why don't you tell them to "take their petty hatred and bother someone else with it"?
I make almost everything into a discussion about Terri Schiavo? Prove it. Maybe you just don't like the subject and it feels bad to become informed about it.
Chill out, SJB whoever you are. You are an aggressive debater-don't dish it out if you can't take it. :cheers:
-
You assume the worst...Take your petty hatred and bother somebody else with it.
"Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. You're black." I know Elizabeth well, and she is more filled with real love than the vast majority of the inmates of Traddieland could even begin to comprehend.
You and some of your cohorts call others "non-Catholics" all while whining about "una-cuм". There seem to be some striking similarities between you and those you so dislike. You might want to have a think on that one.
The first sentence contains a gross falsehood: strike one. Even if it was true, it is not ad rem/germane to the present discussion: strike two.
The last part can only be responded to with the same idea above ("Hello, Kettle..."), one I have rightly used as a response to your comments at least four times now (although you never address the fact, nor the fitness of the point I make in using this common saying).
Have a blessed Sunday, all.
-
:roll-laugh1: I'm not the one whining about "una cuм".
Hey! Don't confuse me with the facts, woman! :wink:
-
Why don't you tell them to "take their petty hatred and bother someone else with it"?
They have already tried to lord it over all in Traddiieland. They have to search far and wide find any more sheep to shear unto blood.
-
You assume the worst...Take your petty hatred and bother somebody else with it.
"Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. You're black." I know Elizabeth well, and she is more filled with real love than the vast majority of the inmates of Traddieland could even begin to comprehend.
That may very well be true. I'm not seeing it right here, though, in this venue. But I'm willing to take your word for it. I will say no more on the matter, and try to think the best thoughts.
You and some of your cohorts call others "non-Catholics" all while whining about "una-cuм". There seem to be some striking similarities between you and those you so dislike. You might want to have a think on that one.
The first sentence contains a gross falsehood: strike one. Even if it was true, it is not ad rem/germane to the present discussion: strike two.
If I misread what was said. fine. I can't see it right now:
There's no surer proof that Father Cekada is not Catholic than his position on this.
:applause:
The last part can only be responded to with the same idea above ("Hello, Kettle..."), one I have rightly used as a response to your comments at least four times now (although you never address the fact, nor the fitness of the point I make in using this common saying).
I think you'd have to admit that nobody has really addressed any of the points that I made above either. I was contra-Fr. C on Schiavo. I made it known publicly. I can prove it, but I shouldn't have to, because I just said it.
Have a blessed Sunday, all.
A blessed Sunday for you as well. :)
-
I was just looking over my first long post here to see if any apology was due to Rama Coomaraswamy ( Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy )?
I do owe an apology to Malachi Martin for saying that he should be under suspicion of peddling disinfo. But I have apologized to him before. It is not suspicion but fact that he portrayed himself as an "insider" and yet was more wrong than sede "outsiders."
Regarding Coomaraswamy, as usual I was far more imprudent back then, but some of the points I brought up are germane; such as how he defends his father, that he hasn't cut ties with Perennialism in a firm and clear way, etc.
-
I was just looking over my first long post here to see if any apology was due to Rama Coomaraswamy ( Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy )?
I do owe an apology to Malachi Martin for saying that he should be under suspicion of peddling disinfo. But I have apologized to him before. It is not suspicion but fact that he portrayed himself as an "insider" and yet was more wrong than sede "outsiders."
Regarding Coomaraswamy, as usual I was far more imprudent back then, but some of the points I brought up are germane; such as how he defends his father, that he hasn't cut ties with Perennialism in a firm and clear way, etc.
Faithful Mr. Raoul76,
We're addressing quite a difficult topic here: The question of the "virtuous Pagans." Please note that no one is referring to holiness in this matter, only to virtue. Clearly no non-Catholic could ever be holy in any way, but non-Catholics can be and often are virtuous. So clearly Perennialism is not Catholic, is Pagan and therefore lacks all holiness utterly and forever. But some Perennialists are and have been virtuous men and their scholarship can be of some benefit to some Catholics.
If Pagans can have no virtue, then on what natural basis do some of them manage to convert to the one true religion? Grace must perfect nature, but it doesn't destroy and replace nature. In fact Protestants are also Pagans, so if there were no Pagan virtue we would simply have to annihilate the Prots around us and be done with them. The existence of Pagan virtue is therefore of more than a little relevance to us (and to the Protestants too!).
There is no such thing as a virtuous Marxist or a virtuous Catholic member of the Freemasons. Therefore we are in a holy war to the death with those diabolical men, but not all Pagans are so bad as the Marxists or nominally Catholic Freemasons. As Catholics we are not in any war to the death with Protestants or with other non-Marxist, non-Masonic religions. That isn't the true teaching of our Church and we need to be clear about this critically important theology. Extremely vast numbers of lives depend on this moral clarity from us.
Surely it would have been gravely sinful for Fr. Coomaraswamy not to have honored his own father, whether his father were a holy Roman Catholic or merely a virtuous Pagan. Conversion to the one true faith doesn't obligate converts like Fr. Coomaraswamy to disavow and personally condemn their beloved parents. The Commandments still apply.
Also clearly Fr. Coomaraswamy was no saint and his false teaching about married priests in the Latin Rite is abhorrent. But our holy religion also teaches us that sins of the flesh, at least in other people, are nothing like as serious as the sin of heresy. (In ourselves we probably can never be too ferocious against sins of the flesh, but that's another topic.) Fr. Coomaraswamy was clearly a public sinner yet, as we Catholics humbly say, "but for the grace of God there go I."
His respect for his own father's brilliant Perennialist scholarship was not sinful and did not indicate heresy in him in any way. Rejection of filial piety is usually an even greater sin that the great shame of public sins of the flesh such as priestly marriage. So Fr. Coomaraswamy was not respectable. But he was no heathen Perennialist heretic and he did honor his own virtuous Pagan father, as it was his solemn moral duty to do.
-
The Final Nail in Malachi Martin's Coffin
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-final-nail-in-malachi-martins-coffin.html