Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on March 24, 2011, 12:14:29 PM
-
I had no participation or connection with the e-mail discussion which produced this.
Nevertheless, it might be of interest to some of you.
[written by an Australian Lefebvr*te]
Re: Williamson dismisses 'neo-nαzι' legal counsel
24 November 2010
it is quite evident that Williamson is a morally scabrous αnтι-ѕємιтє.
That is why he denies the existence of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. The only reason
why people deny this well-established fact is because of antisemitism;
the denial serves to whitewash an antisemitic regime and to deny an
event that made antisemitism beyond the pale. It is not because of a
disinterested spirit of historical inquiry, because there is nothing
in the historical record that can prompt such a denial. For those of
you who complain that this statement is judging him without hearing
his case, or begging the question; you are missing the point. There
are some facts that are obvious on the face of them, and this is one
of them. With such facts, argument is not only not necessary, but not
appropriate, because giving such arguments implicitly concedes that
they are needed. You may complain that this implies that some of you
are being accused of folly and wilful blindness to evil when it come
to Williamson. Well, that's right.
On the numbers of people killed; upwards of three million six hundred
thousand individual names of Jєωs who were killed have been collected
(see http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/names/why_collect_names.asp).
This worthy project is not of course necessary to establish the
approximate number of Jєωs killed, because that can be done by
comparing the number of Jєωs living before the Second World War in
areas that were occupied by the Germans (about 6 million) and after
the second world war (a few hundred thousand). The differences between
these two figures is not accounted for by Jєωs who popped up somewhere
else in the world, as very few Jєωs managed to emigrate from
German-occupied areas during the war.
On the idea that because nαzιsm is an exploded philosophy, there is no
reason for taking sympathy with its goal of exterminating the Jєωs
seriously; this is not true. The desire and expressed purpose of many
Muslim groups and states is the total extermination of the Jєωs. The
current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is now building
nuclear weapons for just that purpose. I note that these same groups
also intend to extirpate Christianity (Ahmadinejad, by the way, has
pushed a law through making death the sole available penalty for men
who convert to Christianity). This is a specific reason for Christians
to sympathise with the Jєωs on this issue; the people who want to
destroy them want to destroy us.
Williamson was in fact notorious as an αnтι-ѕємιтє even
before this scandal. I had myself heard about this fact; it is
chronicled in the paper by an alumnus of his seminary, J. Christopher
Pryor, 'Cathoilcism and the Teachings of Bishop Williamson', that can
be found at this website -
http://www.jsantisemitism.org/pdf/jsa_1-2.pdf. The paper is
fascinating in a number of ways.
There is a broader interest to this Williamson affair, which
is why I am writing on it at this length. His views on the Jєωs were
at one time respectable and widely held within the Church. For
evidence of this, one can look at a book I came across recently by Fr.
Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (Dublin:
Browne and Nolan, 1935). The book has an imprimatur and Fr. Fahey was
quite influential in Ireland in his day, and indeed worked for good
causes such as the recognition by the Irish State of Catholicism as a
divinely revealed religion. Much of the book's content is good - until
it reaches the topic of the Jєωs, who, Fr. Fahey tells us, are in fact
behind a giant world conspiracy to destroy Christianity that is
responsible for all the evils that have befallen the Church since the
Middle Ages. This kind of stuff was promoted at the highest level of
the Church in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; it
was often put forward by the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica and the
French Catholic journal La Croix.
These kinds of views are important for two reasons.The first
is their morally corrupting effect. The Jєωs are not in fact operating
a giant world conspiracy to destroy Christianity. Secular Jєωs accept
and promote secularism, an idea developed by ex-Christians (Voltaire
etc.) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Religious Jєωs
mind their own business and do no concern themselves with the Gentile
world around them - an important fact, as the anti-semitic conspiracy
theorists base their claims on the tenets they assert are found in
Rabbinic Judaism. Asserting that the Jєωs are operating such a
conspiracy is thus a grave slander. Those who do assert it use these
beliefs to justify hatred and malice towards Jєωs. Lying, hatred and
malice are the vilest passions of human nature. The legitimisation of
conspiracy theories about Jєωs in the Church fostered these passions,
and thus had a terribly morally corrupting effect. This corruption has
a lot to do directly with the parlous state of the Church today. The
current state of the Society of Jesus is I believe explained by a
great extent by its antisemitic past: directly, as sapping the moral
fibre of members of the Society; and indirectly, as providing a motive
to whitewash themselves by embracing progressive causes after the
h0Ɩ0cαųst made their past views unrespectable. We can call this last
phenomenon the 'Gunter Grass' effect. Grass. you may remember, is a
German novelist who distinguished himself for his moralising left-wing
pieties throught his public career - and admitted, late in life, to
having met a young man, Joseph Ratzinger, when they were both
prisoners of war of the Americans; Ratzinger, an anti-nαzι, having
deserted from the Army, but Grass having been captured after
volunteering for the Waffen SS. The connection between his voluntary
SS membership and his subsequent progressive views is too obvious to
need labouring. The journal La Croix still exists -and is the main
organ of French modernism; this also is connected to the Grass effect.
The conversion of Cardinal Suhard in France to modernism after the
Second World War, an event with big repercussions, had a similar
motive (de Gaulle refused to allow Suhard to take part in the mass of
thanksgiving for the liberation at Notre Dame in 1944 because he had
been so friendly with the German occupiers).
These facts about the history of Catholic antisemitism are
difficult I find for many cradle Catholics to look in the face,
because many of the people they love and respect - priests and
relatives of the older generation - will have shared and expressed
antisemitic views of this kind. In some cases as well these people
will have been largely innocent in their views, because they were
simply repeating, without knowing any better, what had been told to
them by people they in turn looked up to and trusted. But in other
cases, there will have been the secret pleasure of being excused from
the very onerous Christian duties of love, and being seemingly given
official permission to hate and despise. You can still unfortunately
see indulgence and pleasure in these bad passions on the faces of some
traditionalist Catholics today when the topic of the Jєωs comes up.
That is why Williamson is not simply dismissed as the vile old fool he
is; his views touch a sensitive nerve.
I must note however one very positive aspect of the affair; a bishop
is actually being held responsible for his actions and subject to
discipline, an event unknown in the Novus Ordo wing of the church
(consider Law, Weakland, not to mention others closer to home).
-
The desire and expressed purpose of many
Muslim groups and states is the total extermination of the Jєωs.
The current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is now building nuclear weapons for just that purpose
wow, I think he just betrayed either bad faith or stupidity there.
-
The Jєωs are not in fact operating
a giant world conspiracy to destroy Christianity.
They run Hollywood and the media.
Secular Jєωs accept
and promote secularism, an idea developed by ex-Christians (Voltaire
etc.) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
Why is it that "secular" Jєωs are loyal to a state that financially supports Orthodox Judaism? This guy is trying to make us see a sharp antagonism between observant Jєωs and secular Jєωs - as though it were parallel to the the antagonism between secularists and Christians. In fact it's quite the opposite - Jєωs - be they religious or not - are vehemenly anti-Christian and it is their Jєωιѕн upbringing that is largely responsible.
When it comes to the Jєωιѕн war on Christianity - the best place to look is abortion - on the issue of abortion, the secular Jєωs and the Orthodox Jєωs really quite close - if we look at the virulent support of abortion from Jєωs who claim the тαℓмυd is a great influence on them - like Ruth Bader Ginsburg - we can really see the connection. The gentile babies are dehumanized. Charles Schumer will support pregnancy centers in Israel that help Jєωιѕн girls put babies for adoption instead of aborting, but for gentile babies - throw them in the trash.
Religious Jєωs
mind their own business and do no concern themselves with the Gentile
world around them
This is an outrageous and ridiculous remark. Some of the early generations of the Rothschild dynasty were very observant.
This guy is desperately thrashing away, hoping and praying he can browbeat the opposition.
-
WTG Tele. Couldnt have said it better! BTW, the term "anti semite" was invented by the Jєωs themselves! :applause:
-
There are some facts that are obvious on the face of them, and this is one of them.
Exactly right. And when +W declared that there were no 'gas chambers' at Auschwitz or any other alleged "death camp," he was declaring an obvious fact, based upon all the forensic and historical evidence available. If, as I am given to understand, the writer of this piece is a "Lefebvrite," then SSPXers have real trouble right from within their own ranks.
-
Telesphorus,
Have met any actual Jєωs? I mean real people, not characters from a medieval morality play or the radio play version of the Protocols?
I have. I happily number many of them among my family and friends. Whatever his other virtues may be, Bishop Williamson is completely out of it here.
Apparently his superior Bishop Fellay thought so to. It is hard to understand whey he would tell Bishop W. to be quiet otherwise.
-
Telesphorus,
Have met any actual Jєωs? I mean real people, not characters from a medieval morality play or the radio play version of the Protocols?
I sure have. Plenty of them. I'll never forget how I once compared abortion to the h0Ɩ0cαųst in a "philosophy" class at a Catholic school and the Jєω in the room became incensed. The teacher was gravely offended, I had comments on my midterm report. The bottom line is that the sensibilities of Jєωιѕн students were more important than the Catholic teaching that abortion is murder to these people.
I grew up across the street from an old Jєω a gentile wife 33 years younger than him. His son died before him, but not before getting his wife kicked out of the house before he died so he could rewrite the will for his senile father. His wife died less than a year after him.
I have. I happily number many of them among my family and friends.
Among your family? Are they Catholics? Are you happy they are Jєωs?
Whatever his other virtues may be, Bishop Williamson is completely out of it here.
Sorry Sigismund, but anyone who doesn't recognize the danger the Jєωs as a body pose to the rest of us is not facing reality as a Catholic.
Apparently his superior Bishop Fellay thought so to. It is hard to understand whey he would tell Bishop W. to be quiet otherwise.
It's hard to understand how the rest of the SSPX can pretend they weren't responsible for letting Bishop Williamson say these things for decades. If they thought it was so wrong they could have told him to tone it down. When we see Bishop Fellay hiring someone as a lawyer who attends fundraisers for Zionist universities - speaking on behalf of the Society about Bishop Williamson in court - when we see Bishop Fellay comparing his fellow bishop to "uranium" - then the problem is with Bishop Fellay - not Bishop Williamson.
Persecuting Bishop Williamson for his beliefs is wrong. It's one thing to tell him to be silent - it's another to effectively shut him out of the workings of the society - it's wrong, it's craven, and it's a betrayal.
-
That is why he denies the existence of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. The only reason why people deny this well-established fact is because of antisemitism...
We deny it because it is not a fact, well-established or otherwise...or, rather, we deny that the 'facts' that have been shoved down our throats are factual/substantiated/etc...
-
It is hard to understand whey he would tell Bishop W. to be quiet otherwise.
No, it is rather easy to conceive of other reasons.
-
Yes, I had two neighbors who were WWII vets - both of them who married women around the age of my parents - one was very old and has passed away, the other went into the Marine Corps at 17. The Jєω first married a woman, a gentile 7 years older than him and had several children by her. He owned the house on this street before WWII. She died. He then married the young woman and they never had children. The younger one married a woman who was part Indian in the late 40s. She abandoned him and their son and left my neighbor to raise his son alone. He married a woman a few years younger than my mother. She had been married before young and had two sons who were my childhood playmates.
My next door neighbor had been raised by his uncle on a farm. His mother had to work and his father was out of the picture. He used to milk cows every day. He drove a truckload of cows from Wisconsin when he was 15. At 17 he was in the Marine Corps - at the end of the war he was attending Yale in an accelerated program - but didn't finish.
He was union liberal democrat, pro-abortion, non-religious.
-
For evidence of this, one can look at a book I came across recently by Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1935). The book has an imprimatur and Fr. Fahey was quite influential in Ireland in his day, and indeed worked for good causes such as the recognition by the Irish State of Catholicism as a divinely revealed religion. Much of the book's content is good - until
it reaches the topic of the Jєωs, who, Fr. Fahey tells us, are in fact behind a giant world conspiracy to destroy Christianity that is responsible for all the evils that have befallen the Church since the Middle Ages.
So, this douche bag denies that which is easily substantiated, while accepting as dogma that which is notably unsubstantiated? Nonsense.
-
Telesphorus said:
This guy is trying to make us see a sharp antagonism between observant Jєωs and secular Jєωs - as though it were parallel to the the antagonism between secularists and Christians. In fact it's quite the opposite - Jєωs - be they religious or not - are vehemenly anti-Christian and it is their Jєωιѕн upbringing that is largely responsible.
Exactly.
I have a friend who calls me up, having read Belloc or something like that, as if he's made a great discovery, to tell me that some Jєωs are Zionists but the others are innocently unaware of what's happening.
Henry Makow, a Jєω, also uses this line -- there are the Zionist Jєωs, and then there are the Jєωs who oppose the depredations of Israel.
The way for Jєωs to really oppose Israel is to become Catholic. But for non-Zionist Jєωs to oppose Zionist Jєωs smacks to me of Hegelian propaganda, playing both sides, because nothing ever really comes of their "protests." It's mainly a way to take heat off the Jєωs as a people, to make you think "Oh, they're not a threat as a body, as a group."
Thusly, they make you think there are "good Jєωs" and "bad Jєωs," but it's about as meaningless as Republicans vs. Democrats, or of Modernist Ratzinger vs. Traditional Ratzinger. It's all part of the same diabolical disorientation.
Whether Zionist or non-Zionist, secular or "religious," these Jєωs are not Catholic. And it is an incontestable fact that they own the entire media, and all of Hollywood, which means they control ALL of what you see, unless you haunt obscure corners of the Internet as, thankfully, more and more people are learning to do.
Now imagine if Hungarians came to America and took over almost every single major source of information. Wouldn't you find that a bit strange? Wouldn't you wonder why these Hungarians had such a plan? Now think that the Jєωs are the ones who killed Christ, that they took the blood of Christ upon themselves and on their children, that historically they have been the most obstinate foes of the Catholic Church, and that now they control almost ALL your information, in a time when the Catholic Church, not coincidentally, has been attacked right at its root, from Rome, where the so-called Popes are constantly licking the boot of the Jєωs...
And yet people will pooh-pooh this indescribably ominous truth, and say "Oh, no they don't control the media," though it's a provable fact that two seconds of research will unveil, or maybe they just won't care at all.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, what else can I say.
-
He was union liberal democrat, pro-abortion, non-religious
The Catholic Church is pro-union. Don't fall for that Tea Party junk.
You can't find the truth by doing the opposite of what the Jєωs do. They don't just lie, they mix truth with lies.
It is dismaying to see that so many Catholics think they have to follow a political program. Because they are anti-abortion, and thus are necessarily Republican, they also become pro-Iraq War and believe Muslims did 9/11 and support the psychotic corporations that have destroyed the economy. Yet they think they are economic geniuses and that money trickles down from the top, from the same corporations that rape the world.
Remember, Catholics were Democrats until Roe vs. Wade. That means pro-union, big government, that is Catholic social justice. It's not an ideal situation, but considering the Church has no real power anymore, and not enough charities to really help the poor, some kind of protection of the working-class is necessary.
The correct Catholic position in our time is anti-abortion, pro-union. But you will not find that in any single political party, and that is no accident.
-
Only a Jєω or those brainwashed or paid by them could come up with such tripe. Fr. Denis Fahey quote Jєωιѕн sources when he lists the numbers of Jєωs in the world before and after WWII and the numbers increased.
-
I have. I happily number many of them among my family and friends.
Are you Jєωιѕн too Sigismund? You spend an awful lot of time attacking those who defend the Faith and labelling them "anit-semites". You say members of your family are Jєωιѕн. I wonder if you could ever find it in yourself to defend the Church against Jєωιѕн Anti-Christian attacks.
-
Bishop Williamson is completely out of it here.
Was St. John Chrysostom also an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" and "completely out of here" when he wrote his 8 sermons against Jєωs?
"How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jєωs, those most miserable of all men. They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits -- pests of the universe! Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jєωs are impure and impious, and their ѕуηαgσgυє is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jєω. As a matter of fact, Jєωs worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their ѕуηαgσgυє an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are Jєωs degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and dispersion of the Jєωs was the work of God, not of emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jєωs. Thus, the Jєω will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jєωs, and on Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them., "Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!" Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the ѕуηαgσgυє, hold it in hatred and aversion". -St. John Chrysostom
-
I have. I happily number many of them among my family and friends.
Are you Jєωιѕн too Sigismund? You spend an awful lot of time attacking those who defend the Faith and labelling them "anit-semites". You say members of your family are Jєωιѕн. I wonder if you could ever find it in yourself to defend the Church against Jєωιѕн Anti-Christian attacks.
I am not Jєωιѕн. The Jєωs in my family are there by marriage, and are pretty distant relatives. I would prefer they were Catholics, not because I hate Jєωs but because I wish everyone who is not a Catholic would become one.
I would defend the Church against anti-Christian attacks from anyone. Some Jєωs have attacked the church. Abe Foxman is an example of this. My relatives and friends who are Jєωιѕн have never done so.
The notion that the h0Ɩ0cαųst did not happen is just silly. I am sorry, GV, but it is. It is no more grounded in fact that geo-centrism or the idea that the earth is flat.
-
Bishop Williamson is completely out of it here.
Was St. John Chrysostom also an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" and "completely out of here" when he wrote his 8 sermons against Jєωs?
Yes, he was. Being a saint does not make you perfect or infallible.
-
Telesphorus,
I completely agree with the quote from you below.
It's hard to understand how the rest of the SSPX can pretend they weren't responsible for letting Bishop Williamson say these things for decades. If they thought it was so wrong they could have told him to tone it down.
-
Yes, he was. Being a saint does not make you perfect or infallible.
You can't say someone is a saint and evil at the same time.
-
The notion that the h0Ɩ0cαųst did not happen is just silly. I am sorry, GV, but it is. It is no more grounded in fact that geo-centrism or the idea that the earth is flat.
No one said NOTHING happened. What is disputed are the facts about what DID happen. It was not a wholesale slaughter of Jєωs, nor did 6 million die.
IMO, the numbers are WAY lower than the Judaics continually cram down or throats. What is more, I believe elements within Judaism were responsible for it. A h0Ɩ0cαųst is an offering made by one who owns the thing offered. The Judaics gladly sacrifice some of their own to advance the cause of the Jєωιѕн nation.
-
Was St. John Chrysostom also an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" ... when he wrote his 8 sermons against Jєωs?
Yes, he was.
"What is DEAD WRONG, Alex?"
-
The notion that the h0Ɩ0cαųst did not happen is just silly. I am sorry, GV, but it is. It is no more grounded in fact that geo-centrism or the idea that the earth is flat.
No one said NOTHING happened. What is disputed are the facts about what DID happen.
There was a LOT of atrocity propaganda in WWII, and it's not true to believe today's historians are really free to criticize it as much as they should.
Just reading the Nuremberg Trial transcript is enough to convince anyone that much of the "evidence" consisted of fabricated accounts that were no better than atrocity propaganda.
When I read the books of the historians of that time they seem to avoid some of the more lurid charges - it was obvious many people at that time were rather skeptical of the true extent of what was claimed.
-
I would prefer they were Catholics, not because I hate Jєωs but because I wish everyone who is not a Catholic would become one.
Who ever said anything about hating Jєωs Sigismund? What are you insinuating? If there is any hatred, it is what you hold towards His Excellency Bishop Williamson.
This forum was set up in support of Bishop Williamson as everyone else was stabbing him in the back as you are. Why then are you on this forum other than to mud sling?
If you want to burn incense :incense: to your golden calf of the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" go to your local ѕуηαgσgυє and keep your garbage off this forum.
-
I have. I happily number many of them among my family and friends.
Are you Jєωιѕн too Sigismund? You spend an awful lot of time attacking those who defend the Faith and labelling them "anit-semites". You say members of your family are Jєωιѕн. I wonder if you could ever find it in yourself to defend the Church against Jєωιѕн Anti-Christian attacks.
I am not Jєωιѕн. The Jєωs in my family are there by marriage, and are pretty distant relatives. I would prefer they were Catholics, not because I hate Jєωs but because I wish everyone who is not a Catholic would become one.
I would defend the Church against anti-Christian attacks from anyone. Some Jєωs have attacked the church. Abe Foxman is an example of this. My relatives and friends who are Jєωιѕн have never done so.
The notion that the h0Ɩ0cαųst did not happen is just silly. I am sorry, GV, but it is. It is no more grounded in fact that geo-centrism or the idea that the earth is flat.
And what evidence can you produce to support your "dogma" of the "h0Ɩ0cαųst"?
Can you give me an honest and straightforward answer as to why the World 1947 Almanac estimates the world Jєωιѕн population to be 15.5 million in 1939 and the 1948 New York Times (Jєω owned) estimated the world Jєωιѕн population to be between 15.7 and 18.6 million?
So to be conservative with Figures:
1939 - 15,500,000 Jєωs
1948 - 15,700,000 Jєωs
6,000,000 + 200,000 = 6,200,000
We have an increase in the world Jєωιѕн population of 6,200,000 in 9 years!
If we were to be liberal with the figures we would have a 9,100,000 increase in the population in 9 years.
Wow, that is really plausible!
-
Bishop Williamson is completely out of it here.
Was St. John Chrysostom also an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" and "completely out of here" when he wrote his 8 sermons against Jєωs?
Yes, he was. Being a saint does not make you perfect or infallible.
Our Lord: John 8:44-47
"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."
Does being God "not make you perfect or infallible"?
Our Lord: Matthew:12-34
O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Was Our Lord an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" and "completely out of here"?
At least try and come up with some honest answers.
St. Steven: Acts 7:51-55
You stiffnecked and uncircuмcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
St. Steven sounds awfully "anti-semitic" here though strangely enough he is "full of the Holy Gost"!
Do St. Steven and The Holy Gost also make it on to your "anti-semitic" and "completely out of here" list?
You insinuated previously that those who speak against the perfidityof the Jєωs hate the Jєωs. Do Our Lord and The Holy Gost also hate the Jєωs? Using your logic, they do!
-
The notion that the h0Ɩ0cαųst did not happen is just silly. I am sorry, GV, but it is. It is no more grounded in fact that geo-centrism or the idea that the earth is flat.
No one said NOTHING happened. What is disputed are the facts about what DID happen. It was not a wholesale slaughter of Jєωs, nor did 6 million die.
IMO, the numbers are WAY lower than the Judaics continually cram down or throats. What is more, I believe elements within Judaism were responsible for it. A h0Ɩ0cαųst is an offering made by one who owns the thing offered. The Judaics gladly sacrifice some of their own to advance the cause of the Jєωιѕн nation.
Years ago, I read a book called The Myth of the Six Million. It would be an eye opener for all of you that are interested in this topic to read. It can be purchased thru Amazon.com.
Click on Matthew's banner to order it, so he gets back a financial credit.Here is the link to order.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fs%3Fie%3DUTF8%26x%3D20%26ref_%3Dnb_sb_noss%26y%3D26%26field-keywords%3Dthe%2520myth%2520of%2520the%2520six%2520million%26url%3Dsearch-alias%253Dstripbooks&tag=httpwwwchanco-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=390957
-
A little factoid that may be relevant, or not.
The Jєωs i.e. Hollywood made a film in the 30's called "Symphony of Six Million," about Jєωs in New York.
The title doesn't make any sense. If the population of New York was six million, that has nothing to do with the subject of the film, which was the Jєωιѕн population of New York.
This just shows you the obsession with the number six million. Maybe with the number six in general. Though I don't personally possess a copy of the book, it is said that in the тαℓмυd, it says that sixteen million Jєωιѕн children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans.
Ludicrous lying is nothing new with the Jєωs. They exaggerate hysterically. Another example would be Kinsey, the sex "researcher," who interviewed some deviants and from this determined that practically everyone on Earth was a pervert. Then this is repeated all throughout the Jєωιѕн media as if it's real science. Of course what this does is, people see in the media that everyone is a pervert, and they think it gives them more license to act on certain wayward impulse and fantasies, since they think so many others are doing it. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
They do this in movies too. They affect your mind in subliminal ways. One movie that made me especially angry was something with Josh Hartnett called 40 Days and 40 Nights. The premise is the lead character makes a bet or something to go without self-abuse or sex with a woman for 40 days, and this is treated like some outrageous demand that is nearly impossible to bear up under. It puts the message out there, as well, that those who aren't having sex constantly are nerdy losers.
Hollywood is beyond despicable, and there is no question it is run by Jєωs. I knew some of them and people who haven't seen it would not believe how shamelessly repulsive some of their behavior can be. Sometimes they are so shameless they take on a certain charm, not unlike the devil himself, because they are so much what they are. I remember one Jєω, who knew I was aware of the Jєωιѕн problem, pointing at me and saying "We're watching you. You'd better start checking under your car for a bomb." I must admit, it made me laugh. Though I did check.
He also sang me a karaoke song in a bar once, the Monty Python song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life." I realized later that this was blasphemously used in the Life of Brian while Christ was on the cross.
-
Yes, he was. Being a saint does not make you perfect or infallible.
You can't say someone is a saint and evil at the same time.
I am not saying he was evil. I am saying he was wrong about something.
-
Was St. John Chrysostom also an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" ... when he wrote his 8 sermons against Jєωs?
Yes, he was.
"What is DEAD WRONG, Alex?"
Actually, I just "Liked" this post. I recognize a good jab when I see one.
-
Okay. No one is really interested in my opinion here. Given the nature of this forum, as Zenith pointed out, I should not be surprised and have no right to take issue with it. I will take her advice and move on, at least from this tread.
-
Or his advice. I don't know whether Zenith is male or female.
-
I am not saying he was evil. I am saying he was wrong about something.
If St. John Chrysostom was an "antisemite" then he taught evil, you're saying he taught hatred.
If he taught hatred, you can't really think of him as a saint.
-
Yes, he was. Being a saint does not make you perfect or infallible.
You can't say someone is a saint and evil at the same time.
I am not saying he was evil. I am saying he was wrong about something.
If St. John Chrysostom was wrong then St. Steven was wrong as well using your logic.
What exactly was he wrong about?
-
Or his advice. I don't know whether Zenith is male or female.
That would be male.
-
I am not saying he was evil. I am saying he was wrong about something.
If St. John Chrysostom was an "antisemite" then he taught evil, you're saying he taught hatred.
If he taught hatred, you can't really think of him as a saint.
Well, okay. Honestly I don't think of his as much of a saint. The church has canonized him and I accept that. I don't have to be particularly devoted to him.
Also, before people slam me too much, I was willing to just leave this thread, but I won't be so rude as to ignore a perfectly polite question.
-
Yes, he was. Being a saint does not make you perfect or infallible.
You can't say someone is a saint and evil at the same time.
I am not saying he was evil. I am saying he was wrong about something.
If St. John Chrysostom was wrong then St. Steven was wrong as well using your logic.
What exactly was he wrong about?
Everybody involved in the martyrdom of St Stephen was Jєωιѕн. I don't think you can compare an "family fight" to what came later in Church history.
-
Everybody involved in the martyrdom of St Stephen was Jєωιѕн. I don't think you can compare an "family fight" to what came later in Church history.
So somehow it's okay for St. Stephen to say what he said because he was Jєωιѕн, but for Christians it's not okay?
The Apostles were Christians. The Catholic Faith comes from them to us - not from Jєωs, and it's outrageous when Jєωs attempt to tell us they are somehow intermediaries between us and the early Church because the Apostles were originally Jєωιѕн.
-
Well, okay. Honestly I don't think of his as much of a saint. The church has canonized him and I accept that. I don't have to be particularly devoted to him.
Don't you see how that's contradictory? You don't think of him as much of a saint, but you accept the canonization? You think he taught hatred, but you accept the canonization?
-
Yes, he was. Being a saint does not make you perfect or infallible.
You can't say someone is a saint and evil at the same time.
I am not saying he was evil. I am saying he was wrong about something.
If St. John Chrysostom was wrong then St. Steven was wrong as well using your logic.
What exactly was he wrong about?
Everybody involved in the martyrdom of St Stephen was Jєωιѕн. I don't think you can compare an "family fight" to what came later in Church history.
You still haven't answered this question or my other questions!
Bobby Fischer was Jєωιѕн too though he is what you would label an "αnтι-ѕємιтє".
Answer the questions and stop coming up with nonsense.
-
I am not saying he was evil. I am saying he was wrong about something.
If St. John Chrysostom was an "antisemite" then he taught evil, you're saying he taught hatred.
If he taught hatred, you can't really think of him as a saint.
Well, okay. Honestly I don't think of his as much of a saint. The church has canonized him and I accept that. I don't have to be particularly devoted to him.
Also, before people slam me too much, I was willing to just leave this thread, but I won't be so rude as to ignore a perfectly polite question.
And so in all your wisdom and knowledge you have "de-sainted" him as he doesn't fit your mold though you have no reasoning that you will provide for considering him not so saintly. Is Hose Escriva more your kinda man?
-
You still haven't answered this question or my other questions!
Bobby Fischer was Jєωιѕн too though he is what you would label an "αnтι-ѕємιтє".
Answer the questions and stop coming up with nonsense.
What he is saying is really far worse than suggesting that "Jєω can't be antisemites" because they're Jєωs.
What he's saying is that the Apostles were really still Jєωs - and that only later did the Church become non-Jєωιѕн - and therefore "antisemitic". Back then they were part of the same family so it was their business. The modern Jєωs then are treated as intermediaries to the Gospel - what we take from the Gospel must pass through their filter because they claim ownership over Jesus and the Apostles because they were Jєωs.
-
I smell a marrano! :heretic: :heretic:
-
You still haven't answered this question or my other questions!
Bobby Fischer was Jєωιѕн too though he is what you would label an "αnтι-ѕємιтє".
Answer the questions and stop coming up with nonsense.
What he is saying is really far worse than suggesting that "Jєω can't be antisemites" because they're Jєωs.
What he's saying is that the Apostles were really still Jєωs - and that only later did the Church become non-Jєωιѕн - and therefore "antisemitic". Back then they were part of the same family so it was their business. The modern Jєωs then are treated as intermediaries to the Gospel - what we take from the Gospel must pass through their filter because they claim ownership over Jesus and the Apostles because they were Jєωs.
That is pretty much exactly what I am saying. I would not say that "modern Jєωs" have some sort of veto power over current Catholic practice. But to suggest that the Apostles were not Jєωs is to ignore history.
As for St. John Chrysostom, being a saint does not mean you cannot be wrong about something or that you are morally perfect. Are saints indefectible now?
I never once said Jєωs could not be anti-Semitic. I simply said that the arguments between Christian Jєωs and Jєωs who were not Christians as recorded in the New Testament are not examples of anti-Semitism as it exists later in history.
Bobby Fisher was just crazy.
Marrano? Really?
I have no Jєωιѕн ancestry, that I know of. If I did, I would not be ashamed of it.
Are you suggesting by you emoticons that burning Marranos at the stake was okay? Do you realize that many of them were forced to convert, then charges with insincere conversion so that the Church could take their property.? Is doing hat okay with you? Is every negative thing that every church official has ever said or done to Jєωs individual or as a group cool with you?
-
That is pretty much exactly what I am saying. I would not say that "modern Jєωs" have some sort of veto power over current Catholic practice. But to suggest that the Apostles were not Jєωs is to ignore history.
They were justified in saying what they did for the same reason Christ was justified. And they were persecuted for it by Jєωs. Not because they were Jєωs.
As for St. John Chrysostom, being a saint does not mean you cannot be wrong about something or that you are morally perfect.
A saint can be wrong about something but if he preaches evil, hate-filled sermons then he can't really be considered a saint.
Are saints indefectible now?
Saints don't lead people into evil.
I never once said Jєωs could not be anti-Semitic.
I didn't say you did - I think you allow Jєωs to decide who can be called antisemitic or not. You don't really have an objective criteria - if it offends Jєωs, I'm betting 9 times out of 10 that's good enough for you to call someone antisemitic.
I simply said that the arguments between Christian Jєωs and Jєωs who were not Christians as recorded in the New Testament are not examples of anti-Semitism as it exists later in history.
What you're saying is that it's not like antisemitism because they were Jєωs - so you're defending them on the grounds that they are Jєωs as opposed to defending them on the grounds that they preached the Gospel. That is how you're arguing. By saying that what St. Stephen said can't be compared to what St. John Chysostom said, you're defending him not on the basis of believing the Gospel but on the basis of being a Jєω. A later Christian who would say the same things you would call an antisemite. That's insanity.
Even Josephus said things that you would call antisemitism coming from a gentile. For example:
there was moreover a certain sect of Jєωs who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod’s court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt any thing against those whom they did not like.
oooohhhh, having the power to control kings . . . ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like - sounds like classic antisemitism!
Truth, Sigismund, is not antisemitic. Either you believe Christians have the truth or you believe Jєωs have the truth. It would appear, that since you consider the Apostles to be justified as Jєωs but not as followers of the Gospel, that you can "forgive" them for being martyred for saying things that you can't approve of in "non-Jєωιѕн" Christians.
-
Can you agree that two traditional Catholics arguing about a point of Catholic doctrine is different from a Protestant doing so?
-
Can you agree that two traditional Catholics arguing about a point of Catholic doctrine
Sigismund, the Apostles were Christians and we have their Faith. They weren't Jєωs anymore - since the proclamation of the Gospel the Old Law no longer bound them - they don't belong to the Jєωs - the Jєωs rejected them. They belong to the Church.
is different from a Protestant doing so?
The fact that your analogy makes gentiles out to be like Protestants while it makes the Apostles and the Pharisees out to be Traditional Catholics because they were Jєωιѕн says everything that needs to be said about your position.
-
Are you suggesting by you emoticons that burning Marranos at the stake was okay? Do you realize that many of them were forced to convert, then charges with insincere conversion so that the Church could take their property.? Is doing hat okay with you? Is every negative thing that every church official has ever said or done to Jєωs individual or as a group cool with you?
:heretic: When you answer my questions, I'll answer yours!
Christians are true semites as they are the choosen people for they have accepted the one and only Messiah, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who reject the Messiah, i.e. Jєωs, are the true αnтι-ѕємιтєs as they are anti-Christ.
-
Can you agree that two traditional Catholics arguing about a point of Catholic doctrine
Sigismund, the Apostles were Christians and we have their Faith. They weren't Jєωs anymore - since the proclamation of the Gospel the Old Law no longer bound them - they don't belong to the Jєωs - the Jєωs rejected them. They belong to the Church.
is different from a Protestant doing so?
The fact that your analogy makes gentiles out to be like Protestants while it makes the Apostles and the Pharisees out to be Traditional Catholics because they were Jєωιѕн says everything that needs to be said about your position.
The Apostles most certainly were Jєωs. Do you think if some one asked St. James or St. Paul if they were Jєωs, they would have said no?
And you are completely missing my point. Reverse the categories if you like. I simply meant that there is a difference between people of the same group fighting and a squabble with people form outside a group.
-
Are you suggesting by you emoticons that burning Marranos at the stake was okay? Do you realize that many of them were forced to convert, then charges with insincere conversion so that the Church could take their property.? Is doing hat okay with you? Is every negative thing that every church official has ever said or done to Jєωs individual or as a group cool with you?
:heretic: When you answer my questions, I'll answer yours!
Christians are true semites as they are the choosen people for they have accepted the one and only Messiah, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who reject the Messiah, i.e. Jєωs, are the true αnтι-ѕємιтєs as they are anti-Christ.
It is really not worth it.
-
Are you suggesting by you emoticons that burning Marranos at the stake was okay? Do you realize that many of them were forced to convert, then charges with insincere conversion so that the Church could take their property.? Is doing hat okay with you? Is every negative thing that every church official has ever said or done to Jєωs individual or as a group cool with you?
:heretic: When you answer my questions, I'll answer yours!
Christians are true semites as they are the choosen people for they have accepted the one and only Messiah, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who reject the Messiah, i.e. Jєωs, are the true αnтι-ѕємιтєs as they are anti-Christ.
It is really not worth it.
Thats exactly right because you don't have an answer! You can't invest in something that doesn't exist.
-
Can you give me an honest and straightforward answer as to why the World 1947 Almanac estimates the world Jєωιѕн population to be 15.5 million in 1939 and the 1948 New York Times (Jєω owned) estimated the world Jєωιѕн population to be between 15.7 and 18.6 million?
So to be conservative with Figures:
1939 - 15,500,000 Jєωs
1948 - 15,700,000 Jєωs
6,000,000 + 200,000 = 6,200,000
We have an increase in the world Jєωιѕн population of 6,200,000 in 9 years!
If we were to be liberal with the figures we would have a 9,100,000 increase in the population in 9 years.
Wow, that is really plausible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_h0Ɩ0cαųst_denial#Jєωιѕн_population
Jєωιѕн population
One h0Ɩ0cαųst denial argument is the comparison of the population of Jєωs before and after the h0Ɩ0cαųst. They state that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jєωιѕн population as 15,319,359, while the 1948 World Almanac gives the world Jєωιѕн population as 15,713,638. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the h0Ɩ0cαųst, meaning the deaths of millions of Jєωs, cannot have happened to any extent similar to the claimed 6 million.[53]
The World Almanac volumes from 1945 to 1949[54][55][56][57] present two sets of figures for the world Jєωιѕн population, one attributed to the American Jєωιѕн Committee (AJC) and the other under the Almanac's own responsibility. The set from the AJC makes clear they use figures from 1938, "the last available data". Until 1949, the two sets of figures were very similar. But in 1949, the World Almanac gives the world Jєωιѕн population as 15,713,638,[58] while the AJC number in the same volume (but for 1947) was 11,266,600.[59] Moreover, the AJC revised its estimate of the world Jєωιѕн population in 1939 upward, to 16,643,120. Thus, according to the AJC in the 1949 World Almanac, the difference between the pre and post war populations is over 5.4 million. Subsequent years of the Almanac discontinued all reporting of populations for all religions worldwide, while continuing to carry the AJC's numbers regarding the world Jєωιѕн population.
Other sources confirm similar numbers—and earlier than the 1949 World Almanac—for the Jєωιѕн population before and after the war. The 1932 American Jєωιѕн Yearbook estimate the total number of Jєωs in the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However, the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jєωιѕн population have been assembled by the American Jєωιѕн Joint Distribution Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal that the total Jєωιѕн population of the world has decreased by one-third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the result of the annihilation by the nαzιs of more than five and a half million European Jєωs. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of the total Jєωιѕн pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000." These numbers are also consistent with the findings of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Appendix III, in 1946.
-
Was St. John Chrysostom also an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" and "completely out of here" when he wrote his 8 sermons against Jєωs?
"How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jєωs, those most miserable of all men. They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits -- pests of the universe! Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jєωs are impure and impious, and their ѕуηαgσgυє is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jєω. As a matter of fact, Jєωs worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their ѕуηαgσgυє an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are Jєωs degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and dispersion of the Jєωs was the work of God, not of emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jєωs. Thus, the Jєω will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jєωs, and on Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them., "Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!" Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the ѕуηαgσgυє, hold it in hatred and aversion". -St. John Chrysostom
Do you have a citation or link to this, so we can see it in context?
Thanks.
-
Do you have a citation or link to this, so we can see it in context?
Thanks.
Here is a link to the 8 homilies St. John Chrysostom gave.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-Jєωs6.html#HOMILY_I
-
I'm not seeing that quote anywhere in the 8 homilies.
-
I'm not seeing that quote anywhere in the 8 homilies.
stevus if you read through the sermons you'll see that the quotation seems to many quotations pasted together.
-
I'm not seeing that quote anywhere in the 8 homilies.
stevus if you read through the sermons you'll see that the quotation seems to many quotations pasted together.
I've copied several sentences from the quote and searched the website one by one and still can't find even individual sentences in the website.
-
The quote may or may not come from these 8 sermons on the Jєωs though this is really beside the point.
The point being that the 8 sermons of St. John Chrysostom, and many of the great Saints spoke against the perfidity of the Jєωs as a whole in a way that Jєωs and Judaising "Christians" call "anti-semitic".
-
I'm not seeing that quote anywhere in the 8 homilies.
stevus if you read through the sermons you'll see that the quotation seems to many quotations pasted together.
I've copied several sentences from the quote and searched the website one by one and still can't find even individual sentences in the website.
Stevus, read the sermons if you really want to know.
-
The Apostles most certainly were Jєωs. Do you think if some one asked St. James or St. Paul if they were Jєωs, they would have said no?
Did they continue to believe in the Mosaic covenant? If you say they did then you believe their Faith is a different religion than ours. Which would make you a modernist My point Sigismund, is that they were justified in their criticisms because they were Christians preaching the Gospel, not because they were Jєωs. You're "excusing" - (as though they need to be excused! - it is an absolutely insufferable attitude of condescension you display towards the saints and Apostles!) what St. Stephen said on the grounds he was Jєωιѕн - when he was a martyr for the Catholic Faith - the First Martyr - murdered by the Jєωs for being a Christian - as have so many other Christians been murdered by them!
And you are completely missing my point. Reverse the categories if you like. I simply meant that there is a difference between people of the same group fighting and a squabble with people form outside a group.
No Sigismund - I get your point exactly - you're saying it's okay for Jєωs to say the things the Apostles said - but not for Christians - you're literally acting as though St. Stephen needs the excuse of being Jєωιѕн to justify what he said - it's absolutely outrageous!
And it wasn't a "squabble" among Jєωs - it was the preachers of the Gospels against the enemies of Christ - as it is today.
-
Sigismund's constant use of the term "αnтι-ѕємιтє" displays his ignorance of the meaning of the term Semite.
Funny. Another one.
-
Other saints besides St. John Chrysostom (you'll find including St.Paul) dont speak well of Jєωs as a people. I suppose we should label them "αnтι-ѕємιтєs" or better yet Racists. I think we would do well to blacklist the Bible as well for it's continual hateful remarks concerning the Jєωs.
What is your iniquity, O daughter of Jacob, that your chastisement is so severe? You have dishonored the King and the King's Son, you shameless one, you harlot! ~St.Ephrem
Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. ~ Pope Innocent III
The Jєωs wander over the entire earth, their backs bent and their eyes cast downward, forever calling to our minds the curse they carry with them. ~St.Augustine
Jєωs are beheld scattered throughout the whole world: they have been punished on no other account than for the impious hands they laid on Christ. ~St.Sulpicius Severus
The Jєωs, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, do not please God, and are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sin always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end. ~1Thessalonicans 2:14-16
It has come to pass that the last state of Israel is worse than the first for, as the Savior's disciples says (IIPeter 2:21, 22), it would be better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. For that of the true proverb has happened to them: the dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed has returned to wallowing in the mire (Proverbs 26:11). And from what they afterwards dared to do, it is plain to see that they have swallowed their vomit and have turned again to wallow in their ancient mire and have lapsed into the errors of Egypt, for the evil spirit has again entered into them, and their last state has become worse than their first. ~St.Cyril of Alexandria
Well should the Jєω mourn who, not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition. The Jєωs have crucified the Son and rejected the Holy Ghost, and their souls are the abode of the devil. ~St.John Crysostom
Jєωs are cursed and covered malediction as by a cloak. The curse has penetrated them like water in their bowels and oil in their bones. They are cursed in the city and cursed in the country, cursed in their coming and cursed in their going out. Cursed are the fruits of their loins, of their lands, of their flocks; cursed are their cellars, their granaries, their shops, their food, and the crumbs off their tables. ~St.Agobard
If anyone does not worship the Crucified One, let him be anathema and numbered among the deicides. ~St.Gregory nαzιanzen
O intelligence coarse, dense, and as it were cow-like, which did not recognize God, even in His own works! Perhaps the Jєωs will complain that I call his intelligence bovine. But let him read what is said by the prophet Isaias, and he will find that it is even less than bovine. For Isaias says: "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his Master's crib; but Israel hath not known Me, and My people hath not understood" (1:3). You see, O Jєω, I am milder than your prophet. I have compared you to the beasts, but he sets you even bellow them! ~St.Bernard
How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jєωs, those most miserable of all men who are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits, pests of the universe! Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? They are impure and impious, and their ѕуηαgσgυє is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as also the soul of the Jєω. As a matter of fact, Jєωs worship the devil: their rites are criminal and impure; their religion a disease; their ѕуηαgσgυє an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition. Why are the Jєωs degenerated? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and their woes. The rejection and dispersion of the Jєωs was the work of God, not of emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jєωs. Thus the Jєωs will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jєωs, and on Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them: "Depart from Me, for you had intercourse with My murderers!" Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the ѕуηαgσgυє, hold it in hatred and aversion. ~St.John Crysostom
Jєωs are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their father's faith, advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness! ~St.Gregory of Nyssa
-
Are you suggesting by you emoticons that burning Marranos at the stake was okay? Do you realize that many of them were forced to convert, then charges with insincere conversion so that the Church could take their property.? Is doing hat okay with you? Is every negative thing that every church official has ever said or done to Jєωs individual or as a group cool with you?
It appears that not only is Sigismund ignorant of ethnic terms, but of Catholic history as well.
Typical.
-
Here is Pius XI. If BXVI had said this, Sedes would have immediately used it as proof he was anti-pope. But since this was Pius XI, I'm sure they'll engage in those mental gymnastics they accuse others of in trying to actually interpret this in a Catholic way... ;)
"...Pope Pius XI later warned a group of pilgrims that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.[7]"Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites".
-
Here is Pius XI. If BXVI had said this, Sedes would have immediately used it as proof he was anti-pope. But since this was Pius XI, I'm sure they'll engage in those mental gymnastics they accuse others of in trying to actually interpret this in a Catholic way... ;)
"...Pope Pius XI later warned a group of pilgrims that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.[7]"Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites".
He's talking about racial hatred of Jєωs. Not about advocates of the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy theory.
In those times Catholics were widely familiar with that theory.
Now there's an attempt by some "traditionalists" to make it taboo.
It just shows how bad things have gotten.
-
Here is Pius XI. If BXVI had said this, Sedes would have immediately used it as proof he was anti-pope. But since this was Pius XI, I'm sure they'll engage in those mental gymnastics they accuse others of in trying to actually interpret this in a Catholic way... ;)
"...Pope Pius XI later warned a group of pilgrims that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.[7]"Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites".
So what does this prove? Who here on this forum hates Jєωs? No-one I hope.
Who here on this forum hates lies and deceit? Everyone I hope.
If we as Catholics are the true semites, how can we be anti-semitic?
A semite is one of God's chosen people who accepts the Messiah. To reject the Our Lord the Messiah is anti-semitic.
The Greatest act of anti-semitism was the Crucifixion of our Lord the Messiah.
One day I hope you wake up and stop parroting, "Polly wanna.....ANTI-SEMITIC".
-
Here is Pius XI. If BXVI had said this, Sedes would have immediately used it as proof he was anti-pope. But since this was Pius XI, I'm sure they'll engage in those mental gymnastics they accuse others of in trying to actually interpret this in a Catholic way... ;)
"...Pope Pius XI later warned a group of pilgrims that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.[7]"Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites".
If I were you, I wouldn't quote the Pope with some of the worst political policies ever.
-
If BXVI had said this, Sedes would have immediately used it as proof he was anti-pope.
Jackass-sans-justice is on a roll tonight, amigos! :cowboy:
There is nothing problematic in the quote from Pius XI, but that won't stop stevie wonder from making yet another completely bogus comment about SVs or SVism! It seems pretty clear that nothing, absolutely NOTHING, can make him exercise the slightest degree of justice, accurately presenting the ideas of those with whom he disagrees!
Rollin', rollin', rolling', keep them doggies rollin'...
-
Here is Pius XI. If BXVI had said this, Sedes would have immediately used it as proof he was anti-pope.
The fact that you can't engage in a discussion without bringing up sedevacantism shows how clouded your mind is.
-
Are people suppose to not say anything when logic is thrown out the window? Any time something is stated in contention of the Jєωs, we're automatically deemed Jєω-hater. I just get sick and tired of the garbage the media throws out to john q christian to swallow. Here's one example of why the 6 million h0Ɩ0cαųst figure is incredibly dubious: http://h0Ɩ0cαųstdenier.com/2011/03/heres-a-new-one-six-million-Jєωs-1919/
-
One more:
http://balder.org/judea/American-Hebrew-October-31-1919-The-Crucifixion-Of-Jєωs-Must-Stop-Martin-H-Glynn-Six-Million.php
-
Sigismund's constant use of the term "αnтι-ѕємιтє" displays his ignorance of the meaning of the term Semite.
Funny. Another one.
I use the word exactly the way everyone else on the planet uses it. It means Jєωs, or more expansively, other Semitic peoples too, like Arabs. It does not mean Catholics in anyone's mind but yours and a few others here. If you want to invent some gnostic new meaning for words, knock yourself out. Just don't expect other people to follow along behind you or even understand what you mean.
Unless you are a nominalist like Luther, words have meanings. You don't get to just make up new ones. But since many here think they are entitled to their own facts as well as their own opinions, why should definitions be sacrosanct.? Have at it, I guess.
-
Sigismund's constant use of the term "αnтι-ѕємιтє" displays his ignorance of the meaning of the term Semite.
Funny. Another one.
I use the word exactly the way everyone else on the planet uses it. It means Jєωs, or more expansively, other Semitic peoples too, like Arabs. It does not mean Catholics in anyone's mind but yours and a few others here. If you want to invent some gnostic new meaning for words, knock yourself out. Just don't expect other people to follow along behind you or even understand what you mean.
Unless you are a nominalist like Luther, words have meanings. You don't get to just make up new ones. But since many here think they are entitled to their own facts as well as their own opinions, why should definitions be sacrosanct.? Have at it, I guess.
Im not the one who chose to use it out of context, as yourself and Zenith chose to.
Interestingly, you've just admitted that you use the term in the same context as "everyone else" (which is incorrect), in spite of knowing better.
-
Okay, one last time and then I am done.
I use the term like everyone else IN THE WORLD, not everyone else ON THIS FORUM. It means "Anti-Jєωιѕн" to everyone else, except apparently a few people on a trad message board. If you look it up in a dictionary, that is what you will find.
-
It means "Anti-Jєωιѕн" to everyone else...
The term is αnтι-ѕємιтє...and there are many semites who are NON-Jєωs (and many Jєωs who are not semitic).
Everyone else has simply been guzzling the Rabbis' and Banksters' kewl-aid for far too long. The Judaics have been beating the bamboozled sheeple over the head with their anti-semitic billy club for decades. That will no longer work.
-
Okay, that is true as far as it goes. There are Jєωs who are not Semites and there are Semites who are not Jєωs. I specifically mentioned Arabs and non-Jєωιѕн Semites above. I am simply saying that the phrase "αnтι-ѕємιтє" has comet to mean anti-Jєωιѕн. I don't see how we can even argue about that. Maybe is shouldn't have come to mean that, but it has.
Anti-Jєωιѕн is perfectly clear. Maybe it would be nice if everyone in the world would replace αnтι-ѕємιтє with Anti Jєωιѕн. Ain't gonna happen though.
-
And may I add that I am a little surprised that you have three people ignoring you while only one ignores me. Maybe people think you are more formidable and I am just a harmless crank. :wink:
-
And may I add that I am a little surprised that you have three people ignoring you while only one ignores me. Maybe people think you are more formidable and I am just a harmless crank.
Considering the controversial nature of many of the things I discuss and what I have to say about them, I am surprised my count is not in double or triple digits :)
-
And may I add that I am a little surprised that you have three people ignoring you while only one ignores me. Maybe people think you are more formidable and I am just a harmless crank.
Considering the controversial nature of many of the things I discuss and what I have to say about them, I am surprised my count is not in double or triple digits :)
Amateurs! :laugh1:
-
I've still seen absolutely no confirmation that the quote used on this thread to eviscerate a fellow poster was even said by St. John Chrysostom much less understood in context.
Until this is done, I think Sigismund is owed an apology by some on this thread.
Still waiting for the quote to be confirmed....
-
As I said before Stevus, it's a collection of quotes strung together into one. Sigismund wasn't questioning the quote, he was impugning the saint.
Here are a few I found in a couple minutes:
AGAIN THE JєωS, the most miserable and wretched of all men . . .
But the ѕуηαgσgυє is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts.
. . . .
The temple was already a den of thieves when the Jєωιѕн commonwealth and way of life still prevailed. Now you give it a name more worthy than it deserves if you call it a brothel, a stronghold of sin, a lodging-place for demons, a fortress of the de .vii, the destruction of the soul, the precipice and pit of all perdition, or whatever other name you give it.
-
And as I said before, I could find none of the sentences of the quote that was cited in any of the eight sermons online. In addition, the text was presented as a complete quotation, not as separate statements copied and pasted together. Therefore, if what you are saying is true, best case, the original "quote" was presented in a misleading fashion by whatever source had it pasted on a website.
If it is a true quote, that's fine, but as of yet it is totally unsubstantiated and doesn't even have a citation, unless I missed it.
-
And as I said before, I could find none of the sentences of the quote that was cited in any of the eight sermons online. In addition, the text was presented as a complete quotation, not as separate statements copied and pasted together. Therefore, if what you are saying is true, best case, the original "quote" was presented in a misleading fashion by whatever source had it pasted on a website.
If it is a true quote, that's fine, but as of yet it is totally unsubstantiated and doesn't even have a citation, unless I missed it.
You just said Sigismund was owed an apology.
Is his attitude towards the full sermons any different? I doubt it very much. The veracity of that quote has little to do with this discussion.
-
Zenith presented the quote as being from one of St. JC's 8 sermons. This has turned out to be false as that quote was nowhere in the 8 sermons.
You accused him of saying St. JC was evil, taught evil & hatred, preached evil, hate filled sermons, lead people into evil...all based on a quotation that was not part of the 8 sermons and that cannot even be proven to have been from St. JC!
-
Zenith presented the quote as being from one of St. JC's 8 sermons. This has turned out to be false as that quote was nowhere in the 8 sermons.
It wasn't really false - incorrect - but not false as to content - because probably everything in that quote can be found in the sermon.
You accused him of saying St. JC was evil, taught evil & hatred, preached evil, hate filled sermons, lead people into evil...
He didn't deny that he thought St. John Chrysostom taught evil.
all based on a quotation that was not part of the 8 sermons and that cannot even be proven to have been from St. JC!
Nonsense Stevus. If Sigismund read through the same sermons he would still say that it was "antisemitism" which he considers to be sinful.
-
Zenith presented the quote as being from one of St. JC's 8 sermons. This has turned out to be false as that quote was nowhere in the 8 sermons.
It wasn't really false - incorrect - but not false as to content - because probably everything in that quote can be found in the sermon.
"Probably"? You attacked Sig for his responses to a quote that may be a complete fabrication and was not part of the 8 sermons as Zenith presented.
You accused him of saying St. JC was evil, taught evil & hatred, preached evil, hate filled sermons, lead people into evil...
He didn't deny that he thought St. John Chrysostom taught evil.
Where did he admit that? And even if he did it was based on him taking the quote on good faith that nobody can show St. JC uttered.
all based on a quotation that was not part of the 8 sermons and that cannot even be proven to have been from St. JC!
Nonsense Stevus. If Sigismund read through the same sermons he would still say that it was "antisemitism" which he considers to be sinful.
I would leave that to Sig and not presume and make rash judgments based on that assumption.
-
"Probably"? You attacked Sig for his responses to a quote that may be a complete fabrication and was not part of the 8 sermons as Zenith presented.
First of all Stevus, I've already shown it's not a complete fabrication. I'm going to have to chalk up your statements to dishonesty if you continue like this.
Secondly, Sigismund did not defend the saint, or say he didn't believe the quotes were from St. John Chrysostom. Instead he said that he was an antisemite. Sigismund was attacking the saint, not the quote.
Where did he admit that? And even if he did it was based on him taking the quote on good faith that nobody can show St. JC uttered.
He said St. John Chrysostom was an antisemite and he didn't think much of him.
Your impugning the quote is irrelevant Stevus. Sigismunds views on his sermons would be the same regardless. He would view St. John Chrysostom as teaching antisemitic hatred. He never denied it.
I would leave that to Sig and not presume and make rash judgments based on that assumption.
Sigismund knows where to find the sermons. If he had any interest in defending St. John Chrysostom he would have done it. On the contrary, he was interested in branding St. John Chysostom an antisemite and "not much a saint."
-
I had no participation or connection with the e-mail discussion which produced this.
Nevertheless, it might be of interest to some of you.
[written by an Australian Lefebvr*te]
Re: Williamson dismisses 'neo-nαzι' legal counsel
24 November 2010
it is quite evident that Williamson is a morally scabrous αnтι-ѕємιтє.
That is why he denies the existence of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. The only reason
why people deny this well-established fact is because of antisemitism;
the denial serves to whitewash an antisemitic regime and to deny an
event that made antisemitism beyond the pale. It is not because of a
disinterested spirit of historical inquiry, because there is nothing
in the historical record that can prompt such a denial. For those of
you who complain that this statement is judging him without hearing
his case, or begging the question; you are missing the point. There
are some facts that are obvious on the face of them, and this is one
of them. With such facts, argument is not only not necessary, but not
appropriate, because giving such arguments implicitly concedes that
they are needed. You may complain that this implies that some of you
are being accused of folly and wilful blindness to evil when it come
to Williamson. Well, that's right.
On the numbers of people killed; upwards of three million six hundred
thousand individual names of Jєωs who were killed have been collected
(see http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/names/why_collect_names.asp).
This worthy project is not of course necessary to establish the
approximate number of Jєωs killed, because that can be done by
comparing the number of Jєωs living before the Second World War in
areas that were occupied by the Germans (about 6 million) and after
the second world war (a few hundred thousand). The differences between
these two figures is not accounted for by Jєωs who popped up somewhere
else in the world, as very few Jєωs managed to emigrate from
German-occupied areas during the war.
On the idea that because nαzιsm is an exploded philosophy, there is no
reason for taking sympathy with its goal of exterminating the Jєωs
seriously; this is not true. The desire and expressed purpose of many
Muslim groups and states is the total extermination of the Jєωs. The
current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is now building
nuclear weapons for just that purpose. I note that these same groups
also intend to extirpate Christianity (Ahmadinejad, by the way, has
pushed a law through making death the sole available penalty for men
who convert to Christianity). This is a specific reason for Christians
to sympathise with the Jєωs on this issue; the people who want to
destroy them want to destroy us.
Williamson was in fact notorious as an αnтι-ѕємιтє even
before this scandal. I had myself heard about this fact; it is
chronicled in the paper by an alumnus of his seminary, J. Christopher
Pryor, 'Cathoilcism and the Teachings of Bishop Williamson', that can
be found at this website -
http://www.jsantisemitism.org/pdf/jsa_1-2.pdf. The paper is
fascinating in a number of ways.
There is a broader interest to this Williamson affair, which
is why I am writing on it at this length. His views on the Jєωs were
at one time respectable and widely held within the Church. For
evidence of this, one can look at a book I came across recently by Fr.
Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (Dublin:
Browne and Nolan, 1935). The book has an imprimatur and Fr. Fahey was
quite influential in Ireland in his day, and indeed worked for good
causes such as the recognition by the Irish State of Catholicism as a
divinely revealed religion. Much of the book's content is good - until
it reaches the topic of the Jєωs, who, Fr. Fahey tells us, are in fact
behind a giant world conspiracy to destroy Christianity that is
responsible for all the evils that have befallen the Church since the
Middle Ages. This kind of stuff was promoted at the highest level of
the Church in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; it
was often put forward by the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica and the
French Catholic journal La Croix.
These kinds of views are important for two reasons.The first
is their morally corrupting effect. The Jєωs are not in fact operating
a giant world conspiracy to destroy Christianity. Secular Jєωs accept
and promote secularism, an idea developed by ex-Christians (Voltaire
etc.) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Religious Jєωs
mind their own business and do no concern themselves with the Gentile
world around them - an important fact, as the anti-semitic conspiracy
theorists base their claims on the tenets they assert are found in
Rabbinic Judaism. Asserting that the Jєωs are operating such a
conspiracy is thus a grave slander. Those who do assert it use these
beliefs to justify hatred and malice towards Jєωs. Lying, hatred and
malice are the vilest passions of human nature. The legitimisation of
conspiracy theories about Jєωs in the Church fostered these passions,
and thus had a terribly morally corrupting effect. This corruption has
a lot to do directly with the parlous state of the Church today. The
current state of the Society of Jesus is I believe explained by a
great extent by its antisemitic past: directly, as sapping the moral
fibre of members of the Society; and indirectly, as providing a motive
to whitewash themselves by embracing progressive causes after the
h0Ɩ0cαųst made their past views unrespectable. We can call this last
phenomenon the 'Gunter Grass' effect. Grass. you may remember, is a
German novelist who distinguished himself for his moralising left-wing
pieties throught his public career - and admitted, late in life, to
having met a young man, Joseph Ratzinger, when they were both
prisoners of war of the Americans; Ratzinger, an anti-nαzι, having
deserted from the Army, but Grass having been captured after
volunteering for the Waffen SS. The connection between his voluntary
SS membership and his subsequent progressive views is too obvious to
need labouring. The journal La Croix still exists -and is the main
organ of French modernism; this also is connected to the Grass effect.
The conversion of Cardinal Suhard in France to modernism after the
Second World War, an event with big repercussions, had a similar
motive (de Gaulle refused to allow Suhard to take part in the mass of
thanksgiving for the liberation at Notre Dame in 1944 because he had
been so friendly with the German occupiers).
These facts about the history of Catholic antisemitism are
difficult I find for many cradle Catholics to look in the face,
because many of the people they love and respect - priests and
relatives of the older generation - will have shared and expressed
antisemitic views of this kind. In some cases as well these people
will have been largely innocent in their views, because they were
simply repeating, without knowing any better, what had been told to
them by people they in turn looked up to and trusted. But in other
cases, there will have been the secret pleasure of being excused from
the very onerous Christian duties of love, and being seemingly given
official permission to hate and despise. You can still unfortunately
see indulgence and pleasure in these bad passions on the faces of some
traditionalist Catholics today when the topic of the Jєωs comes up.
That is why Williamson is not simply dismissed as the vile old fool he
is; his views touch a sensitive nerve.
I must note however one very positive aspect of the affair; a bishop
is actually being held responsible for his actions and subject to
discipline, an event unknown in the Novus Ordo wing of the church
(consider Law, Weakland, not to mention others closer to home).
Did I read somewhere on this board that you are a lawyer?
I find it extremely troubling that a lawyer would spend his time arguing a moot question regarding the numbers of people dead for decades, and apparently unconcerned about the potential imprisonment of a man (a priest, no less) for practicing free speech, whether or not you agree with he has to say.
-
Even Richard Dawkins, an atheist, has talked about the enormous influence that Jєωιѕн groups have on Western politics even though they are a small minority of the electorate.
-
And may I add that I am a little surprised that you have three people ignoring you while only one ignores me. Maybe people think you are more formidable and I am just a harmless crank.
Considering the controversial nature of many of the things I discuss and what I have to say about them, I am surprised my count is not in double or triple digits :)
Well as I recall from another thread there are those who think you are a heavily armed prophet, so maybe people are just afraid of you. :)
-
I've still seen absolutely no confirmation that the quote used on this thread to eviscerate a fellow poster was even said by St. John Chrysostom much less understood in context.
Until this is done, I think Sigismund is owed an apology by some on this thread.
Still waiting for the quote to be confirmed....
Um, I never said I questioned the accuracy of the quotes. I have read those sorts of comments from St. John myself.
No one owes me an apology for that. In fact, no one owes me an apology at all. Many here obviously think my comments on this thread are wrong and have said so pointedly and assertively. No one has crossed the line into incivility, however. I hope I have not either.
-
I thought I was clear. Apparently I was not, at least to some, so let me try again.
If St. John did not say those exact words in that exact order, he said many words to the exact same effect. I would think exactly the same of a complete sermon in the same vein. Telesphorus is absolutely right here.
What St. John taught in this instance was wrong. It was anti-Semitic. It was sinful, or at least something very close to it. Saints are not perfect. They can and do sin. He was not made a saint for those statements. I did not defend him because he does not need the likes of me to defend him. I am sure if I were able to compare a complete list of his sins and mine, it would not be difficult to figure our who was closer to God. (Hint: It would not be me.)
I will apologize for the "not much of a saint" comment. He is not one of my favorites, but that means exactly nothing.
-
I bet Stevus would love to have a client such as yourself. haha
-
Sig, you are not interested in the context and time period of the sermons? Have you read the sermons? Calling a Saint anti-semitic is a pretty amazing charge.
I suppose Tele had you pegged. My apologies to him!
Can I pull my client from the witness stand? He's sealing his fate! :laugh1:
-
:roll-laugh1:
Well I must say this is rather amusing!
On one hand we have Stevus shift the focus to a side issue which is quite beside the point and on the other hand we have Sigismund saying St. John Chrysostom sinned and was wrong to preach against the Jєωs and Judaisation.
I'm still waiting to find out what was wrong about it and if you really know why St. Chrysostom preached these sermons?
Ok lets see what you are saying Sidismund.
On one hand we have St. Steven who was perfectly ok to rebuke the Jєωs. Well I suppose you can't critisize him as the scriptures tell us that he was filled with the Holy Gost.
On the other hand we have St. Chrysostom also rebuking the Jєωs for the exact same reasons though by doing so he "sinned".
So the Holy Spirit inspires one man to rebuke the Jєωs and the Devil inspires St Chrysostom to do the same? Is that right?
Both are Saints, both are saying the same thing though one comes from God and the other comes from the devil? That makes a lot of sense! :rolleyes:
And don't bring out the whole Jєω family nonsense.
So if I am to rebuke a person from the same country for a wrong doing that is ok while I rebuke someone from a different country for the exact same thing that is sinful because now I am a racist? Even though my motivation for rebuking has nothing to do with race but purely to do with the wrong done.
I think you need to come up with some less desperate arguments. :wink:
-
Sig, you are not interested in the context and time period of the sermons? Have you read the sermons? Calling a Saint anti-semitic is a pretty amazing charge.
I suppose Tele had you pegged. My apologies to him!
Can I pull my client from the witness stand? He's sealing his fate! :laugh1:
"Your Honor, the prosecution is not going to get my client today, because I am going to get my client today. HE IS GUILTY!!!"
I am aware that he was a man of his time, and yes, that does mean something in evaluating his statements, or anyone's statements for that matter.
However, I do not get the impression that people here are concerned with his time any more than I am. They seem to think what he said is just fine as it is, and has validity across the centuries.
Lots of stuff he said is worth remembering eternally. My son is a Byzantine rite priest, and he has sent a lot of Chrysostom my way. His Treatise on the Priesthood is great, and his Easter sermon can move me to tears in the right mood. Nevertheless, I think these comments, whatever allowances can legitimately be made for their time and place in history, are wrong and embarrassing.
I also stubbornly maintain that there is nothing un-Catholic about the suggestion that a saint could say something wrong and embarrassing. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said a lot of stuff that is wrong and embarrassing. If John Paul II is ever canonized, well, good Heavens, the list of wrong and embarrassing things he said would go on for chapters. And don't get me started on that Opus Dei guy.
-
Zenith,
Well I think the "whole Jєω Family Nonsense" is the crux of the matter. I don't think that is desperate at all. If you do, fine.
-
Like I said.
Both are Saints, both are saying the same thing though one comes from God and the other comes from the devil?
Your thinking is much the same as the pharisees when they accused Our Lord of casting out devils with the power of the devil.
You say St. Chrysostom was inspired by the devil and St. Steven by the Holy Gost.
Matthew 12:25 "And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
-
Zenith,
Well I think the "whole Jєω Family Nonsense" is the crux of the matter. I don't think that is desperate at all. If you do, fine.
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Going by your theory Sigismund, Our Lord was actually encouraging racism because He was teaching them to preach to others of different nations.
Its a shame St. John Chrysostom didn't have you around to tell him not to preach to other nations as thats racist. What was he thinking following Our Lord's command to "teach ye all nations"! :fryingpan:
-
Sig,
You had them admonishing you for comments on a text they couldn't even verify and then you stepped in it and called a Saint anti-Semitic before even studying his ACTUAL writings. You said you never questioned the accuracy of the quote. Well you should have! If someone makes up crap on a website and attributes it to someone are you gong to assume it us true? Wake up!
-
Sig,
You had them admonishing you for comments on a text they couldn't even verify and then you stepped in it and called a Saint anti-Semitic before even studying his ACTUAL writings. You said you never questioned the accuracy of the quote. Well you should have! If someone makes up crap on a website and attributes it to someone are you gong to assume it us true? Wake up!
Thats rich coming from the guy who uses JPII and wikipedia for his sources!
Why don't you wake up stevus. Even those who dislike St. John Chrysostom for his sermons against Jєωs know they are not fakes. I think the only fake around here is you!
-
And if you are still bleeting and nit picking that you could not find the quote in the 8 sermons then it is plainly obvious that you don't really want to discuss the real issue of St. John Chrysostom and "anti-semitism" but simply wish to through mud.
Just get over it come to grips with the fact the the quote uses the same tone as the sermons.
If sigismund says St. Chrysostom sins and is "anti-semitic", what is your excuse for the great golden mouth?
Do you simply deny that he ever wrote these sermons?
-
Sig,
You had them admonishing you for comments on a text they couldn't even verify and then you stepped in it and called a Saint anti-Semitic before even studying his ACTUAL writings. You said you never questioned the accuracy of the quote. Well you should have! If someone makes up crap on a website and attributes it to someone are you gong to assume it us true? Wake up!
Thats rich coming from the guy who uses JPII and wikipedia for his sources!
Why don't you wake up stevus. Even those who dislike St. John Chrysostom for his sermons against Jєωs know they are not fakes. I think the only fake around here is you!
His sermons are not fakes.
The quotation you tried to pass off as a sermon is to be considered a fake until you can show it's authenticity.
-
It's possible that they weren't in the sermons, but in some of his writings. Have you considered this?
-
Sig,
You had them admonishing you for comments on a text they couldn't even verify and then you stepped in it and called a Saint anti-Semitic before even studying his ACTUAL writings. You said you never questioned the accuracy of the quote. Well you should have! If someone makes up crap on a website and attributes it to someone are you gong to assume it us true? Wake up!
Thats rich coming from the guy who uses JPII and wikipedia for his sources!
Why don't you wake up stevus. Even those who dislike St. John Chrysostom for his sermons against Jєωs know they are not fakes. I think the only fake around here is you!
His sermons are not fakes.
The quotation you tried to pass off as a sermon is to be considered a fake until you can show it's authenticity.
Is this a good enough source?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-Jєωs6.html
Although I stand by my previous comment -- what is the point of this discussion? A living man's right to free speech is far more important than counting sixty-year-old corpses.
-
That link has been posted. Quote ain't in there.
-
Sig,
You had them admonishing you for comments on a text they couldn't even verify and then you stepped in it and called a Saint anti-Semitic before even studying his ACTUAL writings. You said you never questioned the accuracy of the quote. Well you should have! If someone makes up crap on a website and attributes it to someone are you gong to assume it us true? Wake up!
Thats rich coming from the guy who uses JPII and wikipedia for his sources!
Why don't you wake up stevus. Even those who dislike St. John Chrysostom for his sermons against Jєωs know they are not fakes. I think the only fake around here is you!
His sermons are not fakes.
The quotation you tried to pass off as a sermon is to be considered a fake until you can show it's authenticity.
So you can choose to ignore the quote and we can drop it though we are still back at square one as the 8 sermons pack an even harder punch! :boxer:
If you consider them genuine then what is your take on them? Are they "anti-semitic", sinful, hateful?
-
You can either "rush off the Battlefield to the Fever Swamps of Irrelevancy" or you can answer the quetion. :dancing:
-
That link has been posted. Quote ain't in there.
There it is -- the characteristic legal ooze used by those focused on convincing others of a reality, without concern about finding the ACTUAL reality.
This ain't court, and we ain't half-asleep judges who can't be bothered to read.
Why are you so concerned people dead for decades that you post whiny, girly garbage disparaging a good bishop who disagrees with a body count that is irrelevant at this point?
The Nuremberg trials are over. Jєωs are free to worship in every first-world country on the planet. It's all done. What are you trying to accomplish by picking up another stone to throw at this man?
-
Just a clarification. I did not write the piece about BW.
-
Just a clarification. I did not write the piece about BW.
I know. I didn't write Mein Kampf, but I suspect you would (rightfully) think less of me if I posted it.
-
So we are to think less of people for posting controversial attacks on Trads for the purpose of discussion, dissection, refutation?
We are only to post articles praising us? What a boring forum you would have.
-
So we are to think less of people for posting controversial attacks on Trads for the purpose of discussion, dissection, refutation?
We are only to post articles praising us? What a boring forum you would have.
I am sorry to hear that publicly posting libel is your idea of entertainment, and that the principle of free speech means so little to you.
-
So we are to think less of people for posting controversial attacks on Trads for the purpose of discussion, dissection, refutation?
We are only to post articles praising us? What a boring forum you would have.
I am sorry to hear that publicly posting libel is your idea of entertainment, and that the principle of free speech means so little to you.
Don't be so melodramatic.
-
Just a clarification. I did not write the piece about BW.
Ok Mr whingeing nit picker, I can be nit picky too. You have as much evidence that you didn't write it as I have that the quote came from St. John Chrysostom.
Show me your evidence that you didn't write it Mr Lawer!
-
So we are to think less of people for posting controversial attacks on Trads for the purpose of discussion, dissection, refutation?
We are only to post articles praising us? What a boring forum you would have.
I am sorry to hear that publicly posting libel is your idea of entertainment, and that the principle of free speech means so little to you.
Don't be so melodramatic.
That is not melodrama, that is the cold hard truth!
You put this post up for "discussion" though you have contributed nothing of value as you agree with it though won't admit it! At least be honest.
No one with any respect for His Ecellence Bishop Williamson would put this up and then nit pick this who refute it.
Show us where you stand and cut the cr@p!
-
Sig,
You had them admonishing you for comments on a text they couldn't even verify and then you stepped in it and called a Saint anti-Semitic before even studying his ACTUAL writings. You said you never questioned the accuracy of the quote. Well you should have! If someone makes up crap on a website and attributes it to someone are you gong to assume it us true? Wake up!
Perhaps you are right.
And then, perhaps I could find better uses for my time than internet forums. Like reading the Bible or good theology or praying.
Best wishes to everyone. It is increasingly clear this is not an appropriate venue for me.
-
You accused him of saying St. JC was evil, taught evil & hatred, preached evil, hate filled sermons, lead people into evil...all based on a quotation that was not part of the 8 sermons and that cannot even be proven to have been from St. JC!
[/b]False! I did not base it on the quote at all. I based it on the sermons
Just more unsubstantiated irrelevant nit picking as you have nothing else to refute those who defend Bishop Williamson and St. Chrysosom.
-
And as I said before, I could find none of the sentences of the quote that was cited in any of the eight sermons online.
The fact that the sentences don't match exactly doesn't mean the meanings don't match.
In addition, the text was presented as a complete quotation, not as separate statements copied and pasted together. Therefore, if what you are saying is true, best case, the original "quote" was presented in a misleading fashion by whatever source had it pasted on a website.
We've been saying since the beginning the quote is made up of other quotes pasted together.
If it is a true quote, that's fine, but as of yet it is totally unsubstantiated and doesn't even have a citation, unless I missed it.
Whether or not it's a true quote is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
-
So we are to think less of people for posting controversial attacks on Trads for the purpose of discussion, dissection, refutation?
We are only to post articles praising us? What a boring forum you would have.
I am sorry to hear that publicly posting libel is your idea of entertainment, and that the principle of free speech means so little to you.
Don't be so melodramatic.
Since you've ignored my questions, I'm hoping that you consider them worthy of consideration. Please, counselor, stick to the facts in the future. There is no need to pile it on when a man is down, particularly when he is a man of the cloth. He did not advocate any violence or even behave disrespectfully. The civil rights of living persons should always trump political clout for old corpses.
-
Sig,
You had them admonishing you for comments on a text they couldn't even verify and then you stepped in it and called a Saint anti-Semitic before even studying his ACTUAL writings. You said you never questioned the accuracy of the quote. Well you should have! If someone makes up crap on a website and attributes it to someone are you gong to assume it us true? Wake up!
Perhaps you are right.
And then, perhaps I could find better uses for my time than internet forums. Like reading the Bible or good theology or praying.
Best wishes to everyone. It is increasingly clear this is not an appropriate venue for me.
I thumbed this up, meaning GET OUT OF HERE YOU :heretic:
-
It seems Stevus has given up on this thread. It musn't be kosher enough for him. Or maybe he just doesn't get enough time between his daily doses of wikipedia and visits to the the ѕуηαgσgυє?
Or maybe he just has no answers to justify his position.
-
It seems Stevus has given up on this thread. It musn't be kosher enough for him. Or maybe he just doesn't get enough time between his daily doses of wikipedia and visits to the the ѕуηαgσgυє?
Or maybe he just has no answers to justify his position.
Nothing like some Manischewitz to wash down that gefilte laden with horseradish.
-
Tele,
You completely bought Zenith's fabricated quote as authentic. You only made up the lame excuse that they were pasted together quotes after I called you on it. Then I proved that was a load of crap and you still cling to it!
The whole pretext of bashing what's his name was based on a false-premise. Of course he then was so stupid to repeat his claims regardless so I guess he deserved it.
-
You accused him of saying St. JC was evil, taught evil & hatred, preached evil, hate filled sermons, lead people into evil...all based on a quotation that was not part of the 8 sermons and that cannot even be proven to have been from St. JC!
[/b]False! I did not base it on the quote at all. I based it on the sermons
Just more unsubstantiated irrelevant nit picking as you have nothing else to refute those who defend Bishop Williamson and St. Chrysosom.
Have you any answer to this stevus or are you just going to keep changing the subject because you have no answer?
-
Tele,
You completely bought Zenith's fabricated quote as authentic. You only made up the lame excuse that they were pasted together quotes after I called you on it. Then I proved that was a load of crap and you still cling to it!
The whole pretext of bashing what's his name was based on a false-premise. Of course he then was so stupid to repeat his claims regardless so I guess he deserved it.
Gee I must have missed that one. Maybe in your wishful imagination you did.
-
Stevus you are nothing but dishonest for even if you are to completely disregard the quote that you cannot prove St. John Chrysostom didn't write, my case still stands with his 8 sermons as proof!
Arguing with you is like arguing with an irrational child who refuses to face the facts.
-
Was St. John Chrysostom also an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" and "completely out of here" when he wrote his 8 sermons against Jєωs?
"How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jєωs, those most miserable of all men. They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits -- pests of the universe! Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jєωs are impure and impious, and their ѕуηαgσgυє is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jєω. As a matter of fact, Jєωs worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their ѕуηαgσgυє an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are Jєωs degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and dispersion of the Jєωs was the work of God, not of emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jєωs. Thus, the Jєω will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jєωs, and on Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them., "Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!" Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the ѕуηαgσgυє, hold it in hatred and aversion". -St. John Chrysostom
You refer to the 8 sermons about Jєωs, then slap a quote supposedly from these 8 sermons which you have yet to prove is authentic. This quote is then held up to bash Heim repeatedly.
Then later Tele comes up with the idea that these are peices of quotes put together! :laugh1: Really? That's why it is presented as a complete block quote paragraph wth not one ellipsis "..." to separate purportedly distinct quotes cobbled together?
What a load of crap!
-
Stevus you are nothing but dishonest for even if you are to completely disregard the quote that you cannot prove St. John Chrysostom didn't write, my case still stands with his 8 sermons as proof!
So you can post whatever crap you want, claim it is from a saint, and it is the job of the rest of us to prove that quote DIDN'T come from the Saint? :laugh1: Good one!
-
Stevus you are nothing but dishonest for even if you are to completely disregard the quote that you cannot prove St. John Chrysostom didn't write, my case still stands with his 8 sermons as proof!
So you can post whatever crap you want, claim it is from a saint, and it is the job of the rest of us to prove that quote DIDN'T come from the Saint? :laugh1: Good one!
You are an imbecile stevus. At least I have evidence to support my argument, i.e. The 8 sermons, though you have nothing.
You even admitted that you believe the 8 sermons are authentic and this just proves your dishonesty.
At least Sigismund was honest enough to pull out as he knew the argument was over though in your case you just keep changing the subject to continue to pour forth your Judaising tripe.
The fact that you do it on a forum which was set up in support of Bishop Williamson is more proof of your bad will and dishonesty.
Your zionist brown nosing and mud slinging libel against His Excellency Bishop Williamson has exposed you, you Judaising phony!
:heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
-
Then I proved that was a load of crap and you still cling to it!
The quote is accurate. It is widely cited in academia, typically in literature discussing the roots of anti-semitism, or even in Catholic publications discussing its applicability to our times. Since there are multiple translations, llikely the one that includes that specific cite is not available online.
FYI:
proof/pro͞of/
Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
-
Stevus keeps saying this and that is "crap" but looking through this thread, alot of his posts have been refuted.
-
A moment of clarity and logic for Stevus appears to be a completely random, unpredictable event. He seems to think that if you repeat something often and forcefully enough, then pepper it with ridicule, you've proved something.
-
Then I proved that was a load of crap and you still cling to it!
The quote is accurate. It is widely cited in academia, typically in literature discussing the roots of anti-semitism, or even in Catholic publications discussing its applicability to our times. Since there are multiple translations, llikely the one that includes that specific cite is not available online.
FYI:
proof/pro͞of/
Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
Is it or is it not from the 8 sermons?
There has been absolutelty no evidence put forward to this point proving the quote is authentic much less what work it came from or the context.
Smoke can be blown in perpetuity, but until a citation and some minimal proof of authenticity is put forward, the fact remains that we don't know if it was said by the Saint. If it WAS said by him, then we don't know in what work or in what context.
What we DO know is this quote was found nowhere in the 8 sermons online, and that is precisely where Zenith portrayed it to be from.
-
Just a brief summary: This thread was started a month ago by one Stevusmagnus. SM kicked it off with an article allegedly written by a Lefebvrite in Australia. One quote of note, helping to define the article's basic contention, is the following:
These kinds of views( i.e. "antisemitic" views held by the likes of +W and Fr. Fahey) are important for two reasons.The first is their morally corrupting effect. The Jєωs are not in fact operating a world conspiracy to destroy Christianity.
Personally, I care nothing for SM and his views. I don't mind being called an "antisemite." I don't live in a country where one is put in jail or worse for being labeled an antisemite. He's probably a crypto Jєω himself. But whatever he may be is of no concern to me. We traditional Catholics have to be firmly convinced, as St. Chrysostom was, that the Jєωs are the most virulently anti-Christ and collectively powerful enemies the Church faces. The Jєωs are, as they have always been, the most effective destroyers of Christian religion and cullture. We need to "hate" them and to contend against them in the same way that St. John C. hated and struggled against them. They arrested and tortured our Savior. They looked on approvingly as Roman thugs tore His flesh with cords and whips, and thereafter crucified Him. They scourge, tear and kill us as well, at every opportunity. If they can't beat us, they join us. I believe, quite frankly, that Jєωs have secretly penetrated the SSPX, and exert presently an enormous influence over the Superior General and his people. I pray that they be rooted out of our midst, and will do everything I can to rid the Society of them. If that means getting rid of the SG, Fr. Phluger, Fr. Schmidberger, and the whole lot of the Society's upper clergy, so be it. I wish to be as separated from the Jєωs and their wickedness as I can possibly be. I want nothing to do with them. And Stevusmagnus be damned!
-
Then I proved that was a load of crap and you still cling to it!
The quote is accurate. It is widely cited in academia, typically in literature discussing the roots of anti-semitism, or even in Catholic publications discussing its applicability to our times. Since there are multiple translations, llikely the one that includes that specific cite is not available online.
FYI:
proof/pro͞of/
Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
Is it or is it not from the 8 sermons?
There has been absolutelty no evidence put forward to this point proving the quote is authentic much less what work it came from or the context.
Smoke can be blown in perpetuity, but until a citation and some minimal proof of authenticity is put forward, the fact remains that we don't know if it was said by the Saint. If it WAS said by him, then we don't know in what work or in what context.
What we DO know is this quote was found nowhere in the 8 sermons online, and that is precisely where Zenith portrayed it to be from.
Setting the issue of the specific quote aside for a moment (since that really is secondary to the topic of this thread), what are your thoughts on the translation of the eight sermons that was posted?
-
Then I proved that was a load of crap and you still cling to it!
The quote is accurate. It is widely cited in academia, typically in literature discussing the roots of anti-semitism, or even in Catholic publications discussing its applicability to our times. Since there are multiple translations, llikely the one that includes that specific cite is not available online.
FYI:
proof/pro͞of/
Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
Is it or is it not from the 8 sermons?
There has been absolutelty no evidence put forward to this point proving the quote is authentic much less what work it came from or the context.
Smoke can be blown in perpetuity, but until a citation and some minimal proof of authenticity is put forward, the fact remains that we don't know if it was said by the Saint. If it WAS said by him, then we don't know in what work or in what context.
What we DO know is this quote was found nowhere in the 8 sermons online, and that is precisely where Zenith portrayed it to be from.
Setting the issue of the specific quote aside for a moment (since that really is secondary to the topic of this thread), what are your thoughts on the translation of the eight sermons that was posted?
Well after 14 pages he still hasn't answered that questions so good luck getting a sensible and coherent answer out of stevie.
-
Well after 14 pages he still hasn't answered that questions so good luck getting a sensible and coherent answer out of stevie.
:laugh1: That would have been too much to hope for. I was just curious what was going through his head, but I think his non-answer about summed it up.