Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Klaus on May 23, 2012, 09:35:06 PM
-
Belloc, author of The Jews and hardly renowned for his Zionist tendencies, seems not to have had much time for Protocols of the Elders of Zion enthusiast Nesta Webster, whose works would subsequently be cited by some Catholic authors as if authoritative.
Commenting on her Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, the Oxford-trained Catholic historian wrote:
In my opinion it is a lunatic book. She is one of those people who have got one cause on the brain. It is the good old 'Jєωιѕн revolutionary' bogey. But there is a type of unstable mind which cannot rest without morbid imaginings, and the conception of a single cause simplifies thought. With this good woman it is the Jews, with some people it is the Jesuits, with others Freemasons and so on. The world is more complex than that.
-
Hilaire Belloc was an apologist for the French Revolution.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j013htBelloc_FR_1.htm
For a Catholic to have such a position with regard to the French Revolution, an orgy of murderous violence against Catholics, is lunacy, irrespective of any eccentricities of Mrs. Webster and her views.
Archbishop Lefebvre or Hilaire Belloc?
Archbishop Lefebvre chose Bishop Williamson to consecrate. Thank God for that!
-
I have a question Klaus: why do you feel the need to create all of these threads about why Catholics should be against 'anti-Semitism'?
-
Go away Klaus, it is clear who and what you are: sale Juif.
-
I have a question Klaus: why do you feel the need to create all of these threads about why Catholics should be against 'anti-Semitism'?
Because this board is about opposing modern errors, and the popes have told us that antisemitism is one such error which we as Catholics must oppose. Unfortunately, some Catholics appear not to have received the memo.
-
This court rules Klaus is guilty for being a crypto-Jew. This case is closed! :judge:
-
Hilaire Belloc was an apologist for the French Revolution.
Belloc and the French Revolution (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=4220)
-
I have a question for Mr. Klaus: Do you have any idea what the Jєωιѕн attitude is towards non-Jews? You would be surprised that it is even more 'racist' and 'bigoted' than your basic white supremacist group.
-
I have a question for Mr. Klaus: Do you have any idea what the Jєωιѕн attitude is towards non-Jews? You would be surprised that it is even more 'racist' and 'bigoted' than your basic white supremacist group.
There you go. Two wrongs make a right! It's official!
-
Hilaire Belloc was an apologist for the French Revolution.
Belloc and the French Revolution (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=4220)
Yes, if one wants to understand Belloc's ridicule of conspiracy theory, then his misapprehension of the theoretical principles of the French Revolution is the place to start. (ie, the key to understanding his motivations, his sympathies, his prejudices)
The truth is that the Declaration of Rights of Man is a rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King,
10. No one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not upset the public order established by law.
The "church" is said to have had its "1789" (Cardinal Ratzinger virtually said the Church was being updated with such principles, of course, such an updating is impossible) with the publication of docuмents like Dignitatis Humanae. I will mention this plank of the Declaration of the Rights of Man first first since this one is highly relevant to the SSPX. (at least what that mission used to be, before it was hijacked)
There is absolutely no mention of Our Lord in the the Declaration of Rights of Man. Implicit in that is the rejection of the Christian state, this in a monarchy whose King had the title "Most Christian"
4. Liberty consists in the power to do anything that does not injure others; accordingly, the exercise of the rights of each man has no limits except those that secure the enjoyment of these same rights to the other members of society. These limits can be determined only by law.
It would therefore follow that giving offense to God is part of this "Liberty." This is of course a false view of liberty, the belief that everything is permitted that does not hurt others, without regard to the rights of God, without regard to morality based on Divine Law, but only on the liberal conceptions of liberty and equality.
16. Any society in which the guarantee of the rights is not secured, or the separation of powers not determined, has no constitution at all.
This principle denies the legitimacy of all other states in which the liberal principles are not fully accepted. This principle has caused some of the most terrible bƖσσdshɛd of fratricidal European wars.
-
I have a question for Mr. Klaus: Do you have any idea what the Jєωιѕн attitude is towards non-Jews? You would be surprised that it is even more 'racist' and 'bigoted' than your basic white supremacist group.
How do you determine "the Jєωιѕн attitude... towards non-Jews"? As in most groups of people, different Jews have different attitudes.
If you're asking whether I am aware that some ultra-Orthodox Jews have very negative attitudes towards non-Jews, the answer is yes, I am. Clare's point applies.
-
I have a question for Mr. Klaus: Do you have any idea what the Jєωιѕн attitude is towards non-Jews? You would be surprised that it is even more 'racist' and 'bigoted' than your basic white supremacist group.
How do you determine "the Jєωιѕн attitude... towards non-Jews"? As in most groups of people, different Jews have different attitudes.
If you're asking whether I am aware that some ultra-Orthodox Jews have very negative attitudes towards non-Jews, the answer is yes, I am. Clare's point applies.
:applause:
If I were allowed to up thumb as much as I want, I wouldn't have to do this.
:smile:
-
How do you determine "the Jєωιѕн attitude... towards non-Jews"? As in most groups of people, different Jews have different attitudes.
If you're asking whether I am aware that some ultra-Orthodox Jews have very negative attitudes towards non-Jews, the answer is yes, I am. Clare's point applies.
You do realize that among minorities people often think in terms of groups not individuals. Basically the Jєωιѕн attitude is that the "dumb Goyim" are meant to serve the Jews and every race and nation deserves to be under international Jєωιѕн finance to be exploited, along with the death of the nations themselves.
-
You do realize that among minorities people often think in terms of groups not individuals. Basically the Jєωιѕн attitude is that the "dumb Goyim" are meant to serve the Jews and every race and nation deserves to be under international Jєωιѕн finance to be exploited, along with the death of the nations themselves.
And if you expose the plots and crimes of the Jews you are automatically branded a race-hating nαzι.
-
You do realize that among minorities people often think in terms of groups not individuals. Basically the Jєωιѕн attitude is that the "dumb Goyim" are meant to serve the Jews and every race and nation deserves to be under international Jєωιѕн finance to be exploited, along with the death of the nations themselves.
And if you expose the plots and crimes of the Jews you are automatically branded a race-hating nαzι.
Well the true mark of a liberal is to brand someone a nαzι, racist, fascist, αnтι-ѕємιтє, etc.
-
I have a question for Mr. Klaus: Do you have any idea what the Jєωιѕн attitude is towards non-Jews? You would be surprised that it is even more 'racist' and 'bigoted' than your basic white supremacist group.
How do you determine "the Jєωιѕн attitude... towards non-Jews"? As in most groups of people, different Jews have different attitudes.
If you're asking whether I am aware that some ultra-Orthodox Jews have very negative attitudes towards non-Jews, the answer is yes, I am. Clare's point applies.
:applause:
If I were allowed to up thumb as much as I want, I wouldn't have to do this.
:smile:
It's part and parcel of Jєωιѕн culture to think of the gentile with disdain and this attitude is not limited toward the so called "ultra orthodox".
The hatred Jews feel toward Catholicism and Catholics isn't something we should return but by all means let us be adults and acknowledge it. This hatred goes back to Jacob and Esau as understood by the great rabbinic commentaries through the ages.
-
I have a question Klaus: why do you feel the need to create all of these threads about why Catholics should be against 'anti-Semitism'?
Because this board is about opposing modern errors, and the popes have told us that antisemitism is one such error which we as Catholics must oppose. Unfortunately, some Catholics appear not to have received the memo.
Right, modern errors like the state of Israel and real antisemitism by European Jewry persecuting real semitic peoples like the Palestinians.
Since you're on a personal crusade against "antisemitism" Klutz, maybe you can chime in about Israel systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine of real, ethnic, semitic peoples?
-
You do realize that among minorities people often think in terms of groups not individuals. Basically the Jєωιѕн attitude is that the "dumb Goyim" are meant to serve the Jews and every race and nation deserves to be under international Jєωιѕн finance to be exploited, along with the death of the nations themselves.
And if you expose the plots and crimes of the Jews you are automatically branded a race-hating nαzι.
And your accusers are automatically exposed as Jews or their Shabbas Goy.
-
I have a question Klaus: why do you feel the need to create all of these threads about why Catholics should be against 'anti-Semitism'?
Because this board is about opposing modern errors, and the popes have told us that antisemitism is one such error which we as Catholics must oppose. Unfortunately, some Catholics appear not to have received the memo.
Your last conclusion might be true, however only if you apply the Jєωιѕн definition fo anti-Semitism. What is obvious in all of your postings is an effort to confuse Catholics who oppose the oppression and the destruction of both western society and the Catholic Church by Jєωιѕн interests and to softly instill guilt into them by stirring up the social indoctrination, from which they suffer, that they might become more docile and favorable to the Jews.
-
Your last conclusion might be true, however only if you apply the Jєωιѕн definition fo anti-Semitism. What is obvious in all of your postings is an effort to confuse Catholics who oppose the oppression and the destruction of both western society and the Catholic Church by Jєωιѕн interests and to softly instill guilt into them by stirring up the social indoctrination, from which they suffer, that they might become more docile and favorable to the Jews.
Uh the guy is gone now. :laugh1:
-
Your last conclusion might be true, however only if you apply the Jєωιѕн definition fo anti-Semitism. What is obvious in all of your postings is an effort to confuse Catholics who oppose the oppression and the destruction of both western society and the Catholic Church by Jєωιѕн interests and to softly instill guilt into them by stirring up the social indoctrination, from which they suffer, that they might become more docile and favorable to the Jews.
Uh the guy is gone now. :laugh1:
Thanks, didn't catch that, but that is good. No doubt from one of the infiltration teams out of Israel.
-
There are some who claim that Belloc( despite his polemics against Mr Wells) & Chesterton were in the Fabian Society. Also the lunatic CS Lewis.
-
Hilaire Belloc was an apologist for the French Revolution.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j013htBelloc_FR_1.htm
For a Catholic to have such a position with regard to the French Revolution, an orgy of murderous violence against Catholics, is lunacy, irrespective of any eccentricities of Mrs. Webster and her views.
Archbishop Lefebvre or Hilaire Belloc?
Archbishop Lefebvre chose Bishop Williamson to consecrate. Thank God for that!
I think that that article mis-represents what Belloc is saying. I will explain further tomorrow.
-
There are some who claim that Belloc( despite his polemics against Mr Wells) & Chesterton were in the Fabian Society. Also the lunatic CS Lewis.
What rubbish! What evidence do they have?
-
Hilaire Belloc was an apologist for the French Revolution.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j013htBelloc_FR_1.htm
For a Catholic to have such a position with regard to the French Revolution, an orgy of murderous violence against Catholics, is lunacy, irrespective of any eccentricities of Mrs. Webster and her views.
Archbishop Lefebvre or Hilaire Belloc?
Archbishop Lefebvre chose Bishop Williamson to consecrate. Thank God for that!
I think that that article mis-represents what Belloc is saying. I will explain further tomorrow.
This article (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=4220), that I linked to on page 1, might be helpful too.
-
To be fair to Belloc-- his approval of French Revolution only goes through Aug 4, 1789-- before it turned violent. I believe he was against anything that comes after that. He didn't want the King removed, but a Constitutional Monarchy.
-
As I said earlier, I believe that the article Tele was referring to (http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j013htBelloc_FR_1.htm) regarding Hillaire Belloc being an "apologist" for the French Revolution mis-represents him.
Early in the text, he states: We must, then, approach our business by asking at the outset the most general question of all: “Was there a necessary and fundamental quarrel between the doctrines of the Revolution and those of the Catholic Church?”
This is where he further states Those ill acquainted with either party, and therefore ill equipped for reply, commonly reply with assurance in the affirmative.
From my reading of that section, he is criticising the notion that all the doctrines around the Revolution are incompatible or hostile to the Catholic Faith, and he calls those who claim this as mis-informed. He then goes on:
One may say that the actions of men are divided not by theories but by spiritual atmospheres, as it were. According to this view men act under impulses not ideal but actual: impulses which affect great numbers and yet in their texture correspond to the complex but united impulses of an individual personality. Thus, though there be no conflict demonstrable between the theology of the Catholic Church and the political theory of the Revolution, yet there may be necessary and fundamental conflict between the Persons we call the Revolution and the Church, and between the vivifying principles by which either lives. That is one answer that can be, and is, given.
Or one may give a totally different answer and say, “There was no quarrel between the theology of the Catholic Church and the political theory of the Revolution; but the folly of this statesman, the ill drafting of that law, the misconception of such and such an institution, the coincidence of war breaking out at such and such a moment and affecting men in such and such a fashion—all these material accidents bred a misunderstanding between the two great forces, led into conflict the human officers and the human organisations which directed them; and conflict once established feeds upon, and grows from, its own substance.”
From that, I conclude that he arguing that the political theory of democracy is not contrary to the Catholic faith, but the principles of the Revolution were.
Correct me If I'm wrong.
-
The problem in the French Revolution is the political theory, that the state derives its legitimacy from popular will and that rights are a matter of individuals acting freely so long as they do not impinge on the freedom of others.
The purpose of the French Revolution was very clearly to dethrone not just the King, but dethrone Christ as King.
-
Tele,
We are all trads (even non-trads should know this), and all know that the French Revolution was evil, completely unjustified, and contrary to Christ. But what Belloc was trying to point out, is that not all things from the Revolution are contrary to Christ and Catholic Theology, for example the idea of Democracy. That's all I read. Concerning how the State is run, what rights are given, and the doctrines of "liberty", I don't know what he proposes.
-
Thus, though there be no conflict demonstrable between the theology of the Catholic Church and the political theory of the Revolution
What he is saying here is not what you are saying.
-
Tele,
We are all trads (even non-trads should know this), and all know that the French Revolution was evil, completely unjustified, and contrary to Christ. But what Belloc was trying to point out, is that not all things from the Revolution are contrary to Christ and Catholic Theology, for example the idea of Democracy. That's all I read. Concerning how the State is run, what rights are given, and the doctrines of "liberty", I don't know what he proposes.
Democracy is based on the denial of original sin that Rousseau derived from the Greeks-- man is good and therefore able to govern himself. Like them, he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It is part & parcel of the anti-christian Renaissance.
-
Tele,
We are all trads (even non-trads should know this), and all know that the French Revolution was evil, completely unjustified, and contrary to Christ. But what Belloc was trying to point out, is that not all things from the Revolution are contrary to Christ and Catholic Theology, for example the idea of Democracy. That's all I read. Concerning how the State is run, what rights are given, and the doctrines of "liberty", I don't know what he proposes.
Democracy is based on the denial of original sin that Rousseau derived from the Greeks-- man is good and therefore able to govern himself. Like them, he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It is part & parcel of the anti-christian Renaissance.
Can you refer me to any encyclicals or writings of the Church concerning Democracy? It would be a good read.
-
Democracy is based on the denial of original sin that Rousseau derived from the Greeks-- man is good and therefore able to govern himself. Like them, he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It is part & parcel of the anti-christian Renaissance.
The Greeks did not believe in true democracy. Athens was a slave-holding society ruled by an aristocratic elite.
-
Tele,
We are all trads (even non-trads should know this), and all know that the French Revolution was evil, completely unjustified, and contrary to Christ. But what Belloc was trying to point out, is that not all things from the Revolution are contrary to Christ and Catholic Theology, for example the idea of Democracy. That's all I read. Concerning how the State is run, what rights are given, and the doctrines of "liberty", I don't know what he proposes.
Democracy is based on the denial of original sin that Rousseau derived from the Greeks-- man is good and therefore able to govern himself. Like them, he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It is part & parcel of the anti-christian Renaissance.
Can you refer me to any encyclicals or writings of the Church concerning Democracy? It would be a good read.
Both Pius IX & Leo XIII forbid Catholics to vote. This is reluctantly changed by Pius X. Pius XI later exiles the Democrat Fr Sturzo from Italy.