To understand why it's impossible that Jesus would venerate the creature Hillel for "justice and wisdom" we look at Mark 10;2-10 and Matthew 19;3-9 in which the Pharisees attempt to ensnare Jesus on the topic of divorce.

How could a just man argue that a husband could put his away wife for spoiling supper, as the Pharisee Hillel taught?

It is maddening that the modernists have tried to cast Our Lord as a follower of Hillel.  And worse that the ignorant or insane editors of the Angelus would attempt to place him between Isaiah and John the Baptist.  Hillel does not appear in Holy Writ.  Hillel is not a figure in salvation history.  St. Paul asserted plainly that his pharisaic training was useless.

With the children being led to believe that Jesus venerated Hillel, among too many other absurdities to list, there will be no resistance worth speaking of.

I believe in Bishop Williamson's good faith.  He should be more cautious, he is old.  

We can only pray that some of the men Archbishop Lefebvre chose will wisely choose a new generation of bishops.

Quote from: Telesphorus

How could a just man argue that a husband could put his away wife for spoiling supper, as the Pharisee Hillel taught?

It is maddening that the modernists have tried to cast Our Lord as a follower of Hillel.  And worse that the ignorant or insane editors of the Angelus would attempt to place him between Isaiah and John the Baptist.  Hillel does not appear in Holy Writ.  Hillel is not a figure in salvation history.  St. Paul asserted plainly that his pharisaic training was useless.

Indeed. And how can Bp. Williamson not only promote a work that goes far beyond "Saint of the Sanhedrin" in its outrages and claim that this work is of God?

This is far, far worse than The Angelus article which does not go so far as to make Jesus venerate Hillel or claim an imprimatur from heaven.

MP-

   You make very excellent points on the Poem.

   But I am pretty sure that Bishop WIlliamson is recommending it for literary qualities, rather than spiritual guidance or doctrinal formation.

   At least, I hope so.

   Were we only able to read orthodox books, we would have to rule out Canterbury Tales, Paradise Lost, etc.

   All the same, since it was on the Index, I would stay away from it, since the Poem (unlike the other two examples I cite above) claims to be historical, where it clearly is not, and therefore could easily deceive the simple.

   But again, someone reading your great posts could be led to believe that you are accusing Bishop Williamson of Judaizing, whereas I think he is really just (imprudently) recommending a book for other literary qualities.

   Pax.

   But again, someone reading your great posts could be led to believe that you are accusing Bishop Williamson of Judaizing, whereas I think he is really just (imprudently) recommending a book for other literary qualities.

   Pax.

The Bp. makes no such distinction. He claims it is from God. Children subjected to "the Poem" are unable to distinguish between the 'literary qualities' of the work and the errors it contains.

I don't know what the Bp.'s intention is here. I know that this work he recommends to the children of the resistance is part of the attack.

Quote from: Seraphim

   But again, someone reading your great posts could be led to believe that you are accusing Bishop Williamson of Judaizing, whereas I think he is really just (imprudently) recommending a book for other literary qualities.

   Pax.

The Bp. makes no such distinction. He claims it is from God. Children subjected to "the Poem" are unable to distinguish between the 'literary qualities' of the work and the errors it contains.

I don't know what the Bp.'s intention is here. I know that this work he recommends to the children of the resistance is part of the attack.

You don't know what the bishop's intention is here because you're too pig-headed
and narrow-minded.  Sorry if the truth hurts.  Your whole program for blogpost
upon blogpost is to hurl epithets in the general direction of whoever it is you don't
fathom to understand.  Well, if you don't understand what their intention is, then
you have no business passing your knee-jerk judgment on it.  In this one thread
alone you have removed your perception from what His Excellency actually wrote
in this EC to some theoretical construct of your own subjective imagination and
then you're hell-bent on criticizing the consequent straw man.  Get a grip.

[Ser. said: ... he is really just (imprudently) recommending a book for other literary qualities.] ... He claims it is from God. Children subjected to "the Poem" are unable to distinguish between the 'literary qualities' of the work and the errors it contains.

He made no such blanket recommendation at all.  Take a look at the words he
used, and actually see what he wrote, and stop spreading misinterpretations.  

... selected chapters from Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God...

Does that say the parts of the Poem which contain errors should be read
to children? No, it does not. So who is supposed to be qualified to 'select' the
appropriate parts, the "clean chapters" so as not to corrupt the children?  
Well, isn't that the same question as asking who is supposed to be qualified
to 'select' the 'clean chapters' of Vatican II so as not to corrupt the faithful??
Isn't it the clown-head denizen who thinks that there are redeemable portions of
Vat.II that can be used if the 'errors' are avoided like walking through a minefield
or eating around the poison in a cake? --Oh, the same clownhead who dares to
pass judgment on H.E. and won't rest till he's expelled - that clown-head.

... many people are not in fact convinced that the Poem truly came from God...

Did H.E. say anywhere in this EC that he is not among those who remain so
convinced?  No, he did not.  So don't come off half-cocked accusing him of what
he did not say.

Is there anything else in this EC that alludes to Vat.II and its interpretation?

Secondly, the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem.

Well, have not the seeming doctrinal errors of Vat.II been the lifetime project for
one particular erstwhile Fr. Joseph Ratzinger to explain, one by one, as [he has
done as a] competent theologian in the notes to be found in the 'Ratzinger edition'
of the Council? -- Oh, BTW:  make that as well the 'notes' to be found explaining
the 'vision of a bishop in white' that erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger cranked out like a
Xerox machine in the year 2000!


What DID he say about this question of who is qualified to judge the Poem's
redeemable portions?

Firstly, the Poem was put on the Church’s Index of forbidden books in the 1950’s...

Was that an afterthought? No, it was his "FIRST POINT" on this question of the
Poem's doctrinal soundness.  So obviously, he's more LIKELY among those who
remain convinced it is NOT 'of God.'

And one thing you can be sure of:  +Williamson is definitely among those of us
who remain convinced that Vat.II is not 'of God.'

And what is his opinion regarding any qualified assessment (including his own) of
the Poem?

The Poem is for any sane judge, in my opinion, neither sentimental nor romanticized.

The Poem is neither sentimental nor romanticized according to the judgment of anyone
sane, in his opinion.  

Presuming he is in fact a "sane judge" of the Poem, does he then consider the
Poem sentimental? No. Does he then consider the Poem romanticized? No. Does
that mean he therefore thinks the Poem in its entirety should be read to children?
No.

How does H.E. reference this sentimentality of the Poem? He refers to Scripture:

The Poem, like the Gospels (e.g. Jn.XI, 35, etc.), is full of sentiment but always proportional to its object.

And just what is this object of Scripture? It is the communication of God's
revelation to mankind for all ages. And what is the object of the Poem of the
Man-God? Well, you would have to ask the author what her intentions were, but
looking at the fact that it contains doctrinal errors, the object would have to be
something very different from the object of Scripture.  Of course, the 'clean
chapters' can be viewed as Modernist window dressing, the purpose of which is
to give the whole an appearance of doctrinal soundness, but like Vat.II, ample
opportunities exist to pick your orthodoxy on any topic, either something in
accord with tradition or something anathema to it.  It's up to you, the 'qualified
judge' of what is acceptable.  

What is John xi. 35 ff all about? Well that would be when Our Lord came to the
tomb of Lazarus, "35 And Jesus wept." Is that the sentimentality to which H.E.
refers? Well, no, the sentimentality of Jn xi. 35-37 is the PRESUMED sentimentality
in the minds of His observers!  It is the subjective sentimentality of the Jews
who MISJUDGED Our Lord!  And in case you have never paid attention before to
H.E.'s main complaint about Modernists and their unclean spirit of Vatican II,
it is, in a word, subjectivism that is the problem, NOT objective sentimentality
(in this case):  "...full of sentiment, but always proportional to its object."  That
doesn't sound very subjectivist, now does it?  In case you didn't notice, it is literally
objective, not subjective.  H.E. is putting in a good word (even though he is
"muzzled by Menzingen") for objectivism in a world gone mad with subjectivism,
to his dismay (Kyrie eleison).

From the reading of chapters of the Poem selected according to the children’s age...

Does H.E. recommend here the reading of the entire Poem to all children in
its entirety? No, he does not. He says, "...according to the children's age..." and
what age would that be when they are old enough to be reading doctrinal errors?
Well, he doesn't really say that ANY age is old enough for doctrinal errors, does
he? No, he does not.  And don't forget, he already (above) said "selected
chapters" and, something Malachi Martinesque, never identifies which those
chapters' would be that have no errors, or a low enough level of error to be
excusable "according to the children's age," if any.

He saves the best for last:

I can imagine almost no end to how much they could learn about Our Lord and Our Lady.

Learn what about Our Lord and Our Lady?  Good things? He doesn't say!  
Try this out: he can easily imagine almost no end to how much DOCTRINAL
ERROR they could learn about Our Lord and Our Lady!  Can you rule that OUT
from this EC?  No, you can't!

And what does clown-head himself have to say about whether Vat.II can be
interpreted in a traditional manner? "I certainly hope so!"  But notice: nobody
is kicking him out on his ear................ yet.

...Has not too much “spirituality” kicked Our Lord upstairs, so to speak,...

And now clown-head's 'spirituality' is kicking +W out the door, so to speak,...

And the questions they would ask !

Indeed!  The questions the children would ask when you've been reading to
them doctrinal errors, to be sure!  Read: 'And the questions the growing children
of the SSPX will ask, about why Our Lordship was kicked out the door!'

And the answers that the parents would have to come up with ! I do believe the Poem could greatly fortify a home.

The answers indeed!  And answers to whom?  Certainly not the children, alone!  
NO! What about the parents' own, particular judgment, when they're asked why
they read their children something that had been on the Index of Forbidden
Books?!  And the answers clown-head is going to have to come up with when he's
asked why he 'kicked Our Lordship out the door' on October 23rd, 2012,
'during' the so-called Year of Faith! (tomorrow!).

H.E. does believe the Poem could greatly fortify a home -- with DOCTRINAL ERROR!

And if the questions the children come up with and the answers the parents dish
out turn the home into a BATTLEGROUND, then wouldn't there then emerge
certain areas of the home that are transformed into a "fort" to protect the selected
occupant(s)?  Wouldn't that 'fortify' the home??? Such beheavior has turned
certain parts of the Society into a battleground and others a "fort," like the
bunker-fortress of Menzingen and its protected occupant(s)!!

Kyrie eleison . . . . . . . --> ( Translation:   Sheeesh!   )







This entire EC is a rather poignant example of Vatican II speak, and how
something can be written in such a way as to SEEM to say one thing, when it can
equally and legitimately be interpreted as saying quite the OPPOSITE.  This, dear
class, is what is meant by 'ambiguity.'  To the extent that a thing can be well
adduced to mean simultaneously two opposite things, it is to that extent,
meaningless.  The real MAGIC TRICK here is, that in one measly PAGE (as
usual) of Standard English, the English Master of Our Age has compiled a
meaningless EC that shows a very valuable lesson, to wit, that his SG is
perpetrating a HOAX on the Society while he ostensibly blames the author for
all his problems, and injects error into the veins of the same Society like opium
for which irreparable damage is in due course ominously prescient.  And then,
as if that isn't enough, any Fellayite criticism of the ostensible recommendation
of the objectively objectionable Poem of the Man-God can be then turned right
around in their face because they would have to ATTACK something that they
are wont to DEFEND!  A "catch-22" situation, if there ever was one.  







...And in answer to your question, MauricePinay, no, I am not 'done with this.'

That's just a beginning................................................................................

Q:  How can H.E. tell when his EC's satire has been a success?

A:  When H.E. goes to CI and sees the discussion going like this -- It's satire.
        No, it's not satire.
        No, no, it's satire.
        No, no, it's not satire.
        Yes, it is, see here?
        No, it's not: see there?  
        ETC.

I think you have all missed the typical British humor that this column contains. It is just brimming with satire and quite funny and definitely very clever:

Read it with my pair of glasses:

Eleison Comments Number CCLXXV (275)

20 October 2012

HOME READING

When a while back these “Comments” advised readers to fortify their homes in case public bastions of the Faith might, due to the wickedness of the times, prove to be a thing of the past, a few readers wrote in to ask just how homes might be fortified. In fact various spiritual and material means of defending home and family have been suggested in previous numbers of the “Comments”, notably of course the Holy Rosary, but one fortification has gone unmentioned which I think I would try in place of television if I had a family to defend: reading aloud each night to the children selected chapters from Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. (Of course the topic is controversial - but isn't it the Bishop's controversy that is leading to his ouster - he's poking fun at himself here loud and clear) And when we had reached the end of the five volumes in English, I imagine us starting again from the beginning, and so on, until all the children had left home ! (Yes you have to keep on saying that 2+2=4  until this kid i.e. himself leaves home - and even after)

Yet the Poem has many and eloquent enemies. (Who doesn't around here ?) It consists of episodes from the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady, from her immaculate conception through to her assumption into Heaven, as seen in visions received, believably from Heaven, during the Second World War in northern Italy by Maria Valtorta, an unmarried woman of mature age lying in a sick-bed, permanently crippled from an injury to her back inflicted several years earlier. (Any one for a TV interview and an enforced stay in St. George's House ?) Notes included in the Italian edition (running to over four thousand pages in ten volumes) show how afraid she was of being deceived by the Devil, and many people are not in fact convinced that the Poem truly came from God. Let us look at three main objections.

Firstly, the Poem was put on the Church’s Index of forbidden books in the 1950’s, (and so have I) which was before Rome (SSPX) went neo-modernist in the 1960’s. The reason given for the condemnation was the romanticizing and sentimentalizing of the Gospel events. Secondly the Poem is accused of countless doctrinal errors. Thirdly Archbishop Lefebvre objected to the Poem that its giving so many physical details of Our Lord’s daily life makes him too material, and brings us too far down from the spiritual level of the four Gospels. (Guess who else is about to be put on ice by writing another column for you)

But firstly, how could the modernists have taken over Rome in the 1960’s, as they did, had they not already been well established within Rome in the 1950’s ? (As they are indeed in the Society and for a long time already) The Poem, like the Gospels (e.g. Jn.XI, 35, etc.), is full of sentiment but always proportional to its object. The Poem is for any sane judge, in my opinion, neither sentimental nor romanticized. (But who cares ? He's already been called a crank by the "crow" and others within the SSPX !) Secondly, the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem. (Yes and the Fellay regime will explain away all the doctrinal problems of Vatcian II by the new notes in the 16 Council Texts that BXVI will pencil in this year of Faith) And thirdly, with all due respect to Archbishop Lefebvre, I would argue that modern man needs the material detail for him to believe again in the reality of the Gospels. Has not too much “spirituality” kicked Our Lord upstairs, so to speak, while cinema and television have taken over modern man’s sense of reality on the ground floor ? As Our Lord was true man and true God, so the Poem is at every moment both fully spiritual and fully material. (With all due respect to today's Superior General the SSPX has kicked Our Lord upstairs as well)

From non-electronic reading of the Poem in the home (Excuse me but aren't you reading me now, here, on the internet, on your computer ? - This is the greatest satirical comment of them all) , I can imagine many benefits, besides the real live contact between parents reading and children listening. (With switched off computers as the SSPX superiors would dearly love me to stop writing and you reading) Children (You dear reader) soak in from their surroundings like sponges soak in water. From the reading of chapters of the Poem selected according to the children’s age, I can imagine almost no end to how much they could learn about Our Lord and Our Lady. And the questions they would ask ! (Aren't you going to start asking what the heck the SSPX bigwigs are up to with a sell out ?) And the answers that the parents would have to come up with ! (Howler !) I do believe the Poem could greatly fortify a home. (Dripping with sarcasm as we say in England)

Kyrie eleison.

Thank you ct - your glasses are an eye-opener!  HAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote from: Ethelred

I'm not so sure you and some others here understood Bishop Williamson correctly. His EC isn't satirical. Of course he's usually saying something between the lines, too. But despite the possibility that there's some parallels between Bishop Williamson's fate and what he's writing about this and that, his suggestions are very solid again. Some people here in this thread should take him more seriously!

Oh for sure he has a primary reading - exactly what the piece says - but there is a secondary reading and I'm sure it's not too far from what I wrote.

I don't disagree with the primary reading in the slightest - I think the Valtorta has a huge amount of good in it and I have publicly spoken about this work even defending it when many thought I was joking.

Once Bishop Williamson asked what should be done to wake up modern man to his spiritual realities and I responded openly "Read some of the Valtorta to him." They laughed at that but I was deadly serious.

However, since he likes to be "unpredictable" I am certain he has the secondary reading I proposed (but I am not him). Do you really think he would pass up the opportunity of his last EC (possibly) in the SSPX and not stand everybody on their head ? Didn't he just say a few weeks ago how much he "loved the attention" ? I'm sure he does (in so far as he is a man and prone to things temporal) but as a man in pursuit of holiness (I think not). In the sense that attention brings opportunity to convince others of the truth then bring it on, in the sense he seeks personal fame... then you certainly don't know the man.

Oh and as for satire - he has the wit of an Englishman and many people fail to distinguish the ancient arts that a schooling in the classics provide: hyperbole and satire amongst others.

I was just saying this morning that most people need the humor of gutter TV to laugh, but satire is a humor most people today cannot understand.

BTW if you want to get a handle on various readings to a text read a "theologo-novel" by Ratzinger those have many readings and none of them good.

"Neil Obstat," the misunderstanding is on your part. I'm referencing not only this most recent endorsement of "The Poem" from Bp. Williamson but all of the countless endorsements of this Midrash that he's made throughout his entire ministry, most of which go much farther than this most recent Eleison Comments.

Bp. Williamson has gone so far as to say that he stakes his theological reputation on "The Poem of the Man God" being entirely free of error. He has said explicitly in another Eleison Comments (CCI May 21, 2001, "Two Repentances") that he believes "The Poem" is from God.

We cannot judge +Williamson's intentions, but we can see that H.E. is recommending to read a book that contains –to say the least– ideas which can mislead the readers; a book that was disapproved by the Holy Office in 1949; a book which was included in the Index in 1959.

+Williamson is aware of all this, and still makes an apology of the book and recommends to be read in family.

Is H.E. really trying to defend the True Doctrine?  Can H. E. be counted among those who want to resist?  Or is H. E. a revolution's agent pretending he has been a tough member of the resistance? is he an infiltrator?  That I cannot tell.

But we have to keep in mind that +Williamson signed that letter thanking BXVI for having lifted the excommunications.  We need to remember that in such letter the signers –id est, the four bishops including +Williamson–, besides accepting the existence of the sanction, concede the excommunication was effective during twenty years.

We should bring to our minds the fact that +Williamson presented the SP as something good for the Tradition, although H. E. also mentioned there were bad things in it.

We should consider that +Williamson has said that BXVI is a pope with a traditionalist heart and a modernist head.  This was said recently in a conference dictated in Nova Friburgo, Rio de Janeiro.  Dom Thomas replied making the bishop to softened his assertion and trying to save face by making fun of his own thoughts and of the reaction caused by them.

Please don't misunderstand my words.  I am not accusing +Williamson of being an infiltrator, but pointing to some facts which should make us to be cautious, to observe and to avoid trusting blindly in anyone...