Author Topic: Martin Blackshaw smears Bishop Williamson (Read 3271 times)

John Grace · « **on:** May 21, 2012, 04:59:01 PM »

In an exchange on Catholic Truth the Remnant columnist Martin Blackshaw attacks His Lordship and by extension Archbishop Lefebvre.

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/05/sspxrome-accord-is-a-split-inevitable/#comments

Quote

Athanasius on May 21, 2012 at 10:44 pm

Aquinas

If indeed Archbishop Lefebvre did submit Fr. Williamson’s name to Rome for consecration over the others, it just goes to show that even saints are not infallible. The Archbishop was later forced to command His Lordship to cease spreading conspiracy theories about the Jєωs following his deportation from Canada some twenty odd years ago. It seems he didn’t obey that command.

This conspiracy theory side to Bishop Williamson has warped the imagination of a number of Traditional Catholics, who seem to think that the exposing of cօռspιʀαcιҽs is the remit of a Catholic Bishop. It’s not! A bishop should be concerned only with the salvation of souls.

Our Lord told His disciples to go and spread the Gospel to all nations, not rant against real or perceived enemies of the Church. We are supposed to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. Is that what Bishop Williamson does? Is His Lordship an image of Our Lord on the road to Calvary, or is he like the impetuous Peter who cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant?

Now, you ask Editor where Bishop Williamson has deviated from the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre. The answer to your question is here: http://mauricepinay.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/letter-from-bishop-fellay-to-bishop.html Be prepared to be shocked!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2012, 05:03:39 PM »

For these people, speaking about the anti-Christian Jєωιѕн power puts you outside the Church, but accepting 95% of Vatican II, saying what was condemned was not from the Council, saying that Vatican II will be part of the Tradition of the Church, etc, suppressing the publication of the sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre makes you the heir of Archbishop Lefebvre:

http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/36078

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2012, 05:51:48 PM »

Martin Blackshaw then attacks Fr Morgan and makes a threat to 'Aquinas'.

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/05/sspxrome-accord-is-a-split-inevitable/#comments

Quote

You have the advantage of me, my friend, in that you know my name. I think that calls for you to tell me your name. Please be assured that I stand by what I said. I have no fear of your threats, nor do I fear Fr. Morgan. I’m sure Fr. Morgan knows even more than I do about Bishop Williamson’s motives.

By the way, what I have said here is just the tip of a very large iceberg. I could say a lot more, but will leave matters as they stand. Suffice it to say I always check and double-check my facts before making comment about another, especially a Bishop. You would be well advised to let the matter drop! Now, about your name. Do you have the courage to reveal it?

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2012, 06:09:06 PM »

What calumny specifically?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2012, 06:14:36 PM »

This quote is truly despicable:

Quote

Our Lord told His disciples to go and spread the Gospel to all nations, not rant against real or perceived enemies of the Church. We are supposed to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. Is that what Bishop Williamson does? Is His Lordship an image of Our Lord on the road to Calvary, or is he like the impetuous Peter who cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant?

Why was Our Lord crucified? Was he silent about the enemies of God?

Isn't it the duty of Christians to support the Social Reign of Christ?

Doesn't that require resisting those who have sought to destroy every aspect of that reign over society?

Far better to cut off the high priest's servant's ear (not that Bishop Williamson has done that, but these Opus Fellay members should keep that event in mind) than to greet with the kiss for thirty pieces of silver.

Kelley · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2012, 10:19:44 PM »

Quote from: Martin Blackshaw

A bishop should be concerned only with the salvation of souls.
Our Lord told His disciples to go and spread the Gospel to all nations, not rant against real or perceived enemies of the Church. We are supposed to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. Is that what Bishop Williamson does? Is His Lordship an image of Our Lord on the road to Calvary, or is he like the impetuous Peter who cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant?

Odd, is it not, that anyone in Germany may doubt the Resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth or even the very existence of Jesus, with complete freedom and no fear of prosecution? Yet to doubt the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz is a crime punishable by five years’ imprisonment. Pope John Paul II called Auschwitz the new Golgotha and this writer has for decades argued that Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central and defining pole star in the western ontology of sacred suffering. Would it not be safe to say that the evidence for this revolutionary reversal can be found in the criminal penalties attached to so-called “h0Ɩ0cαųst denial” and the freedom by which "Resurrection denial” and even denial that Jesus ever existed, are promoted throughout the media, academia and the Internet?

Bishop Williamson never “denied the h0Ɩ0cαųst.”
He did undertake a very human and Biblical act -- he doubted a Judaic fable (Titus 1:14), that six million Judaic persons died and many of them perished in "gas chambers" in Auschwitz.

- From "Bishop Williamson Contra Mundum" October 20, 2011
by Michael Hoffman

Read complete column Here

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2012, 02:00:05 PM »

I guess my question is going to go unanswered.

It might be self-evident to you and those who think like you do, but if you're going to level a serious charge like calumny (lying about a person) you should at least try and spell your charge out clearly.

Otherwise, you look like a crank.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2012, 02:15:38 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

I guess my question is going to go unanswered.

It might be self-evident to you and those who think like you do, but if you're going to level a serious charge like calumny (lying about a person) you should at least try and spell your charge out clearly.

Otherwise, you look like a crank.

Who was your question directed to?

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #8 on:** May 23, 2012, 08:19:11 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Augstine Baker
I guess my question is going to go unanswered.

It might be self-evident to you and those who think like you do, but if you're going to level a serious charge like calumny (lying about a person) you should at least try and spell your charge out clearly.

Otherwise, you look like a crank.

Who was your question directed to?

John Grace accused Aquinas of calumny, correct?