Author Topic: Wither Goest Thou, Angelus Press? (Read 13253 times)

Matthew · « **on:** October 07, 2012, 10:32:07 PM »

This is still relevant today, I think.

Wither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

By E. J. G. Jones

Several days ago, I received an email from Angelus Press.

Now, this is not a particularly unusual thing, as these emails come once every month or so, and I normally enjoy them, as they acquaint me, as is their purpose, with the newest products of that fine publisher, and occasionally provide news of tempting sales and discounts as well.

However, this time was different. As I read through the offerings, I came to one called "Holding the Stirrup." It sounded lovely, at first glance... a true story of heroic action on the part of Catholic nobility in the earlier 20th century, full of chivalry and the like. As a writer on a blog called Durendal, and a convinced monarchist and supporter of the old ways, in politics as in almost everything else, by rights I ought to be very attached to this book. I ought to be possessed of a strong desire to buy it, and I ought to be happy that Angelus Press is carrying it, and "getting the message out" to all those Traditionalists in the English-speaking world who still labor under the modern propaganda, and have an axe to grind against aristocracy, submission to one's superiors, the Catholic social order which arose in what we like to call the 'middle ages,' etc. But, I don't. I do not believe that this book sounds like edifying reading material for a Catholic.

"Why not?" I hear you ask.

As soon as the third sentence in the description, he who wrote it is already playing up "the evils of Hitler and Communism." Notice, if you will, the order in which these evils are mentioned. In right thought, one addresses the major point prior to the minor, the greater before the lesser. In this case, it is reversed. Communism, one of the "errors of Russia" spoken of by Our Lady in 1917, is, from every Catholic standpoint, vastly more evil than the nαzιsm of Herr Hitler. (Which was quite evil enough, thank-you.) Communism killed more people, (even, most likely, more Jєωs) and is a godless and avowedly materialistic system, whereas 'national socialism' was "merely" neo-pagan. The ad continues with rather vivid language, which I find unbalanced. The author refers to "The tragic aftermath of the Third Reich" and "the last bulwark of Christianity in Hitler's Germany," and, even more dramatically, to "the last organized defender of the human rights and dignity which Hitler brought to such a terrifying end."

A few questions can't help but present themselves, upon reading this rhetoric. Firstly, in the last quotation, the ad spoke of 'human rights.' Since when, I'd like to know, do Traditional Catholics make it a practice and a habit to conjure up this very progressive idea of the enlightenment? Only when it suits them, perhaps? "Human rights are a modern concept, except when we want to embrace them to show we condemn a certain evil?" Secondly, given the tone of my writing, it may come as a surprise, but I really do not disagree with the general thrust: "Hitler was really bad." That said, from a Catholic perspective, we know that the soul-rotting, materialistic "democracy" of the "Allies" or the "West" or the "victorious powers" was just as evil, if not more so, due to its insidiousness, than the neopaganism of nαzι Germany. This being the case, why do we not hear balanced rhetoric in other works praising those nobles in England who heroically fought against the liberal warmongering of Winston Churchill, or the veiled communism of Franklin Roosevelt? It simply does not exist in our society, even in traditionalist circles, and I think this is a very sad state of affairs. We're happy to condemn one evil, but we refuse to acknowledge the more dire and perhaps greater one which has been systematically turning the world into a godless 'paradise' of materialist secularism since 1945.

You doubtless think that I am splitting hairs, here, and that my strong words are quite unjustified. "After all, this is just ad copy, do you expect it to be historically and philosophically perfect?"

No, I do not. Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the trend which I have discerned, of late, in The Angelus, and Angelus Press, of covering nαzιsm and the German cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs virtually ad nauseam. One could almost extrapolate, from their constant articles, publications, book reviews, interviews, etc., that they were very eager to "prove" to the world, and to anglophonic Traditional Catholics, that they fully believe in the WWII Jєωιѕн h0Ɩ0cαųst, and are very eager to distance themselves from Mgr. Williamson's very publicized questioning of these events, which became fodder for public discussion at the beginning of this year. This "trend" at Angelus Press began around that time, and seems to have scarcely abated since. It may seem a petty personal gripe, but when I subscribed (to the magazine and the emails) I expected to be subscribing to a Traditionalist magazine, not to a WWII history magazine. (One article, even two, would have been quite sufficient for their purposes, if they felt a need to distance themselves from the very notion of a politically incorrect questioning of the precise historical details.)

Returning, however, to this new book offered by Angelus Press, we find yet more problems, as we continue reading. I said above that I did not expect the ad to be perfect historically, because a humble catalogue-compiler need not necessarily know history in order to do his job. I do, however, expect that in a Catholic publishing house, Catholic morality will be followed. If we continue reading the ad, we see that even this benchmark is not met.

"It was this nobility" (which nobility he has been waxing poetic about the goodness and virtue thereof throughout his writing, and clearly believes them to be in the right) "which implemented the famous plot to αssαssιnαtҽ Hitler, a plot in which Elisabeth's cousin, Claus Stauffenberg, and many good friends lost their lives. The drama of this great conspiracy, together with the personalities and secret machinery which almost made it work, is the high point of the book."

This is very, very sad, and I did not think I would see the day when a traditionalist publication suggested that murder or vigilante justice is a legitimate or justifiable thing. In the liberal west today, where the devil himself has been forgotten and written off as superstitious myth, while Hitler has taken center-stage as the world's most vicious villain ever, it is now quite fashionable to praise the "heroic" Count von Stauffenberg, for his attempt to instigate a coup and αssαssιnαtҽ Adolf Hitler. Not only was the count's action cowardly (a bomb) and treasonous (because he, a military man, had sworn an oath to the nαzι government, just as U.S. servicemen today swear an oath to the constitution) but it was attempted murder, plain and simple. It is true that Hitler was an evil man, and it is true that his death could perhaps be rationalized as "the greater good," but one cannot, according to Catholic moral theology, do evil that good may come of it, and one cannot act as a vigilante, which is precisely what Count von Stauffenberg did.

An example very relevant to today will prove my point. Count von Stauffenberg undertook to kill one high-placed man, in the hope that this would prevent the future death of many other men in the war. He may have hoped to save a million men. Yet, in the United States, since the decision of Roe v. Wade in the 1970s, it is estimated that upwards of 44,000,000 babies have been murdered through abortion. If von Stauffenberg acted rightly to save a million, could we not say that any men with decency ought to emulate his actions to save another 44,000,000? Was not the vigilante who gunned down the abortionist George Tiller in the right? To say this would be an absurdity, as everyone readily recognizes. Society cannot function save when law and order prevails, which it does not when men take it into their minds to kill, not on the state's authority (sanctioned by God) but on their own, those whom they deem, from their perspective, to be evildoers who should not be longer tolerated by society. Modern men are hypocrites, when on the one hand, they lambast the killing of Dr. Tiller as an injustice, and on the other, they praise Count von Stauffenberg as a glorious hero.

I am very sad to see that Angelus Press has apparently succuмbed to this hypocrisy, at least in a material way. I hope they correct their ad and stop selling a book which appears to perpetuate this myth of Col. Stauffenberg's heroism -having even the chutzpah to suggest it is exemplary Catholic behavior. Since Angelus Press has publicly released this ad, and is selling this book, I believe it is a man's Catholic duty to call them on it, publicly.

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2012, 11:29:30 PM »

When Father Bolduc started The Angelus, he didn't want it to be a lofty publication. He wanted it to be geared towards talking about issues and teaching the faith to common people. It's a shame what it's turned into, especially that last picture on the front depicting Jesus making that devil horn sign with his hand. Surely they could have found a better picture of the Sacred Heart than that one.

trento · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2012, 11:34:43 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

When Father Bolduc started The Angelus, he didn't want it to be a lofty publication. He wanted it to be geared towards talking about issues and teaching the faith to common people. It's a shame what it's turned into, especially that last picture on the front depicting Jesus making that devil horn sign with his hand. Surely they could have found a better picture of the Sacred Heart than that one.

Can you scan the pic and share it with us here? I doubt many people understand what picture you are referring to.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** October 08, 2012, 01:36:21 PM »

So, what's the title of the book? It's not common practice to put the title of a
book merely in quotation marks, so "Holding the Stirrup" might not be it. If the
article had had Holding the Stirrup or Holding the Stirrup, I would not be left
wondering, as italics or underline IS common proper editorial practice for titles
of books.

Also, what is the author's name? Any reputable commentator referring to a
specific book will include the name of the author, so anyone reading the article
will not be left confused or possibly misled. There could be periodical articles
or issues by the same title. There could be poetry or Internet blogs by the same
title. How many newspapers and magazines are there, with articles? And over
the course of a few years (since this comes from 2009) it becomes quite possible
that there are more than one items headed by the same few words.

Quote from: Matthew

This is still relevant today, I think.

Wither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

By E. J. G. Jones

Several days ago, I received an email from Angelus Press.

Now, this is not a particularly unusual thing,...
...

... Since Angelus Press has publicly released this ad, and is selling this book, I believe it is a man's Catholic duty to call them on it, publicly.

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/

"...it is a man's Catholic duty to call them on it, publicly." -- What is he talking
about? Catholics should call Angelus on the phone and complain about something?
What? If you're going to encourage people to complain, it should be very clear
what you are asking them to do, otherwise you could get people responding to
your urgings by complaining about the wrong thing. Does he mean it is a Catholic
duty to post Internet blog messages that make a vague reference to the
perceived inappropriateness of a book store's ad for a particular offering? I'm
having a bit of a difficulty with that, because I've never heard of any Catholic
"duty" to post Internet blog messages of any kind. Does he mean it is a Catholic
duty to take out commercial ad space to complain about how "Angelus Press is
selling this book?" Well, that doesn't seem quite right either: is it ever a "Catholic
duty" to make demands that a book store stop selling a book because the
complaining Catholic doesn't approve of the way the book store advertized the
book?

Following the link rencesvals... I found this today:

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Taking Another Look at "Holding the Stirrup"

Link to article from 2009: Whither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?

By: M.D. Amesse

Readers will recall a post some years back featured on Durendal where Mr. Jones commented on the Angelus Press' advertisement of the book Holding the Stirrup. Last Christmas, my aunt bought me the book. I only recently found time to read it. I actually found it quite good, and thus the Durendal staff felt that in justice my thoughts on it should be posted here.

I know that there are objections to the assassination attempt by Count von Stauffenberg, due to his oath and the questionable morality of tyrannicide itself (cf. the Council of Cosntance which condemned the proposition that "[a]ny vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation, notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant, and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge."). Indeed, the authoress, Baroness Elisabeth von Gutenberg, does present Stauffenberg as a hero, but it is more nuanced than the advertisements for the book make out.

She admits that she is too close to the matter to trust her own judgment, and the difficulties arising with the oath to Hitler is touched on. Of course, the Catholic Bavarian aristocracy had good luck with assassination up to that point. Her husband, Baron Enoch von Gutenberg, led the navy against President Kurt Eisner, a Jєωιѕн, socialist, who drove the King and Queen of Bavaria out and declared the nation a republic. Gutenberg did not get him, but a relative, Count Anton von Arco, did shoot Eisner dead in Munich. At any rate, the matter of the oath with Hitler weighed on her husband’s mind, but when he was called up as a naval officer, Gutenberg was never required to take the oath. It freed him to work in the resistance. I find this acceptable.

The first half of the book deals with the lead up to the war and includes her husband and their extended family’s attempt to restore the monarchy of Bavaria. It starts when she was a young girl and ranges through the early years of their marriage. I found the beginning to be more interesting than the latter half, which deals with the nαzι reaction against the Catholic nobility after the bomb failed.

It was interesting having a firsthand account of life in a Catholic German aristocratic family struggling with modernity and revolution. At points it is quite moving, and I liked how the nobility was shown as having a true concern for the tenants on their estates and the love that the peasants showed their lords. It was so very different than the type of thing you see in film and print today, where the nobility are always haughty and treat the lower classes as inhuman beast of burden.

The authoress does see the nαzιs as evil (as she should) but see{s} Russia as the source of that evil. I have only two complaints: 1) I think the personal memoir (was it edited?) did not focus enough on the role which Jєωιѕн revolutionaries played and 2) she saw the British and Americans as liberators. In short: the good side. This, however, is rather light and comes in more at the very end.

All in all, I would recommend this book to readers.
----------------------------------------------------------

{"In short: the good side." This is not a sentence, and leaves whatever is
intended up for grabs: the book prortrays "the good side" of what, the Allied
liberation of Europe, the good that the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries played in the War,
that Russia was the real source of all the evil of WWII and everyone else was
therefore exonerated? What?}

Therefore, it is noteworthy that the OP links to a blog post from September 19th,
2012 (three weeks ago) and an article recommending the book, Holding the
Stirrup by Baroness Elisabeth von Gutenberg, while the OP makes no clear
mention of the book's title (quotation marks would indicate the title of an article or
a movie, or a poem, for example) and no mention whatsoever of the author's
name, while the OP seems to refer only to a blog post from 3 years ago (Oct. 28,
2009), and is principally focused on a critique of an ad in the Angelus,
where it appears whoever wrote the Angelus ad was somewhat "groping at
straws" to evoke an anti-Williamson-"h0Ɩ0cαųst-denial" theme from a book that
really doesn't have such a theme in the first place, according to the post in the
linked Durendal blog page.

I think I get the gist of your intention, Matthew, in making this post, it's just that
I thought it might be worth mentioning that to some new viewer reading this
thread, someone not familiar with the whole attack scenario against +Williamson,
that there is more to your intention than what is clearly expressed in your opening
post for the thread, or for that matter, the thread's title.

I have several friends who are quite educated and well-read, who abhor reading
blogs and fora such as this present one, and they are entirely in agreement on
+Fellay's virtual campaign of suppression and ostracization of his own brother
bishop. It seems to me that under the prevailing circuмstances, something so
easily misunderstood as this should be better explained, lest it be entirely abused
by even underhanded efforts of the opposition, so to speak.

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** October 08, 2012, 06:03:33 PM »

N.O.,

I read "Holding the Stirrup" and watched the movie "Valkyrie" at about the same time.

Considering the tribe's control of Hollywood, I thought the script and Tom Cruise's acting job were an excellent portrayal of the mechanics of Count Von Stauffenberg assassination attempt.

The topic of whether the Catholic Chuch would condone such an assassination, under certain conditions, is intriguing to me.

In "Holding the Stirrup", the countess indicated that Count von Staffenberg had undergone a transformation after his injuries.

He was oblvious to his disabling wounds and was determined to get Hitler. She said amazingly, sitting in his hospital bed missing seven fingers and his right eye, he "looked good".

I took it as his move towards sainthood. He was willing to sacrifice everything to stop Hilter. TIA did a thorough check of the Hitler literature and they've made a good argument for Adolf Hitler being demonically possessed.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_006_nαzιGnostic05.html

Considering the mass propaganda attack Hollywood pulled-off over the generations to demonize the German people, I see the assassination attempt as historically important. The Jєω Henry Morganthou actually tried to persuade the Allies to pass a peace-time law requiring all German men to be sterilized.

The fact that over 4,000 Germans gave up their lives trying to oust Hitler
violates the Morganthou/Hollywood stereotype.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2013, 04:21:45 PM »

Quote from: trento

Quote from: parentsfortruth
When Father Bolduc started The Angelus, he didn't want it to be a lofty publication. He wanted it to be geared towards talking about issues and teaching the faith to common people. It's a shame what it's turned into, especially that last picture on the front depicting Jesus making that devil horn sign with his hand. Surely they could have found a better picture of the Sacred Heart than that one.

Can you scan the pic and share it with us here? I doubt many people understand what picture you are referring to.

It wasn't actually on the Angelus, I found out. It was on the catalog, which was why I had a hard time finding it. And it wasn't a picture of the Sacred Heart.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2013, 04:31:10 PM »

Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2013, 08:30:49 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."

Please help this artistic amateur. What am I looking at?

trento · « **Reply #8 on:** January 12, 2013, 11:15:45 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."

LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh?

That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #9 on:** January 12, 2013, 02:02:46 PM »

Quote from: trento

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."

LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh?

That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:

When an 8 year old child has to ask about it, there's a problem. Why choose a picture like this one when it's well known that there is a significant occult meaning attached to it now?

Diego · « **Reply #10 on:** January 12, 2013, 02:33:24 PM »

A little over 1 month after that letter, the Angelus published the outrageous "Saint of the Sanhedrin" supporting the Pharisees' word over St. Paul.

trento · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2013, 06:04:15 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: trento
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."

LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh?

That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:

When an 8 year old child has to ask about it, there's a problem. Why choose a picture like this one when it's well known that there is a significant occult meaning attached to it now?

Perhaps you should explain it to your child then. It seems only Americans have a problem with this picture. As Catholics we should be more aware about our Eastern Catholic brethren too, and no, I don't mean it in the same way for the the Eastern 'Orthodox'.

Tomas de Torquemada · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2013, 04:07:11 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: trento
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."

LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh?

That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:

When an 8 year old child has to ask about it, there's a problem. Why choose a picture like this one when it's well known that there is a significant occult meaning attached to it now?

Are you kidding? Please tell me you are joking. An 8 year old asks about it and it is therefore a occult picture being promoted as such by the evil Angelus Press? That's rich.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #13 on:** January 14, 2013, 08:25:29 AM »

The eight year old that asked about this picture was actually one of my nieces: A very innocent child that was told that this symbol was used by followers of the devil. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to today's art, and the occult symbolism employed by the Illuminati and the Freemasons. This handsign can be likened by the brazen usage of the "All seeing eye" that actually was a highjacked sign for the Eye of Providence which was actually a Catholic symbol to begin with.

I wonder if I decided to make my avatar a symbol of the Eye of Providence, and how many people would say "LOOK! SHE HAS A SATANIC SIGN IN HER AVATAR!" I'm predicting very many. Perhaps you're more skeptical.

Whether you -want- to notice it or not, this is not the only time the SSPX lately has used "artistic license" and it's quietly been swept under the rug.

Have you seen the butcher block that is now at Menzingen? Maybe you didn't know what I meant by "butcher block." Let me help you.

At the Seminary in Econe, they just put in a "new altar." This "altar" has a very wide space behind it, so that you could theoretically have Mass facing in both directions. The stairs were completely redone as well, and the standing altar they had used to be closer to the wall, as far as I know, and they've moved it more to the center of the Church. Instead of moving the altar (as long as they were redoing the Church) why didn't they move it closer to the wall? Should we be concerned that this move is preparing them for the eventual use of the Novus Ordo? I'm told no.

It's the same "no" I'm hearing when I see a picture like this being used by the Angelus Press. It's in bad taste. You want some examples?

I'll put more here if you're not convinced.

trento · « **Reply #14 on:** January 14, 2013, 11:49:01 AM »

Yes, the all-seeing Eye is a Catholic symbol, hijacked by the Masons and Illuminati. But that doesn't mean we should just let them have it their way and stop using it.

More examples of 'controversial' images. I say 'controversial' because it is only controversial to modern sensibilities, just like how Bishop Williamson said modern sensibilities will be shocked to hear that women should not be in positions of authority: