SSPX threatens to expel Bishop Williamson
#51
columba Wrote:Bet your last bottom dollar that the +Williamson retraction exercise is only a dry run for a planned +Fellay retraction exercise over now-deleted but widely archived "Antisemetic" contents of SSPX websites.


Glad I already printed and stored articles!!!!!!
Reply
#52
devotedknuckles Wrote:was his Excellency preaching or was he answering a trap question?


Good point, I think it was atrap or skewered to look like something it was not....for instance, he doubted methods of death, but if wording and headlines taken at face value, he deined whole event......
Reply
#53
devotedknuckles Wrote:c'mon peterII? was his Excellency preaching or was he answering a trap question? yes i would have the same position if he was expelled for answering a question re the moonlandings that wasnt an acceptible answer tot he press or those who run the show because what does the moonlandings have to do with anything re our faith?
thats just me im a sticler for these things and i just discovered that it was the indiians who first went to the moon on the backs of turtles a few thousand years ago. nothing is what it seems.

His interview on television was undobutedly a media hit piece made by anti-Catholics.  However, Bishop Williamson brought it upon himself by making eccentric public statements from the pulpit and in conferences.  If moon landings have nothing to do with our Faith, then neither do the numbers of the Holocaust or 9/11 conspiracy theories.  It was not and is not the mission of the SSPX to propagate these ideas.

If you want to believe that Indians made it to the moon on the backs of turtles thousands of years ago, you are free to do so.  But you can't give the impression that that is an official position of the SSPX and use its facilities to do so.           
Reply
#54
PeterII Wrote:What if Bishop Williamson went around preaching that the moon landings were not real?  How comfortable would Traditional Catholics be in that situation?  Would there be an uproar if he was expelled in that case?
If taking that position set off a worldwide dragnet, I would consider such response odd to say the least.

Can you justify or explain why the questioning of historical detail is outlawed?
Reply
#55
PeterII Wrote:If moon landings have nothing to do with our Faith, then neither do the numbers of the Holocaust or 9/11 conspiracy theories.
These issues have nothing to do with our Faith ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Do you support making Moon Landing Denial a religious heresy more serious than, let's say, claiming that Old Testament religion is salvivic?
Reply
#56
columba Wrote:
PeterII Wrote:If moon landings have nothing to do with our Faith, then neither do the numbers of the Holocaust or 9/11 conspiracy theories.
These issues have nothing to do with our Faith ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Do you support making Moon Landing Denial a religious heresy more serious than, let's say, claiming that Old Testament religion is salvivic?

You wouldn't be a heretic if you deny the moon landing, but you would be a nutbar, and putting nutbars in position of authority is a dangerous thing.  I could not trust a nutbar to be prudent on prudential matters, just like I don't trust a heretic to give me sound theology. 
Reply
#57
PeterII Wrote:You wouldn't be a heretic if you deny the moon landing, but you would be a nutbar, and putting nutbars in position of authority is a dangerous thing.  I could not trust a nutbar to be prudent on prudential matters, just like I don't trust a heretic to give me sound theology.
Continuing the analogy, imagine a massive campaign by Catholic university theologians, Cardinals, and Big Media to force the Catholic Church in adopting Moon Landing Denial as a heresy. In the face of such a campaign, is it wise for the SSPX to publicly threaten expulsion of a Bishop for Moon Landing Denial without clarifying that religious heresy is not at issue?
Reply
#58
columba Wrote:
PeterII Wrote:You wouldn't be a heretic if you deny the moon landing, but you would be a nutbar, and putting nutbars in position of authority is a dangerous thing.  I could not trust a nutbar to be prudent on prudential matters, just like I don't trust a heretic to give me sound theology.
Continuing the analogy, imagine a massive campaign by Catholic university theologians, Cardinals, and Big Media to force the Catholic Church in adopting Moon Landing Denial as a heresy. In the face of such a campaign, is it wise for the SSPX to publicly threaten expulsion of a Bishop for Moon Landing Denial without clarifying that religious heresy is not at issue?

People who readily throw out the line "nutbar" seem to forget that Catholics are called "nutbars" with just as much ease by many groups of people.

A lot of liberal Catholics will call anyone who talks about the Freemasons to be a "nutbar."

Or they'll call someone who questions how evolutionary descent of man can be reconciled with genesis a "nutbar."

In short, calling someone a "nutbar" is an easy way to marginalize Traditional Catholics in general, it takes no effort, no intelligence, it just takes blind adherence to the conventional attitudes found in the "mainstream" of academia and the media.
Reply
#59
Damian Thompson is an infamous type of that sort.

The sort of liberal Catholic who seems to be employed for the purpose of marginalizing Traditional Catholics.

A review of his Saving the Enlightenment.

Reply
#60
Gerard Wrote:I think the enemies of the Church are frightened.  That's good because that means the Church has done some "thing" right.  Grace will flow as a result to get us to the next correct thing to do.

Indeed, bees don't swarm until they detect a threat. Tradition is that threat.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)