Is everyone a media whore?

[Telemaque]

And good luck with those pins. I'm sure St. Athanasius is happy to be compared to a bishop who is painted as a martyr for having diarhea of the mouth.   

If anyone has a filthy mouth it's you.  

Williamson has courage.  Every real Catholic should be defending the SSPX from these liberal thought police.  If I were to hear you talk about the filthy mouths of liberal prelates who undermine the Faith then it might be possible to take your comments seriously.  As it is, I can't take anything you say seriously.

You have very funny priorities for someone who calls himself a trad.

Babies in hell, defense of the beatles and the rolling stones, constant sniping at the SSPX.  

Overall, your posts show more hostility to Catholic tradition than support for it.  

[didishroom]

If anyone has a filthy mouth it's you.

Yeah, you sure proved me wrong.

Williamson has courage. Every real Catholic should be defending the SSPX from these liberal thought police.

Yep, if you're not with the SSPX you're not a real Catholic.

 

If I were to hear you talk about the filthy mouths of liberal prelates who undermine the Faith then it might be possible to take your comments seriously. As it is, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Yeah, cause you know me, always defending the liberalism and modernism of our renegade clergy.

Babies in hell, defense of the beatles and the rolling stones, constant sniping at the SSPX.

Overall, your posts show more hostility to Catholic tradition than support for it.

1.)Belief in Limbo is actually something very TRADITIONAL. It's not some weird obscure thought that is at odds with Catholicism. In fact, denial of Limbo is a very modern thing. The SSPX defends Limbo.
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm
The fcat that criticism of Limbo was released by the Vatican 'theologians' and singed by people like Karl Rahner would probably be clue numero uno that something's fishy. I'm suprised that you didn't catch on. But I guess you would rather try and prove that I'm not a 'trad' than understand what the Church's teaching on salvation is.  

2.) I never defended The Rolling Stones or the Beatles. I defended one song by the Stones and the Beatle's Music. You acted as if it was some sort of apostasy for my appreciating this music yet you could not actually point out what was 'evil' about it.

3.) Criticism or appreciation of the SSPX does not determine whether you're a 'trad' or not and I'm disgusted that my being a traditional Catholic is questioned by some stranger on the internet because of my 'allegiances.'

[QuisUtDeus]

The Ratso Rizzos. 

Midnight Cowboy? 

I think so. Ratso had major "issues."

edited to add: I'm unable to view the page.. so I don't know what the connection is. ??

There isn't.  In the SSPX the Rizzo brothers were priests who left the SSPX amid a lot of flack.  The SSPX was, objectively, unkind to them, called them traitors, etc.  In return, the Fathers Rizzo have talked all kinds of smack about the SSPX.  It was, and is, ugly on both sides.

The only connection is that some think the Rizzos are "rats", so they are applying a phrase from Midnight Cowboy.

What surprised me is PeterII would use a reference found in a movie about male prostitution.  I wouldn't think that type of film would ever have crossed his eyes given his strong opinions on what is appropriate. 

EDIT: Correction, only one of the brothers became a priest.  The events happened a long time ago, and I forgot that one left the seminary before being ordained.

[Gerard]

Ummm....he used to be a priest there. I'm sure he knows Williamson better than you.  

Perhaps Williamson knows Rizzo better than you.

Wow. Irrelevant info.

No irrelevent.  Just filling in info on a number of reasons why people have left or been expelled from the SSPX.

From the famous article he published after his departure from the FSSP, you get the feeling that he's not talking about himself.

It could be because he's making it up.

He obviously felt that there were serious problems with the SSPX in general and felt people should know. Many families followed him realizing that they wanted the Latin Mass but had had it with the SSPX.

Smells and bells is not what make traditional Catholicism. 

What 'modern bizarre understanding of women' are you referring to?
Disgareeing with Williamson does not equate one with 'modernism.' I know of people who admire Williamson but feel put off by the way he talks of women and their role.

There's nothing wrong with Williamson's positions on men and women and their natures.  To be put off by Williamson's position is to be put off by Aquinas, Saints and the whole of society through the centuries.

And I think someone who had a parishoner set on him to 'spy', doors glued shut so he couldn't enter a room to say mass, his screws undone on his car tires, and who received numerous phone calls with threats has a right to be critical. No way does that make him a 'drama queen.'

Who says any of that is true? 

An 'indult'? I don't think Bishop Williamson would like that.

He'd be fine with it considering my circumstances.

And good luck with those pins. I'm sure St. Athanasius is happy to be compared to a bishop who is painted as a martyr for having diarhea of the mouth.   

I'm sure he's pleased and looking down from Heaven interceding for the good bishop.

[QuisUtDeus]

And I love that now a critic of Bishop Williamson is a 'MODERNIST.' It's people like you that make me glad I don't go to a Society chapel. I'ld hate to have to endure the Williamson Fan Club all of the time.  

From the other side of the fence, it's people like that who make me embarassed to go to a Society chapel.  The Society itself isn't defending what Bp. Williamson said because it's not relevant to anything the Society does.

My defense of Bp. Williamson would not be because he is a bishop or even a Catholic.  My defense of him is because he made an argument about an historical event.  The world has become 1984 where the govt's can tell us what happened, and if we don't buy the line, we go to jail.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't argue, "Rome should not re-excommunciate him because it was political speech" or along those lines and at the same time call him a martyr having admitted it was political speech rather than witnessing for Christ.

The last person I know of that people wanted to make a "martyr" for political speech was Martin Luther King.  In that area, the Modernists want him sainted and the traditional Catholics don't because (besides not being Catholic) he wasn't witnessing for Christ but engaging in political dialogue.  We can't have it both ways and say we are being intellectually honest.

Pick.  Either he's witnessing for Christ and making religious speech then Rome has the ability to excommunicate him for heresy (though it would be objectively wrong on two counts: 1) that it is religious speech, 2) that he is guilty of heresy), or he's making political speech and therefore not a martyr.

I will definitely defend Bp. Williamson on this issue, but not because he is a martyr for the faith.  He is not when it comes to his statements on the Holocaust.

Further, I don't agree with his statements - I only argue he has the right to say them as political speech in an arena where there should be free and open inquiry as to historical facts.

[Telemaque]

Yeah, you sure proved me wrong.

That sort of language you use to describe Bishop Williamson is contemptible.  You use language to describe him that is far worse than the language you use to describe other prelates.  You seem to take more offense at his views on women in pants than you do at real evils.  Taking offense at his views on those issues in the way you do is just the sort of reaction one expects from liberals.  I mean seriously, there are articles in the press that say "he denies the holocaust" and says women shouldn't wear pants" as if to drive home the point that he's a thought criminal. - because that is the insanity of liberal sensibilities today.  Sensibilities you seem to have internalized. I'm just noticing your priorities.  You seem more interested in sniping at Trads than in defending them.

Yep, if you're not with the SSPX you're not a real Catholic.

If you take more offense at what Williamson said than at the ferocious campaign against him, there's something wrong.

And yes, most Catholics today are divorced from Tradition.  The SSPX, and Bishop Williamson, have performed an invaluable mission for the Church in preserving Catholic Tradition.  The SSPX requested the Motu Proprio.  Would that have occurred had the SSPX not taken a firm stand? Where would Catholic Tradition be today without the SSPX? Certainly far more marginalized than it is.  So yes, the SSPX is following the example of St. Athanasius.  
 

Yeah, cause you know me, always defending the liberalism and modernism of our renegade clergy

No, I just notice your priorities.  I would say overall you're more critical of trads than of liberals.  

1.)Belief in Limbo is actually something very TRADITIONAL. It's not some weird obscure thought that is at odds with Catholicism. In fact, denial of Limbo is a very modern thing. The SSPX defends Limbo.

Yes.  But there's something strange about bringing it up all the time.  It's as though you constantly want to bring up a hard doctrine to rub it in people's faces.

The fcat that criticism of Limbo was released by the Vatican 'theologians' and singed by people like Karl Rahner would probably be clue numero uno that something's fishy. I'm suprised that you didn't catch on. But I guess you would rather try and prove

I know what the Catholic Church's teaching is.  And I can understand defending limbo.  I can't understand the constant emphasis placed on it, above other issues, especially when it's a difficult topic.  

2.) I never defended The Rolling Stones or the Beatles. I defended one song by the Stones and the Beatle's Music. You acted as if it was some sort of apostasy for my appreciating this music yet you could not actually point out what was 'evil' about it.

I did point out what is evil about it.  Your response "it could mean anything."  Well, no.  It's from an evil group, with evil intentions.  And you say, no problem.

 

3.) Criticism or appreciation of the SSPX does not determine whether you're a 'trad' or not and I'm disgusted that my being a traditional Catholic is questioned by some stranger on the internet because of my 'allegiances.'

The fact of the matter is anyone on the internet can pretend to be anyone.  Judging by your posts I see a lot more hostility to the SSPX than I see to anything else.  I think your priorities are misplaced.

[QuisUtDeus]

I don't think they have a 'personal agenda' and it's not right to call them 'nutbars.' They said nothing that was 'out there.'

Poor Fr. Rizzo experienced a lot of crap from the Society for leaving. He even had his life threatened.

OK, you go from saying they don't have a "personal agenda" and then you say "he experienced a lot of crap".  I agree with the latter, but not with the former.

Really, the Rizzo brothers do have a personal agenda.  They've taken shots at the SSPX every chance they get.  There are other priests and seminarians who left who have not done the same.

From all accounts I have heard, Fr. Rizzo is a good priest.  However, it is human nature to be angry at people who have mistreated you, or that you perceive have mistreated you.  Given the number of interviews he has granted over the years, I think it's clear there is an agenda to discredit those who hurt him.

[Telemaque]

Pick.  Either he's witnessing for Christ and making religious speech then Rome has the ability to excommunicate him for heresy (though it would be objectively wrong on two counts: 1) that it is religious speech, 2) that he is guilty of heresy), or he's making political speech and therefore not a martyr.

He's not a "martyr" for saying what he said, but that's not the real reason they're picking on him and the SSPX.  Ultimately, they find the SSPX theological position on the Jews, and the SSPX adherence to what the pre-conciliar Church taught about the menace of the Revolution to be the problem.

That is the real reason they took Williamson's remarks and created an international furor.

Now from those who criticize Williamson for making foolish remarks, I hardly ever see complaints about the Jewish attempt to subvert our faith, and I see mockery of those who talk about the masonic threat.  I see more criticism of Williamson for making his statement than I see criticism of those who are trying to lock him up.
 
I find it slightly suspect.

[didishroom]

It could be because he's making it up.

 
Who says any of that is true? 

That's your answer? Why do you automatically assume that he's making it up? Is this how you defend the Society? You just paint it's critics to be 'liars', 'drama queens','ignorant' and 'incompetant'? You don't know that he's lying. You just assume and imply nasty things about him to discredt his criticisms, even though you have nothing to say that he's making it up.

I guess I could just assume that I'm really talking to Williamson right now, whose trying to make his critics look stupid.

 

Smells and bells is not what make traditional Catholicism. 

Yeah, cause if it's not the Society then it's no good! You don't like the Society? You must not be a real 'trad.' You're a Modernist! Ugghhh, I am so sick of this elitist garbage! And some wonder why the SSPX has been labeled a cult?  

 

There's nothing wrong with Williamson's positions on men and women and their natures.  To be put off by Williamson's position is to be put off by Aquinas, Saints and the whole of society through the centuries.

Yeah cause Aquinas the Church all said garbage like, "all women who wear trousers contribute to an abortive society.'

He'd be fine with it considering my circumstances.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're special. So why do other people told they have to stay home and read their missals if they can't get to a Society chapel?

[StrictCatholicGirl]

The only connection is that some think the Rizzos are "rats", so they are applying a phrase from Midnight Cowboy.

Or a connection in the title of the thread: Media whore.

 ??

- Lisa