Saturday, 8 February 2014

Criticize Judaism, Get Stamped as a Nazi Cook ...

Here is an extract from a dialogue between Robert Sungenis and one Mr. Bill (or William) Cork:

On the other hand, that same Pope Pius XI, in the rare encylical with a title that isn't in Latin, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), does have much to say in condemnation of the ideology popular in Germany at that period. It's a warning worth remembering.
Yes, I condemn "the ideology popular in Germany at that period," but we're not talking about Germany. We're talking about the Jews and Judaism and their goal to spread their religion to the world.

The extract in question is from a pretty long page. It is here in this link*. I found it on a blog post by Mark Shea, listing statements of Sungenis he objects to:

A) Sungenis: “the figure of six million Jews dying under Hitler’s regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda.” (link)*

The statement in question may or may not be in the link*, but the problem is that Mark Shea overlooks all the rest and jumps at one sentence he finds objectionable (I do not find the statement disgusting, if you want to know how I feel about it). Not as I would if I stopped reading a thing, in order to adress that as a separate issue and giving my readers the caveat that I was not adressing all of a text but really quote-mining it for one sentence or a few sentences I would like to object to, no, he does so in a list of statements he finds objectionable in Sungenis. The list goes on to T, but he skips C, L, R, unless there were these items before he took them down or unless he had them in a draft but deleted before publishing.

Even a list of objectionable sentences would be ok if it had been used for purposes of condemning those precise propositions and nothing more. When Pope Leo X condemned some 40 propositions by Martin Luther, taken from the latter's two collections of 97 and 95 theses, he did not do so in order to discredit all the rest of what was in the theses, nor did he or his successor bring that up against Luther when Luther was appealing to Church Fathers against Zwingli.Error Corrected No, he does so as an excuse for having put faith in the report of someone who went to the conference in his place and misrepresented a talk that was not by Mr Sungenis even, but by someone else.

Oh, sorry, the list does not go on just to T, but past Z into AA - HH. It is just that one of the items is not a link but an extract of a dialogue in which is cited the dialogue:

According to the Talmud, they are the *only* human beings. The rest of us are cattle.
Well, yeah, and that’s where the problem comes in.

I have heard that confirmed by Nazis telling me "Adam was not the first human, he was the first Jew". They obviously got that from very racialist and pretty certainly Talmudic Jews. I can see an indirect confirmation of it in the Yiddish appraisal "he is a real Mensch" = "Mensch" being German and thus also Yiddish for "man" as in "anthropos" or "human being". I have read the same in Father Pranaitis, whom I suspect of having played ignorant in order to save the accused in the Beyliss trial. Unless he was the kind of grumpy man who was not really curious and who made a few hasty conclusions. In which case that aspect saved someone possibly guilty.

Actually the Talmud is in a way rather comparable to our Patrologia than to our Bible, so the Talmud, like the Patrologia, contains commenters contradicting each other. It is a bit like saying "according to the patrologia of Migne the earth is flat" because some of the Church Fathers (notably not all of them, notably for instance St Augustine thought it round and St Basil preferred to be agnostic about the point). Even citing Migne is a bit misplaced, because there is not just one edition of the Talmud, rather it is something where some editions have and others lack the objectionable items (guess which ones are most printed in English translations?). But that does not mean Pranaitis (who unlike me was a Hebraist) made up the quotes he attributes to the Talmud. He also gives or refers to other quotes actually contradicting it when he states that in Talmudic terminology Muslims are Ishmael and Christians Esau (and thus in both cases descended from Adam via Noa, via Heber and even Abraham).

The problem is that some might be treating the Talmud more like Orthodox treat Philocalia than like Catholics treat Migne.

Now, a certain Henry Makow, whose site savethemales is filtered by the libraries of Paris** is a former Jew and at present a Nonconformist Protestant. He considers that Jews are like two kinds of people - the kinds who would be shocked at anything like for instance a child sacrifice and the kind who are really molochists. You guess which kind of them uses which Talmud quotes and which other kind of them uses which other kind of Talmud quotes. Note that the Talmud is not really treating even "children of Esau" (i e Christians) as equal in human worth with Jews, but as people you can licitly doublecross, for instance to save Jewish pride ("honour of Israel" as they would say), and that their view of Catholic priesthood is less favourable than their view of Catholics in general. Which explains why some of them supported Nazism - Goebbels' father in law was for instance a Jewish business man and he donated to the Nazi party - since Hitler unlike Dollfuss could not be described as "priestridden".

But the bottom line - to return to Mark Shea - is that:

  • a) a talk denouncing Newton's physics as erroneous and as in obvious conflict with Prima Via is not about the Jews,
  • b) it does not become a talk about the Jews just because it is made by a friend of someone who has previously been saying unpleasant things about Jews, even if the quotations can be sorted from A to Z and even AA to HH,
  • c) and denouncing Jews is not a disease, but an act, and should be treated as such and thus as distinct of other acts of same person or their friends.

So, how does Mark Shea treat the actual content of the talk?***

Accordingly, Jones put up a link to his talk at the Sungenis Festival of Science Quackery, in case you have a burning need to know how Newton fits into the Vast Heliocentric Conspiracy.

That comment is about as intelligent as if someone had said (I am exchanging only the names relevant for the transfer to parallel example, keeping the structure):

Accordingly, Mark Shea put up a link to his talk at the Karl Keating Festival of Theology Quackery, in case you have a burning need to know how Calvin fits into the Vast Protestant Conspiracy.

Heliocentrism may or may not be supported by conspiracies, but it is certainly a paradigm, quite as much as Protestantism is one. And Newton is certainly one of the overtly acknowledged contributors to that paradigm, as much as Calvin to the other one. Of course, Newton got a certain mechanistic view of things from Galileo and he got a view of multiple heliocentric solar systems from Giordano Bruno (is Mark Shea into the Giordano Bruno rehabilitation nostalgia too?), precisely as Calvin got his denial of Real Presence from Zwingli but his view on Guilt and Predestination from Luther at his worst.

Sungenis' is saying that his patron Saint Robert Bellarmine was objecting as much to the Heliocentric paradigm (or what existed as yet of it before Newton) as to the Protestant one. How does that make him an appropriate object for mockery by Catholics?

Because it has suddenly become a duty for Catholics to embrace both Bruno and Spinoza (note that St Robert was among the judges of Bruno and that Spinoza was excommunicated by Jews claiming to be more orthodox than he, though they were not Christians)? Well, I do somehow not think this is an appropriate answer as coming from a Catholic, so if Mark Shea is not into that but into a better one, he will have to reply to me. I am, God willing and weather permitting, mailing this as soon as possible after publication.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard
(though it changed name)
St John of Matha

Error Corrected I was wrong, see this extract from Exsurge Domine. However, only the censors, like Pope and Bishop, or those given authority by them, have authority to condemn someone's every writing because of such things:

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

Since I have flirted with those of them shared by Orthodox (or some such) - like 25 - I might have to retract some. But where is a Pope who is also condemning the Orthodox for errors about Papacy? The Holy Thursday Bull has changed since then.

Update after sending to Mark Shea:

HGL to Mark Shea
08/02/14 à 12h26
"So the other day"
Answer to certain points:

New blog on the kid : Criticize Judaism, Get Stamped as a Nazi Cook ...

Mark Shea to HGL
08/02/14 à 12h46
RE: "So the other day"
Go away.

Leaving out ...
... in first mail a commercial in second mail the citation of first mail with commercial.


* Uncorking the Erroneous Teachings, False Allegations and Liberal Agenda of William Cork
by Robert A. Sungenis
President of Catholic Apologetics International

** See this result:

Ce site n’est pas consultable sur le poste public que vous utilisez.

Le site web que vous souhaitez consulter apparaît en contradiction avec la politique de filtrage des contenus du Système multimédia des bibliothèques de prêt de la Ville de Paris.

Page demandée :

Raison : This Websense category is filtered: Racism and Hate.

Consultez les principes de la politique de filtrage dans les conditions générales d’utilisation.

Le filtrage des contenus est mis en œuvre de façon automatisée ; si vous estimez que le site que vous souhaitez consulter n’est pas en contradiction avec la politique de filtrage, vous pouvez le signaler en utilisant ce formulaire.

Retour à la page précédente

Henry Makow Archives is however acessible:

*** Catholic and Enjoying It : So the Other Day

It seems the post I answered was from 2010. But it seems the day before my answer Mark Shea had put up a video from NASA stating "teach the controversy" about a flat earth - probabliest to mock the people who want to teach controversies less easy to decide by the Phileas Fogg or Innocent Smith method. Actually, a round earth destroys Giordano Bruno's argument for an infinite universe. Not every possible argument, mind you, but one specific by Giordano Bruno. Cited in Erreur de Bruno. Giordano Bruno says that as you walk the horizon changes, infinitely. Not so, if earth is round as Phileas Fogg, Innocent Smith and presumably even a few real people have found, there is a limit to this change, when you get full circle and return to the horizons you started out with. I guess Chesterton knew what he did when putting in Innocent Smith's mouth the words calling roundness of earth "good news"./HGL

No comments:

Post a Comment