Tuesday, November 15, 2005

"Master Race" Revisited

I received the following in response to yesterday's commentary regarding Bishop Williamson's latest tirade on allegedly inferior races:

"Don't post on my blog ever again."

I assured the little twerp that once was enough.

It's no secret to those who know me (which means meeting me in person, okay?) that I love the Old Mass. And yet, as I told a correspondent recently, the only problem I have with the promotion of the "traditional Latin Mass" is the promoters themselves. Until many of them (most of whom weren't even born by 1962, and so are in no damn position to tell anyone how things were done back in the day, especially someone who was actually there -- grumble, grumble...!) can bring themselves to let Rome be Rome, their progress will be limited.

And they'll drive the rest of us crazy. Especially the ones whose inclination for tradition is so vehement, that they are willing to resort to bad science to justify a conviction that the Earth is flat.

They make my own parents seem thoroughly modern. Be afraid, be very afraid...


Jeff said...

Which blog was that you were banned from? My experience in commenting on traditionalist blogs is that they are MIGHTY thin-skinned. They can lambaste the Pope, but if you speak a word against the Pius Xers you are being "rude." One blogger states outright that if you debate her, she will ban you! At least that's honest.

I've only been deleted on one blog and that was a traditionalist one. My crime? Arguing that Bishop Williamson was in schism. My argument was a sin against charity and a wound to the unity of the Church, if you can believe it! Motes and beams, anyone?

David L Alexander said...

"Which blog was that you were banned from?"

The Sacred Weblog of the Universal Inquisition -- to answer your question.

I am puzzled by your banishment for simply stating a fact. Bishop Williamson IS in schism. The 1988 decree Ecclesia Dei said as much. And who the hell is SUPPOSED to say who is and who isn't? Rome! Not the fairy-tale vision known as "Eternal Rome," which is whatever faction of right-wing yahoos say it is, but a real place, with a real Successor of Peter. If you don't believe that, why the hell should you even care. Go elect your own pope, or choose from any one of the five or six current pretenders to the throne.

Come to think of it, you could put me in a tailored black cassock, and some high-priced Italian lace alb, and some old vestments from eBay.


And for our first official act, we solemnly decree, from our well-upholstered Papal cathedra, that the Dodgers should leave that cesspoll that is the City of Angels, and under pain of eternal damnation, "dem lousy Bums" must return to their rightful place in the heart of Flatbush.

And speaking of being flat, we further decree, from the same well-upholstered cathedra, that the Earth is...

Jeff said...

Holy Father:

Obeisance and filial greetings! Nice to see someone finally making it to the top without passing "GO" and collecting a red hat.

Well, you know, the Pius Xers even claim that those bishops of theirs aren't EXCOMMUNICATED, for heaven's sake, because when they were ordained it was an EMERGENCY! So Rome's decree had no effect, you see.

What? You DON'T see? Why, you rude, uncharitable Modernist! Begone into the eternal darkness that awaits Satan and his minions. And give them my best, by the way.

It always puzzles me that the same people who go on and on about Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam and the absolute necessity for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the jurisdicton of the Roman Pontiff, feel perfectly free to say, "Nana nana booboo; I can't HEAR you!" every time the Pope tells them to do anything.

Ah, well, bless them anyway. Sometimes I think God will excuse an awful lot of junk on the theory that the People's Revolutionary Aggiornamento Party has driven numberless folks right over the edge into insanity.

David L Alexander said...

"Sometimes I think God will excuse an awful lot of junk on the theory that the People's Revolutionary Aggiornamento Party has driven numberless folks right over the edge into insanity."

That might explain a lot about me, eh?

Anonymous said...

Why must you resort to name calling? It is so offputting, one could reasonably conclude that dispite your claims to the contrary, you really don't want open debate on this site.
When one complained of "cheap shots" earlier, perhaps this is an example of such.
I realize that you are hung up on being right all the time as you frequently rebuff comments by pointing to those portions of your srguments that you feel are irrefutable, but your obstreperousness is so annoying. Perhaps that explains why you have so few comments to your blog.

David L Alexander said...

"Why must you resort to name calling?"

Alas, I wish I did not. But there are those who insist on not giving me their name, so I must think of one for them. What other choice do I have?

(And guess who's next if they don't get the hint.)

Speaking of cheap shots, is it so cheap to publicly call out into the public square, those who "resort" to racist, anti-Semitic rhetoric, under the transparent guise of Catholic tradition? People who do that ought to be ashamed, and I don't give a rat's ass if they wear fancy vestments or not.

As to my being right all the time, I do believe that only today, I conceeded to one who was more wise than myself. Take another look.

As to the lack of comments, part of it can be explained by saturation of the medium. (This includes the presence of those more renowned who make me look like a pussycat.) That said, I have received more comments than ever in the last few months. If you actually read my stuff, you will know that I am more than fair to those who disagree with me. Up to a point. In fact, I am far more tolerant than that little twerp you're defending. He is more than welcome to post here -- if he's man enough.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to look up the word "obstreperousness."

Pax vobiscum.

Jeff said...

"That might explain a lot about me, eh?"

Let's hope it lets a bunch of us off the hook. Perhaps we'll hear a slightly modified version of that classic greeting: "Well done, thou good and faithful, though absolutely acorn-chewingly barmy, servant!"

Jack said...

So, I return to MWBH, closely read through the posts & what do I see? Yet another anonymous author whose words are destined to take their place amid the flotsam & jetsam of the 'Net's less famous bards.

Shall I stay around for Round 2? Will DLA throw his patented haymaker, effectively knocking out said anonymous author who will not be able to withstand his unremitting onslaught?

Ah,I know! I'll go back to my comfortable status as a fly on the wall...there, I'm set! Let the games begin!

Dad29 said...

Having had some personal experience with the TridZealot gang (on both sides of the LeFebvre Divide,) I can say that they are difficult to deal with and extraordinarily petty.

JPII was a target for them; at some point they would have excoriated the man for breathing in a "non-Catholic" COUNTRY--much as they excoriated him for actually speaking with Buddhists...

It is mystifying that they choose to "evangelize" by slamming doors.

Jeff said...

I can't imagine the SSPX EVANGELIZING at all. I mean, how would they do it? What would they say? Paint a picture of the Church as they see it and who would want to convert?

I think that tells us something.

Ian Andrew Palko said...

For what it's worth I'm one of those mean-nasty Pius Xers ... only hopefully a kinder, gentler kind of Lefebvrite ...

That said, all of the comments are quite right.

The real problem isn't folks like Williamson (who I've spoken to on a number of occasion) but the regular zealots who have absolutley no clue when Quo Primum was promulgated, but know it somehow protects their way of thinking. Williamson has some odd opinions, and isn't always the most tactful in his words. At least he's not made the kind of comments that Prince Philip has made.

Healthy criticism is good. I disagree that the bishop are in schism, but I think I at least have decent reason to hold my position. You disagree? Great, I could use some healthy criticism. :-)

As regards anonymous comments, as I say at my blog, if you're too cowardly to claim your words as your own, then at least make up some name.

David L Alexander said...

"I disagree that the bishop are in schism, but I think I at least have decent reason to hold my position..."

In the tradition of Catholic jurisprudence, interpretation of the law is in the hands of the lawgiver. The Holy Father has supreme executive AND juridical authority over Mother Church. And the 1988 decree Ecclesia Dei left no question as to the nature of the irregular consecration presided over by Lefebvre.

It doesn't matter what his excuse was; it wasn't his to make. And not to put too fine a point on it, it doesn't matter what case you make; it is not yours to make.

Thanks for writing. Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

FWIW, this moderately Traditional Catholic thinks Bishop Williamson is barking mad -- or a complete whackjob, if you prefer. Anti-Semitism in any form is totally reprehensile, considering that our Founder Himself lived His earthly life as a devout Jew. Whatever else he professes to be, "Bishop" Williamson is totally ignorant of the Jewish roots of Christianity. The first Christians were not American, British, Irish, Italian (well, except for Centurion Cornelius)-- THEY WERE JEWS!!! Duh .... It's really silly to put Jesus in some sort of box as completely different from His friends and neighbours. Recall the incident in the synagogue at Nazareth during Jesus' reading of Isaiah. The worshippers reacted angrily, shouting in so many words, "Who does this Guy think He is? After all, we know His father, the carpenter, and the rest of His relatives. What right does this young whippersnapper have to say He's the fulfillment of this prophecy? What a nerve!" Jesus lived as a Jew of His time and place, and to deny that is, IMHO, to deny Him. He died praying to His Father, and then said the Shema as required of every devout Jew before death: "Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" Bottom line: You can't call yourself a Christian and have anything at all to do with anti-Semitic words or actions. Sorry for the rant, but this is a pet peeve of mine. That the SSPX actually condones this kind of speech only proves to me how far removed from real Christianity they actually are. BTW, I'm an Irish Catholic, married to a husband with a Spanish surname (his Mom is Irish, his Dad Puerto Rican). Regards from Canada, Patricia Gonzalez

Franklin Jennings said...

Chalk me up as another trad (FSSP here) who cannot abide any form of antisemitism. I'd still be an athiest if it weren't for our elder brethren showing me the stupidity of my ways back then. They brought me to Christ as much as anyone else in my petty little conversion story. I'll love antisemites, but only because the Lord says I have to.