|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 5, 2018 20:04:53 GMT -5
Click the link to my Interview with Dr E Michael Jones of Culture Wars Magazine. We discuss the Crisis...Logos...Traditionalists and Sedevacantists...homosexuality in the Church. soundcloud.com/joe-cox-36/dr-e-m-jones-interviewThe audio is poor...lots of ambient noises. I don't recommend headphones.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 7, 2018 9:31:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 7, 2018 15:44:48 GMT -5
Hi Voxx, I did have comments, just not any time to post until now. Here are my notes on the talk below: 1. He (Dr. Jones) appears to define “traditionalism” as a movement that fights for the “Latin Mass.” He avoided the more relevant question that does not involve the Mass, which is whether there is now a sect, which lacks the four marks, being led by schismatic and heretical antipope. 2. I do not think based on his answer to your question as to whether the eastern rite Catholics better understand the concept of the Logos, that he grasps that eastern rite Catholicism is not a single entity, but rather many separate and distinct groups. While it is true that the Nestorian heresy among others infected Catholics in Africa and the east, the Eastern rite Catholics were distinctively loyal to Rome to begin with, or returned to Rome, and rejected this and all other eastern heresies. Eastern Catholics cannot be conflated with the eastern schismatic and heretical orthodox. 3. The preliminary and orthodox documents that began Vatican II were all abrogated, and the Council was hijacked. So while Dr. Jones correct that it began well, it did not go as planned, it was hijacked, and in the end taught Catholics a new religion, that became increasingly more clear as time went on after the Council. 4. While it’s true that Vatican II did not explicitly teach any specific heresy, it created ambiguity on settled doctrine, leaving open the possibility of heterodox or heretical interpretations. As time went on, after the Council, through the teaching as given by the post Vatican II “Popes” in their ordinary magisterium and documents of the Roman Congregations that the heretical understanding of Vatican was the correct one. 5. It’s sad that someone as clearly intelligent as Dr. Jones cannot engage in an intelligent discussion on sedevacantism. He resorts immediately to a caricature of the term, by throwing out the tiny (very tiny) minority opinion of the kidnapping of Paul VI and the imposter taking his place idea. Such talk is beneath him. Sedevacantism as defined as a belief that Paul VI and his successors were not legitimate Popes, stands or falls on the strength of the argument nothing more. 6. We can back up the fact that Vatican II was set up to force a heretical new doctrines to the universal Church simply by the fact that the history following the Council only supports that understanding. It is a fact that since Vatican II on many points of doctrine such as the essence of the Church itself, to the teaching that the Old Covenant was ended when the New Covenant began, to the teaching on the ends of marriage were replaced by a new doctrine. These new doctrines were taught explicitly since Vatican II by the “Holy See,” making these understandings of the doctrines binding on the flock, and the doctrinal support cited in teaching these new doctrines were the documents of Vatican II in every case. Who is the lawful interpreter of a Council, some lay thinker or the Holy See? 7. While there may have been mistranslations of Vatican II, there can be no misunderstanding that the post-Vatican II teaching of the “Popes” in their ordinary, therefore binding, teaching, along with the teaching of the CDF made it clear that the heretical interpretation was the only legitimate interpretation. Translation issues are just a sideshow, with very little relevance.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 8, 2018 18:04:07 GMT -5
Haven't had a chance to listen yet. We gave you like two weeks to post it, you've got to give us at least a week to listen!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2018 0:28:42 GMT -5
Thats the point...you guys road my butt to get it posted...so I figured you were so anxious to hear it it would get listened to right away.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 10, 2018 8:42:25 GMT -5
That's what I thought too but then life happened. Don't worry! I'm definitely going to listen to it.
|
|
|
Post by Theodore on Oct 11, 2018 12:01:10 GMT -5
"1. He (Dr. Jones) appears to define “traditionalism” as a movement that fights for the “Latin Mass.” He avoided the more relevant question that does not involve the Mass, which is whether there is now a sect, which lacks the four marks, being led by schismatic and heretical antipope." Only that 'relevant question' was only indirectly asked, or perhaps not asked at all. Perhaps if the interviewer had been better prepared, ready to clearly articulate his burning questions within the context of the given conversation, then the responses would have been to the point you were looking for. If you ask a bad question (vague, bumbling, incoherent) you are usually going to get the same. Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1686/voxx-interviews-jones-culture-wars#ixzz5Tdu2B112
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 11, 2018 17:06:46 GMT -5
Well frankly I wasnt prepared for the level of animus and irrationality from a man who seems so rational and intellectually honest otherwise.So yes I was flabbergasted.I think bumbling and incoherent is a bit harsh considering. Also we agreed on a general discussion not specifically about the Crisis. Further I was prepared to establish a defense but he simply catagorically shut down the conversation by telling me he wasnt going to discuss it.Should I have just hung up on him at that point? I assure you he had no pressing need to speak with me at all...let alone continue if I was going to belligerently insist on staying on the subject. You are free to do a better job yourself... a modern 12 year old could probably do a better job with the audio technicals. BTW do you need help attaching an avatar??
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 15, 2018 13:06:47 GMT -5
First off, although the audio could have been better, it was clear, and that's really what matters. I was used to it five minutes in. Nice job on the post-production.
Echoing most of what Pacelli said. Dr. Jones' hostility to traditionalism and sedevacantism in particular, IMO, borders on irrational. I think that by and large, he just doesn't know much about (either). The notion that it's just a matter of the mass, or that Paul VI was kidnapped, etc. are highly superficial. I was also disappointed that he was so thoroughly reluctant to even be civil about the whole matter. You handled yourself with class and decorum even when he basically called you an idiot and then followed it up with "that's the most charitable thing I can say." But I guess no one has ever accused him of being humble. Not to pile on Jones, just that if you watch/listen to him a lot he kind of has the old man personality of having figured life out and having nothing left to learn... "I read Nostra Aetate, I talked to so and so, etc." There's no shortage of first person accomplishment listings when you're listening to Jones.
He did however seem to listen to you around the thirty eight minute mark when you gently called him out on his unfair treatment of traditionalists.
The story about Williamson was great and it would have been better for him to lead with that since it's a relevant experiential source of evidence informing and influencing his opinion. Obviously with Jones, the disconnect (between traditionalists) is fundamental. He views everything historically, despite being a capable philosopher he is not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination. While concurring with us on all of the historical facts (infiltration, Americanism, social engineering, etc.) he fails to see the theological union of all these things: instruments of spiritual ruination ushering in a new regime of a false religion with no actual dogma except nominal allegiance to it and egalitarianism under the guise of Christ's true Church. That italicized portion is, in particular, where we break paths from Jones.
Thanks for asking my question, basically ver batim. Can I pat myself on the back for basically anticipating the answer? I am still wondering, beyond tolerance for sodomy, why so many of them are sodomites. Maybe it's not that different of a question, but it seems to be at least a little different. Not everyone who supports abortion kills their babies, not everyone who supports sodomy sodomizes, etc. But if we view sodomy as an outgrowth of lust then I suppose the point about it eroding one's ability to resist temptation accounts for much of the answer.
You did a great job keeping your cool, being a good interviewer asking interesting, probative questions while also knowing when to back off. Truly, great job.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 15, 2018 15:29:43 GMT -5
That means alot...after he violently pulled the plug on my questions I was kinda left flailing. A guest here accused me of being at fault for bumbeling through the questions. But I was quite literally taken aback that a man who has no time for a rational discussion about our topic...but can go on and on about Jews without a blush. (not that he should blush mind you) But he always seems to have the courage to discuss most anything...that is anything except sedevecantism. Further...after listening several times...there is a blatant hypocrisy on his part in how he deals with muslims. He basically asserts that because he observed them being pius and holy in Iran and truly faithful to islam that is cause for us to sympathize with them in that they just have a misconception about God...but it is the same God we worship none the less...HOWEVER...he does not extend the same sympathy to sedes and trads...I mean even if you disagree strongly with our premises...you cannot accuse us of a lack of piety and sincerety.
|
|
|
Post by michaelwilson on Feb 4, 2019 14:34:17 GMT -5
Mr. Jones published a "hatchet job" on the SSPX in his magazine "Fidelity"; the article was entitled "The SSPX Sick" (its still up on his site, if you want to read it); the gist of the article was that the SSPX was a cripto-NAZI organization. Ironic isn't, give Mr. Jone's opinion about the Jews. Irrational is a good description of his view on trads.
|
|
Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Apr 30, 2019 11:30:22 GMT -5
I just finished listening to the interview. I was impressed by how well you, Vox, stayed composed and charitable when Dr. Jones aggressively shut down the topics concerning traditionalism. If anything, at least you set a good example for traditionalists, which could help to keep him open to it.
Prior to listening to your interview, I listened to Dr. Jones on Patrick Coffin's podcast discussing the deep and significant impact that changes in architecture had on culture. It was bizarre, then, to hear him in your interview dismiss concerns about changes in the Mass by saying it isn't relevant to social engineering. Changes in the way a building looks is highly significant to social engineering, while changes in the way the Mass looks and sounds, the way a person worships God, is irrelevant?
|
|
|
Post by catholicam on Jun 9, 2019 12:12:09 GMT -5
Mr. Jones published a "hatchet job" on the SSPX in his magazine "Fidelity"; the article was entitled "The SSPX Sick" (its still up on his site, if you want to read it); the gist of the article was that the SSPX was a cripto-NAZI organization. Ironic isn't, give Mr. Jone's opinion about the Jews. Irrational is a good description of his view on trads. Although Mr. Jones is good on the whole, he remains an individual who conflicted in that he speaks the truth as he knows it, but at the same time his knowledge of the truth is compromised by the social conditioning of his youth. He has internalized the false narratives of the twentieth century, and this obviously colors his analysis of things and he sees things through this prism. He admits that the Jew has always been a mortal adversary of the Church, but fails to see the destruction of the Mass as a prime goal and accomplishment of Jewry and its allies. That is to say, he knows it and may speak about it, and yet he worships at its replacement and is critical about those who on some level or another, have tried to resist the removal of the true Mass. Ironic it is, that he does not see the hand of Satan in the novus ordo. The SSPX is generally as Jew friendly as the conciliarists which runs for the hills when accused of being anti-Jewish. This inconsistency runs through his overly optimistic view of the Persians and Muslims in general.
|
|
|
Post by catholicam on Jun 9, 2019 14:42:22 GMT -5
The problems of audio quality aside, this was a very good interview, save for Dr. Jones falling back upon the terms of stupidity and idiots. He just does not make the connection between the council and its intentionally misleading documents and the crisis in the Church. He is of the mind that the blame rests upon false interpretations. Well the supreme legislators of the Church, John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger in his papal role, indeed confirmed the heterodoxy of said documents clearly and the supposed activity of the Holy Ghost on their crafting. He says that the Jews failed at Vatican II but the reality is that they won. They and their allies won in WW II and at the Second Vatican Council and the world has devolved and descended into depravity and chaos since that time without the influence of the Church.
WW II was a Holy war upon European Christianity and the council simply a continuation of that conflict. Unless one can understand the supernatural dimension which is a large part of these matters, one will never understand what has happened or what has been done to the Christian world.
Before these events Europe was governed and under the law of Christ, but since the French revolution and the following revolutions, it is now under the law of Satan.
You did a good job on this despite any problems. I am late to the dance in reviewing this interview buy never the less enjoyed it. Thank you.
May the Holy Spirit of God be with you.
|
|
|
Post by ZMWT on Aug 14, 2019 22:25:43 GMT -5
Unfortunately, with Dr E. M. Jones it is not possible to talk about the Catholic traditionalism. To it he reacts as a Muslim who remarks about the Christianity with words, 'Yes, Jesus was a prophet, and Mary best of maidens, but now we have a message from the latest prophet of God'. Or something like that. He acknowledges it but then dismisses as irrelevant anymore, because he is under the impression that the Church brought in some changes which were legitimate and in the spirit of 'changes' that happened throughout the history of the Church. If you press harder on the subject, he will become uncivil.
To defend the so-called 'continuity' of events and teachings after Vatican 2, men like him present us with discontinuous remarks and stretches of the imagination. Evidently, in his books too, there is a chasm between the evidence he assembles, and the conclusions he draws from it. Perhaps the best example is his implications (from the book 'Jewish Revolutionary Spirit') that Fr Malachi Martin was, for all intents and purposes, a sole man responsible for the Jewish advance during Vatican 2. Fr Martin, a low-ranking, insignificant prelate at the very bottom of the hierarchy, responsible for the bad outcomes of the banquet with sent invitations to thousands of powermongers?
Men who depend on such incredible storytelling leaps cannot then sensibly answer why John Paul 2, 20 years after the Vatican 2, came to the synagogue, sang with the Jews psalm about the messianic expectation, kissed the Talmud etc. Was John Paul 2 also influenced by Fr Malachi every single year afterwards, personally chauffeured him there, etc? He does not explain it using a previous leap; we must use another – a literal leap of faith. (That JP2 was acting in 'continuity with tradition').
Control of the narrative means control of the gaps.
In the theory of sequential art, 'the gutter' or 'the gap' is a crucial narrative element. The author does not draw it at all – it is a space between two separate pictures. But, through it, readers are supposed to look at two different scenes and, using a lot of imagination, project what could have happened in between them. The conclusion is never fully accessible and we must continue turning pages forward.
Of course, in conversation with Dr Jones, if you try explaining what most likely happened between two frames, but with a different explanation, you are dismissed. This is the control of the narrative: as much as he complains about it in terms of the global oligarchy and their control of the narrative, he too has aligned himself with the ruling hierarchy of prelates, and with them, he controls the narrative which must be used to fill in the gaps. Their method used is forced continuity. But as we see new events unveiling, or new pages turning, we also see that narrative does not really work.
|
|