12-Feb-09 - Bishop Williamson Says He Will Review Holocaust Evidence [via EWTN]

[Catholic_Press]

Berlin, Feb 12, 2009 (CNA).- Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has given an interview to the German magazine Der Spiegel, …

Full article…

 

[JReducation]

This sounds like a man who is not about to yield any ground. I hope I’m wrong on that.

JR

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This sounds like a man who is not about to yield any ground. I hope I’m wrong on that.

JR

I think he will change his views on the holocaust, but not on Vatican II. I assume you’re talking about the holocaust here.

This is a man who believes the truth has been almost destroyed in the world by demonic attack. He won’t just change his mind because someone orders him too. That would be giving into the attack on truth. But, he is willing to admit that he can make mistakes and to look at the question again.

What makes me think he will change his mind is that he has already begun to review his research into the holocaust. Someone is sending him a specific book to read that he wants to read. He asked around and found out that the book he read in the 80’s has been debunked. He’s already started investigating and seems willing to admit if he sees that he made a mistake. And he has trusted friends who share his other views who are helping him to re-research the holocaust.

 

[JReducation]

I think he will change his views on the holocaust, but not on Vatican II. I assume you’re talking about the holocaust here.

This is a man who believes the truth has been almost destroyed in the world by demonic attack. He won’t just change his mind because someone orders him too. That would be giving into the attack on truth. But, he is willing to admit that he can make mistakes and to look at the question again.

What makes me think he will change his mind is that he has already begun to review his research into the holocaust. Someone is sending him a specific book to read that he wants to read. He asked around and found out that the book he read in the 80’s has been debunked. He’s already started investigating and seems willing to admit if he sees that he made a mistake. And he has trusted friends who share his other views who are helping him to re-research the holocaust.

I hope he does change his views on the Shoah and on Vatican II. If he does not, I doubt that he will be reinstated. Pope Benedict has also expressed himself as not willing to give an inch on Vatican II. He is willing to dialogue. It sounds like the Holy Father is willing to concede that the message of Vatican II was poorly implemented, but he is convinced that Vatican II is authoritative and he wants the SSPX bishops to accept that.

One has to understand that even though Vatican II was a pastoral council, it does not mean that its pastoral message carries no binding authority. This is where the Holy Father is not willing to yield. The Council has pastoral binding authority and he wants the SSPX to accept that authority. He is willing to discuss how to best implement the decrees of Vatican II, but not about to deny their authority.

If His Excellency can accept that the Council has binding authority, then we’re in business. I do agree with His Excellency, some statements made by Vatican II are no longer appropriate for our time. However, you cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. You have to read what came out of the Vatican after Vatican II to replace those statements that are no longer applicable to today’s world.

If Bishop Williamson is not ready to yield to the authority of Vatican II he may find himself in an indefinite state of suspension. In that case, the Church cannot give him an Espiscopal See or faculties. If he insists on functioning without faculties, the Congregation for the Bishops has the right to penalize him, even excommunicate him. I doubt that they will excommunicate him, because he is more under control inside the Church than outside. But he can be given an assignment that involves pushing papers somewhere in a quiet corner of the SSPX or the Vatican. That would be a pity, because I do beieve that he is a good man and that he is bright. I also believe that he is stubborn, not just a defender of truth.

He has also been very rude to the Curia on occasions. The Curia does not take such things lightly. One has to be careful when speaking not to insult or challenge authority, because authority can strike back with a punch.

I hope that I’m wrong about him being stubborn.

JR

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you JR, your posts are always so informative, since its so clear that you’re speaking about things you really know!

Williamson accepting that Vatican II is binding, raises a question I’ve had for a while. One of the Vatican II documents said:

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council,** the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.**

I started a thread about this and no one could list a single thing that Vatican II said was binding.

Then, the SSPX will claim that the many of the Vatican II documents don’t really say anything. They use terms that they do not define. They juxtapose contradictions. They make statements that can be interpreted as either completely in line with Tradition, or completely heretical. There are no canons like the other councils had.

There are of course a few sentences that are quite clear, like the declaration on religious freedom. But is that binding? If it is only **pastorally **binding, and not dogmatically binding, what does that exactly mean? If it just means that a priest should not use physical force to drag people into his church and baptize them, then obviously it isn’t a problem for SSPX to agree. Also, does the document claim that it is binding, in the way of the quote I posted above?

The other councils had one-liner canons that were quite clear. It’s easy to know what it requires of us. Does Vatican II have anything like that?

 

[JReducation]

Thank you JR, your posts are always so informative, since its so clear that you’re speaking about things you really know!

Williamson accepting that Vatican II is binding, raises a question I’ve had for a while. One of the Vatican II documents said:

I started a thread about this and no one could list a single thing that Vatican II said was binding.

Then, the SSPX will claim that the many of the Vatican II documents don’t really say anything. They use terms that they do not define. They juxtapose contradictions. They make statements that can be interpreted as either completely in line with Tradition, or completely heretical. There are no canons like the other councils had.

There are of course a few sentences that are quite clear, like the declaration on religious freedom. But is that binding? If it is only **pastorally **binding, and not dogmatically binding, what does that exactly mean? If it just means that a priest should not use physical force to drag people into his church and baptize them, then obviously it isn’t a problem for SSPX to agree. Also, does the document claim that it is binding, in the way of the quote I posted above?

The other councils had one-liner canons that were quite clear. It’s easy to know what it requires of us. Does Vatican II have anything like that?

The citation that you gave above is a very important one. What happened was that the Council said that it only considered binding matters that are rooted in faith and morals. This is what they meant and this was correct.

However, the Pope can hold the pastoral decrees of the Council as binding. This is a little different from matters of faith and morals and what one is bound to is also different.

When the Pope says that the SSPX must accept that the pastoral decrees of Vatican II were binding he is speaking about the concepts and pastoral direction that the Council proposed.

In other words, something that is pastorally binding falls under the domain of daily practice, not dogma and moral. Let me give an example. The Coucil declared that the Church must pursue ecumenical relations with people of other faiths. This is a pastoral proposal that the Council made. It became binding when the popes put it into practice and created an entire follow-up document and commissions to work on ecumenism.

This does not mean that those commissions did not make mistakes. What it means is that th pope wants this statement of the Council to be executed. We have to move forward with ecumenism. The bishops of the Society have to accept that the Holy Father wants this executed. They can put on the table their perspective on how to best do so. They cannot refuse to carry out the work of ecumenism. The Pope has bound the Church to implement this instruction of the Council.

Another example: the Council authorized a revision of the missal. The missal is not a dogma or a moral law. It contains a form for celebrating the Eucharist. When Pope Paul VI said that he wanted to execute that direction of the Council, then it becomes binding on the Church. The missal must be reviewed and revised where needed. This does not mean that mistakes were not made. There were plenty. It just means that we cannot deny the the pastoral mandate to review and revise the liturgy. The mandate was not to do away with the Gregorian liturgy, but to come up with another form. That’s where the mistake was made. Many assumed that the Gregorian form was banned. Benedict has tried to carify the mandate with the Motu Proprio.

Again, the Motu Proprio is a pastoral statement, not moral or dogmatic. It flows from the Council’s Decree on the Liturgy. Benedict tries to clarify what the Council suggested and what he wants to do with that suggestion.

This pastoral council decreed many things, but chose not to hold any as binding. They left this part up to the popes to choose what they wanted to implement and how. When the pope implements a pastoral statement from the Council, then it is binding.

Pastorally binding means that one is bound to that manner of doing something. It’s like working is a coorporation. They have a system that they follow and that system is binding for those within the corporation. But those systems are not federal or state laws. However, if you work for the corporation you’re bound by those systems.

If you’re Catholic, obedience binds you to those pastoral practices that the Church wants to put into place based on Vatican II. This is what the Pope wants the SSPX bishops to accept. They must accept that once a pope takes something or everything from Vatican II and implements it and requires that it be implemented, they must obey. They would be obeying, because it they are morally bound by a solemn vow of obedience to obey.

When a man is consecrated he is asked if he solemnly promises to obey the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ. The question is very specific. The reason that the canonists and liturgists worded it that way was to make sure that the candidate cannot say he was obeying God over pope. They worded the question in such a way that if a bishop disagrees with the pope, he must prove that the pope is wrong and that he is not acting as the Vicar of Christ. That is not easy to prove; but it’s the only way a bishop can disobey without incurring mortal sin and other consequences.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks again for the explanations.

When a man is consecrated he is asked if he solemnly promises to obey the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ. The question is very specific. The reason that the canonists and liturgists worded it that way was to make sure that the candidate cannot say he was obeying God over pope. They worded the question in such a way that if a bishop disagrees with the pope, he must prove that the pope is wrong and that he is not acting as the Vicar of Christ. That is not easy to prove; but it’s the only way a bishop can disobey without incurring mortal sin and other consequences.

So the SSPX bishops have to obey the pope, but surely that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to imitate everything he does the same way he does it. Will they be ordered to visit a synagogue and pray there? Or to kiss the Koran? Will the pope order them to organize an ecumenical prayer session with buddhists? I doubt it very much.

Maybe the pope will just order them not to criticize the pope publicly next time the pope prays at a synagogue. Just because the pope can order them to do things, doesn’t mean he will.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks again for the explanations.

So the SSPX bishops have to obey the pope, but surely that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to imitate everything he does the same way he does it. Will they be ordered to visit a synagogue and pray there? Or to kiss the Koran? Will the pope order them to organize an ecumenical prayer session with buddhists? I doubt it very much.

Maybe the pope will just order them not to criticize the pope publicly next time the pope prays at a synagogue. Just because the pope can order them to do things, doesn’t mean he will.

Any religious authority can demand anything they want from those who have promised obedience to them. Theoretically speaking, my superior can order me under holy obedience to stand on my head. What are the probabilities? Zero, I hope.

There have been cases where religious superiors have ordered their subjects to imitate them in certain specific actions and so forth. But these are not common.

The same applies to the SSPX. Whatever is currently a law, policy, dogma or moral law they must obey and execute. Anything that is outside of this criteria, they are not bound to do unless the Church authorities directly demand it.

One must also remember, that when one speaks of obedience to the Pope, the Pope has many delegates who have been given authority by him to run certain things in the Church. Not everything has to come from the mouth of the Pope. Not every order comes from the Commander in Chief. Most are given by officers. They must be obeyed.

If the Congregation of Bishops gives a bishop an order, he must obey or appeal to the Holy Father. He cannot dismiss them, because they are just the Congregation. They operate in the name of the Holy Father and under his authority. They are an official organism in the Church.

Will they be asked to visit a synagogue? Who knows. Will it be ordered under obedience? It is unlikely. It’s not a serious enough matter to merit that kind of intensive demand for obedience. There is a difference between the pope encouraging bishops to do certain things and ordering them.

Sometimes people go too far in their interpretation of papal statements. Some are guidance statements that should be followed. Others are reflections for the bishops, clergy, religious and laity to ponder and maybe act on.

When you begin to take everything is a mandate, then you’re in trouble. You’re going to run into difficulties obeying. We have to separate mandates from simple words of wisdom as I like to call them.

I’m having trouble typing, because my cat fell asleep across my arms as I type. Please excuse typos. I don’t want to wake him.

Fraternally,

JR