L
Lypher
Guest
How could anybody deny the past, especially if they were allive during that period of time?
German court orders Bishop Williamson to pay fine for denying Holocaust
- Status
S
Splinker
Guest
Should the display of Nazi symbols in Germany be permitted? Isn’t that also an exercise in free speech?
R
Rick09
Guest
It’s a “fact” that the numbers are overestimated/factually incorrect? Do you think you might be stating that a little strongly?
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm
holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/ugly-voice-on-zionism-by-way-of.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Six_million
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar01
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar02
frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holo.html
R
Rick09
Guest
It’s a “fact” that the accepted numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust are overestimated/factually incorrect? Do you think you might be stating that a *little *strongly?
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm
holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/ugly-voice-on-zionism-by-way-of.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Six_million
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar01
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar02
frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holo.html
R
Rick09
Guest
The Church lifted the excommunications on the Eastern Orthodox in 1965. That alone doesn’t mean the Eastern Orthodox are really Catholic now.
Here’s a good article on it - zenit.org/article-25217?l=english
S
SarahR
Guest
I haven’t yet waded through all the other posts, so forgive me if this has been addressed.
Yes his comments are absurd. However, I am unclear why he was in this situation in the first place. It sounds like he specifically told the Swedish press NOT to broadcast it in Germany. Then it got put on Youtube and German citizens were (righteously) offended by it.
"In issuing her ruling, Judge Karin Frahm said the bishop could not have expected that the clip would show up on YouTube and be seen directly in Germany, which led her to reduce the fine, court spokesman Bernhard Schneider told the AP. "
ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100416/world/eu_germany_holocaust_denial_1
Why was the German Court allowed to try him for something he did which was permissible in another country and he specifically requested it not be broadcast in Germany (where it would be offensive and criminal)?
I don’t in any way support his comments, of course not, I’m just wondering what this means going forward. Do we have to worry about a foreign court trying us because of something we say that gets shown on their networks?
Yes his comments are absurd. However, I am unclear why he was in this situation in the first place. It sounds like he specifically told the Swedish press NOT to broadcast it in Germany. Then it got put on Youtube and German citizens were (righteously) offended by it.
"In issuing her ruling, Judge Karin Frahm said the bishop could not have expected that the clip would show up on YouTube and be seen directly in Germany, which led her to reduce the fine, court spokesman Bernhard Schneider told the AP. "
ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100416/world/eu_germany_holocaust_denial_1
Why was the German Court allowed to try him for something he did which was permissible in another country and he specifically requested it not be broadcast in Germany (where it would be offensive and criminal)?
I don’t in any way support his comments, of course not, I’m just wondering what this means going forward. Do we have to worry about a foreign court trying us because of something we say that gets shown on their networks?
R
Rick09
Guest
It helps to read the thread - a lot of questions are already answered. Yours is answered here -
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6536874&postcount=43
S
SarahR
Guest
Yep, just saw some comments addressing this.
C
catharina
Guest
The German government has said NO to this to the extent possible.
I agree with the German government in this.
“Ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure … .”
C
catharina
Guest
Terrifically kind of you.
I hate repeating things!!!
It’s a time-waster.
So I thank you.
C
Chellow
Guest
He’s as much Catholic as a member of the Polish National Catholic Church and Anglican Church. SSPX is in Schism, they are not submissive to the Holy See.
C
catharina
Guest
Please do post your source for that conclusion.
I can’t recall the Vatican ever defining that idea.
In Post 43, I quote derspeigel, Germany’s major newspaper:
"Vatican Talks
Meanwhile, the Vatican began talks on Monday with the SSPX with the aim of re-integrating it fully into the Church. Vatican officials and SSPX leaders discussed “doctrinal differences still outstanding” between the group and Rome, a Vatican statement said.
The traditionalists reject many of the reforms of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council, which modernized the Catholic Church. The SSPX has several hundred thousand members and insists that it represents the true faith.
Last January German Pope Benedict XI tried to start bringing SSPX back into the fold by lifting the excommunications of four of its bishops, including Williamson. That decision coincided with reports about Williamson’s comments on the Holocaust and prompted international criticism of the pope." *******
link spiegel.de/international/…657572,00.html
******* The Pope was still unaware of Richardson’s words re the Holocaust.
J
JReducation
Guest
Allow me to politely and gently correct a common misconception. Once an excommunication is lifted the individual is no longer outside of the Church, unless he chooses to remain outside.
For example, the excommunication against the Orthodox has been lifted. They lifted their excommunication against us (which they are allowed to do, because they are valid heads of Churches) but that’s another thread. They choose to remain outside the physical Catholic Church. The remain in schism, but not excommunicated.
The SSPX are not choosing to remain outside the Catholic Church. They are truly Catholic. But they do not have a canonical status in the Church. In other words, they may not exercise their priesthood. They remain suspended. A suspended priest is not an excommunicated priest. Bishop Williamson is suspended until the problems are resolved. Therefore, he is a Catholic bishop. He does have Apostolic Succession, which the Anglicans do not have. He has no jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. People still do not understand the implications of lifting the excommunication and remaining in a state of suspension.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
catharina
Guest
Brother JR, thanks (as usual) for saying it far better than I could.Allow me to politely and gently correct a common misconception. Once an excommunication is lifted the individual is no longer outside of the Church, unless he chooses to remain outside.
For example, the excommunication against the Orthodox has been lifted. They lifted their excommunication against us (which they are allowed to do, because they are valid heads of Churches) but that’s another thread. They choose to remain outside the physical Catholic Church. The remain in schism, but not excommunicated.
The SSPX are not choosing to remain outside the Catholic Church. They are truly Catholic. But they do not have a canonical status in the Church. In other words, they may not exercise their priesthood. They remain suspended. A suspended priest is not an excommunicated priest. Bishop Williamson is suspended until the problems are resolved. Therefore, he is a Catholic bishop. He does have Apostolic Succession, which the Anglicans do not have. He has no jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. People still do not understand the implications of lifting the excommunication and remaining in a state of suspension.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
You know my propensity for backing people into corners for “false” utterances.
C
Chellow
Guest
- Currently only the Pope can appoint Bishops, my understanding no Pope has appointed Mr. Williamson to be a Bishop.
- A Dog By Any Other Name Is Still A Dog, in other words look up the definition of a schism even though it’s not official by the church that SSPX is in schism, it meets the definition of one.
- I hold most of the beliefs of SSPX, but would not disobey the church that’s a show of Disunion , division, schism.
C
catharina
Guest
and yet …
"His Holiness Benedict XVI — paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin — decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.
With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.
It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.
Based on the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.
PLEASE! Learn to do your own homework.
Or do you support a Pope other than Benedict XVI
J
JReducation
Guest
First of all, he’s not Mr. Williamson. You can refer to a bishop as either Dr. Williamson or Bishop Williamson. I’m not a member of the SSPX. So I am not being defensive here. Bishop Williamson was ordained bishop by Archbishop Lefebvre who was a validly ordained bishop. Therefore, Bishop Williamson is a validly ordained Catholic bishop.
Popes do not appoint bishops. They select bishops and they grant permission for the ordination of a bishop. But a bishop is ordained by another bishop, not by the pope himself. This is rare. The excommunication was because the Archbishop did not have permission to ordain four new bishops, not because the ordinations were invalid. They were valid, but illegal.
Your statement says the whole truth. It is the Apostolic See who has the athority to call something a schism, no one else. The Apostolic See has said that the ordination of the bishops was a schismatic act. It has not said that the SSPX is a schismatic Church. There is a difference between the act and the individuals involved. The Church has never said that Archbishop Lefebvre or his four successors are schismatics. Legally you can be in a state of schism, without being a schismatic.
For example, the Orthodox Churches are in a state of schism, but they are no longer schismatic. The excommunicatioins against them were lifted by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. We are in a state of schism with the Orthodox Churches, but we are not schismatic. They lifted the excommunications against us. Yes, they do have the power and authority to excommunicate us. They are valid Patriarchs. We were mutually excommunicated. We were excommunicated from the Orthodox tradition and they were excommunicated from the Catholic tradition.
A state of schism is a state of separation, but the individual is not separated, the positions of the movement are schismatic. What is being studied now is which positions are schismatic and which positions are legitimate. To clear up the mess, you have to separate from what is a valid concern from what is invalid.
Disobedience was the sin that got the SSPX bishops excommunicated. But the excommunication no longer exists, except for Archbishop Lefebvre who remains excommunicated. Bishop Williamson’s status is that of a validly ordained Catholic bishop who has no canonical authority, because he is suspended. The priests and bishops of the Society cannot exercise any ministry in the Catholic Church until they are cleared by the Apostolic See. This is the same situation of a priest who walks out. He is suspended, but he remains a valid Catholic priest, but he may not exercise the ministry until he is reconciled with the Church.
Is this clearer?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sidbrown
Guest
No. Williamson converted and was received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1971.
C
Chellow
Guest
To be a Catholic, is to be in communion with each other to have the same belief, the same leaders. I know that’s not the real definition.
I guess the question is can you be a catholic and be disobedient to the Church, I say no, a cafeteria catholic is not a catholic to me.
Just because you’re not excommunicated doesn’t mean you’re a catholic, You can find none catholic’s that have had their excommunication lifted.
I agree with most of what you are stated.Only, Dr. Williamson can not be a valid Bishop, if he was not granted permission by the Holy See, and you still call him a Bishop, I don’t understand.
J
JReducation
Guest
For the ordination of a deacon, priest or bishop to be valid you do not need to be in communion with the pope. You need to be ordained by a valid bishop. The pope cannot take away the power of any bishop. He can forbid an ordination. But if the bishop ordains, the ordination is valid. It is illegal and the bishop is excommunicated. But the bishop who does the ordaining and the bishop who was ordained are both valid successors of the Apostles.To be a Catholic, is to be in communion with each other to have the same belief, the same leaders. I know that’s not the real definition.
I guess the question is can you be a catholic and be disobedient to the Church, I say no, a cafeteria catholic is not a catholic to me.
Just because you’re not excommunicated doesn’t mean you’re a catholic, You can find none catholic’s that have had their excommunication lifted.
Only, Dr. Williamson can not be a valid Bishop, if he was not granted permission by the Holy See, and you still call him a Bishop, I don’t understand.
This is the case with the Orthodox. They were once excommunicated. But they are valid bishops, priests and deacons and all their sacraments are valid.
What exists between Bishop Williamson and the Apostolic See is a rift in protocol. There is no queston about him being a valid bishop. He was ordained illegally. But the law does not take away a bishop’s priestly powers. Therefore, a bishop can ordain, even illegally and the ordination is accepted by the Church. Because the sacrament trumps the law.
The only time when an ordination is invalid is when there is no proper matter and intention. For example, you cannot ordain a woman. The proper matter for ordination is a male. You cannot validly ordain someone who is not baptized. All the sacraments build on baptism.
If the Church were to deny that validity of this ordination she would be saying that the law trumps the power of the priesthood. A bishop posesses the fullness of the priesthood. Therefore, he can ordain another bishop, even against the wishes of the pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops were excommunicated because they disobeyed, not because the sacrament was invalid. The sacrament was very valid. But it was performed illegally. The law protects the sacrament. You cannot abuse the sacraments.
You know how we’re talking a lot about the sexual abuse by priests. These priests who are dismissed from the clerical state remain priests until death, unless it can be proven that their ordination was invalid.
To say that Bishop Williamson is not a bishop, one has to prove that the ordination was invalid. If we examine what do you need for a valid ordination, we see: the candidate must be baptized and male. The candidate must be a presbyter. The person doing the ordaining must be a validly ordained bishop. The candidate and the bishop who are doing the ordaining must have the intention to ordain and be ordained. Bishop Williamson meets all the canonical requirements.
What’s the big deal then? It was done without permission. But permission is not required for validity. It’s only required to make it legal. It’s illegal, but binding on the Bishop Williamson and on the pope. The pope has to accept him as an equal. Remember, the pope is a bishop. He has to accept him, just as he accepts the bishops of the Orthodox. What the pope does not have to accept is the way is was done. This is what John Paul stated and why they were excommunicated…
Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication because it did not have the desired effect. The purpose of excommunication is to bring back the sinner, not to damn him to hell. Since this did not bring these bishops back, the excommunication did not serve its purpose. So it was lifted and a new strategy is being tried. That’s what the talks between the SSPX and the Hoily See are all about.
Does this help?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status