Pope condemns denial of Holocaust

[JReducation]

Oh, I spelled it wrong, Does this mean I am excommunicated?

Did you use the Protestant spelling?

JR

 

[cassini]

Did you use the Protestant spelling?

JR

I hope not, I’m in enough trouble all ready.

 

[sonofourlady]

Are you guys for real? No doubt the whole lot of you were present and witnessed 6,000,000 jews being gassed. How many of you have ever read the conclusions of those who investigated this ‘holocost’ (there was only one holocost and that was the crucifixion of Christ) on site and in the documents available? Well Bishop Williamson has read these researches and he has come to the only conclusion that this number of Jews could not have been gassed to death as the world has been indoctrinated to believe. No one denies the fact that vast numbers died from many causes at the hands on the Nazis but the FACT of 6,000,000 jews gassed can be disputed.

Now since when did such a conclusion become a ‘terrible sin’? If the Pope has to bow to the power of the Jews today, he cannot impose it as a matter of faith or morals on the flock. God your all so naive. Catholicism as ordered by American Jewish organisations.

Oh, and yes, the answer is to get Bishop Williamson to lie that he no longer holds this opinion.

First off NOBODY is saying that 6 million jews were gassed. What was said that 6 million jews were murdered. They were murdered in many ways.

Bishop Williamson’s research into it, is only credible if its based on intelligence and not prejudice.

 

[CTA1967]

I hope not, I’m in enough trouble all ready.

In this case, “already”.

 

[JReducation]

Oh, and yes, the answer is to get Bishop Williamson to lie that he no longer holds this opinion.

The Holy Father is not asking the Bishop to lie. He is calling into question whether a bishop who holds an opinion, which is in conflict with his can be in true communion with him.

Pope Benedict considers his own position on the matter grave and he also considers the Bishop’s position to be hazaardous for the Church. It causes divisions within the Church and between the Church and the rest of the world. This is not a position that the Holy Father wants to embrace or wants his bishops to embrace.

Eventually, His Excellency will have to be honest and say whether or not he can reconcile himself with the position of the Apostolic See. If he cannot, he will have to accept the Holy Father’s decision. That decision can range anywhere from making him an administrator of some cathedral, like Cardinal Law or to leave him suspended without faculties and without a See.

In a sense, the Holy Father is driving home a point. You can’t consecrate bishops without the authorization of the Pope, because you may create a situation that is untenable for the bishop and the Pope. This was the reason why the canon was created in 1983, to avoid the consecration of bishops who could not work in communion with the successor of Peter.

By having Peter choose the successors to the Apostles this minimized the posibility. There was a very practical reason for the law.

This was a problem “in the good old days” prior to Vatican II where bishops were consecrated at the will of another bishop and later could not work with Rome. Church history shows us that these situations often led to conflicts between the Apostolic See and the Episcopal See involved. The new law was an attempt to reduce these conflicts.

No one was naive enough to believe that they were going away completely, but at least you had some kind of control.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[pnewton]

In a sense, the Holy Father is driving home a point. You can’t consecrate bishops without the authorization of the Pope, because you may create a situation that is untenable for the bishop and the Pope. This was the reason why the canon was created in 1983, to avoid the consecration of bishops who could not work in communion with the successor of Peter.

The true root cause!

 

[Contarini]

Moral theology argues that you do not need historica proof to denounce evil. Evil is evil, whether you can see it or not. If someone says that 6 million jews were murdered, whether it was 6 million or 6 hundred, the evil perpetrated on these people is real. Morally he has an obligation to denounce it, instead of minimizing it.

In baptism we are asked if we reject sin and reject satan. This is part of the Baptismal commitment of every Christian. We need not prove an event as historical or not. The fact of murder is evil. That’s all that he has to denounce.

So you’re saying that your concerns would be satisfied if he said “if the Holocaust happened it was horribly evil”?

I’m not sure why that’s even an issue, since he has never said anything that remotely implied that he thought murdering Jews was OK. But I’d hope that he’d be able to do what you ask. And if not then indeed he has serious problems.

Edwin