Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[JReducation]

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that the Jews are not evil because they lack the intellectual ability to “wrap their head around Jesus’ teachings” but that if in fact they do understand but prefer to be Jews " becasue it is convenient for them", in that case they are evil?

Good grief no.

Jesus was speaking to a particular audience when he said “You are the sons of the Devil.” John is speaking about the event and those people whom Jesus was addressing, not all of Israel.

In that audience there were people who could not wrap their head around Jesus being the Incarnate Word of God. By this I mean that their Jewish faith and conscience would not allow them to make this leap. Therefore, they are not the ones whom Jesus calls the sons of the devil. Conscience is always to be respected. Conscience is not a sign of intelligence or lack thereof. Conscience is the tool that we use to judge the rightness or wrongness of something.

In that audience there were other Jews who had their own agenda, which had nothing to do with conscience or faith, but with political power over the Jewish people and against the Roman Empire. Those are the ones that Jesus calls the sons of the Devil. They are not declining his message because of their conscience or their faith, but because it was not expedient for them. In other words, they were dishonest. They gave the impression of being faithful Jews, but in fact, they were more politicians than men of faith.

Obviously, not every Jew converted to Christianity. But most of those who remained Jews did so out of religious conviction, not out of poitical expediency.

History tells us that there were Jews who hated the Romans so much that they were willing to go to any extreme, including crucifying an innocent man, to make it look like they were protecting the rights of Caesar over the region. In fact what they wanted was to “kiss up” to the Romans so they could remain in positions of power over their own people and oppress them.

I don’t blame them for hating the Roman occupation. But that does not justify criminalizing an innocent man to gain points with the Romans and continue to oppress their fellow Jews. It was to this audience that those words were directed, not to the entire Jewish populaiton.

Christians and Jews today would agree that those Jews who committed acts of injustice for political agenda, were outside the Law. However, they made themselves appear to be acting according to the Law.

From the Jewish and the Christian point of view, you cannot use the Torah to further your personal agenda. That is a serious sin against G-d. Anyone who sins against G-d is a son of the Devil, according to Jesus as quoted by John.

As a Catholic community we do not blame the Jews for the persecution of Jesus. We blame some members of the Jewish and the Roman leadership who had him crucified for their personal reasons, not because he had broken any law that carried the death penalty.

Jesus knew that they were plotting to kill him, not for a just reason, but for an unjust reason, to get ahead with the Romans, not to protect the faith of Israel and its people.

Those Jews who were unable to embrace the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, because of their faith and conscience are not in that group whom John calls the sons of the devil. The early Christians and the Catholic Church today, accept the fact that a man cannot act contrary to his conscience. That would be wrong.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with why a person declines the invitation to Christianity. Conscience and faith are acceptable reasons. Personal gain is not. It is dishonest to call it faith, when it fact it is not faith, but selfishness.

There are always going to be things around which we cannot wrap our heads, not because we’re dumb, but because we have serious issues of conscience with it or because it is not clear enough for us. But there is a rule in Catholic moral theology that when something is not clear, the doubtful person does well not to act. To act with a doubtful conscience can be irresponsbible or at the very least, impulsive.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[bobzills]

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that the Jews are not evil because they lack the intellectual ability to “wrap their head around Jesus’ teachings” but that if in fact they do understand but prefer to be Jews " becasue it is convenient for them", in that case they are evil?

I don’t think it would be a credible argument for anyone to say that Jews are lacking in intellectual ability.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

What you believe the state of his soul to be is absolutely irrelevant, Valke2. Nor will you or people like you ever prevail in making a claim of secular history into an article of Faith to be believed under pain of excommunication. All the irresponsible journalism, all the political posturing, and all the poisonous venom spewed past, present, and future against our Roman Pontiff will not yield a scratch on the walls of Christ’s Holy Church.

 

[chosen_people]

What you believe the state of his soul to be is absolutely irrelevant, Valke2. Nor will you or people like you ever prevail in making a claim of secular history into an article of Faith to be believed under pain of excommunication. All the irresponsible journalism, all the political posturing, and all the poisonous venom spewed past, present, and future against our Roman Pontiff .

Who is behind “all the poisonous venom spewed past, present, and future against our Roman Pontiff”, what are their motives and methods?

From your statement “will not yield a scratch on the walls of Christ’s Holy Church” do you think recent events have had no effect, a positive effect or a negative effect on attitudes toward the Catholic Church and the pope?

If a person hates Jews does that have an effect on " the state of his soul" in any way or manner?

Presuming that the Shoah was the result of two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in genocide against the Jewish people, can that be called “secular history”? If so, what is the definition of “non-secular history” from a religious historical context?

 

[chosen_people]

That is a valid question and straight to the point. It the two are not equal there must be some situation where one can deny it without being antisemetic. One such easy case would be innsanity or like of ability to think things through. Another reason would be naivety. In the case of Bp. Williamson, if he is not antisemetic, I would save that he has an attraction to the bizarre and conspiratorial, combined with a prejudice of anything and everything mentioned in Vatican II and by any clergy he considers modern. He might well look at some antisemetic literature and accept a bit of scientific evidence for it, while rejecting from his own peers the possibility that they might have anything correct to say if they are too modern for him

Again, this is just speculation. The fact that there is even one possible reason for a Holocaust denier to do so besides antisemetism, means that they are not equal. I obviously have no idea of what is in Bp. Williamson’s heart. It could be as dark as any bigots for all I know.

“The Church is profoundly and irrevocably committed to reject all anti-Semitism and to continue to build good and lasting relations between our two communities.”

_ “The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity. This should be clear to everyone.”

 

[Valke2]

What you believe the state of his soul to be is absolutely irrelevant, Valke2. Nor will you or people like you ever prevail in making a claim of secular history into an article of Faith to be believed under pain of excommunication. All the irresponsible journalism, all the political posturing, and all the poisonous venom spewed past, present, and future against our Roman Pontiff will not yield a scratch on the walls of Christ’s Holy Church.

I don’t believe I made any assertion about the state of his soul. I simply am saying that I feel justified in concluding that he hates or fears jews based on his actions and statements. I have already said, maybe in another thread, that while his being an active antisemite may not be reason to lift the excommunication, the Church can make sure that he has no position whatsoever within the Church.

I’m also confident that any actions the Church takes that allow the Bishop to continue in a position of leadership will only harm the Church, disappoint many catholics and the rest of the world.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t believe I made any assertion about the state of his soul. I simply am saying that I feel justified in concluding that he hates or fears jews based on his actions and statements. I have already said, maybe in another thread, that while his being an active antisemite may not be reason to lift the excommunication, the Church can make sure that he has no position whatsoever within the Church.

I’m also confident that any actions the Church takes that allow the Bishop to continue in a position of leadership will only harm the Church, disappoint many catholics and the rest of the world.

I am neither a bishop nor the pope. But after being told that he has to distance himself from this position, I do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is going to offer Bishop Williamson a position within the Church for a very long time. I beieve the Pope when he speaks of the Shoah. I also believe him when he says that Bishop Williamson must distance himself from this position, with an emphasis on the must.

In Church language, to distance yourself from a position means that you had better let go of it or you will be in trouble. At the very best, I can see Bishop Williamson in some beaurocatric post and at worse, I can see him remaining within the Church, but suspended indefinitely. The latter is fine with the Holy Father as long as he has him within the Church. Outside of the Church the Holy Father has no jurisdiction. Within the Church he has all the jurisdiction in the world over Williamson. It is a good thing for Williamson to accept being back inside the fold.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[numealinesimpet]

If a person hates Jews does that have an effect on " the state of his soul" in any way or manner?

Presuming that the Shoah was the result of two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in genocide against the Jewish people, can that be called “secular history”? If so, what is the definition of “non-secular history” from a religious historical context?

OK. so we have settled on a definition of anti-Semitism. As nobody has objected, I assume we may use it in this discussion.

**Valke2 **
Anti-Semitism: Any act or statement made with the intent to disparage or incite hatred against a people because they are Jewish.

Thank you. Therefore the word includes an inherent judgment of a third party’s inner intentions. Therefore, a statement of alleged objective fact may or may not be incorrect, but it is not anti-Semitic unless the statement itself contains a disparagement or incitement to hatred against a people because they are Jewish. If we know from other sources that the speaker hates Jews, we may mention this as additional evidence, but we cannot label the statement itself as Anti-Semitic. If the purported fact casts a bad light on the Jews, this does not in itself make it anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, any more that the statement that a certain pope had a concubine is, in itself, an anti-Catholic statement…

The term itself was invented to make “Jew hatred” sound more scientific.

Not so fast there. It is a separate issue where the word came from, and why.

My problem with all these modern words of the type of ‘racism, sexism, homophobia’, etc etc, is that they all make the same error: they confuse objective fact and presumption of intent. Because the distinction is not drawn, a person who makes a statement hich the other party dislikes is accused of an evil intent in the same breath as the statement made. If the other party had spoken clearly, he/she would have said, “You have made the following statement: therefore you hate Jews/women/negores/ homosexuals”. The first speaker would then be able to say, “I did make that statement, for the following reasons (citing evidence if it is available) but I don’t hate you”. either part of the statement could then be contested separately and fairly.

The error, therefore, leads to a personal accusation of bad faith masquerading as a statement of objective fact. Of course he made the statement….
Then, the error leads to examples of crude abuse being called by the same word. Then an identical storm of indignation is unleashed at both sets of statements - and at people.

The third, related error, is to use a word with a derogatory connotation with such an elastic definition that it can be bandied about at whim, yet still makes the mud stick.

All of these tactics are dishonest and are not to be entertained.

If we will accept valke2’s definition, then, we cannot claim that any old statement which happens to annoy or offend Jews, whether the statement is a fair or valid one or not, falls under “anti-Semitism’. Bp Williamson’s statements most definitely cannot be seen to be “an act or statement made with the intent to disparage or incite hatred against a people because they are Jewish.” We are free to make a case that he hates Jews and wishes to incite hatred (if we so wish), but we must do a lot more than simply quote his statement as ‘anti-Semitism’.

Continued:…

 

[numealinesimpet]

Continued:…

Now.
chosen people writes:

Presuming that the Shoah was the result of two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in genocide against the Jewish people…

Just for the record, and meaning no personal offence to any living Jew (or non-Jew)…there are a couple of things that I haven’t heard or seen during the past two weeks of fury, which should not be withheld. It is not telling the whole story to recall that Christians down the centuries have persecuted Jews on the pretext that “the Jews killed Christ”. True Catholic teaching, of course, is that I crucify Him by my sins. Nonetheless it is an historical fact that this has been said and done. The following also was said and done.

Dom Guéranger, OSB, wrote this in his meditation on Good Friday in his “Liturgical Year” ISBN 0 907364 15 2:

Pilate says to them, ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ This time the chief priests answer: ‘We have no king but Caesar.’
When the very ministers of God can talk thus, religion is at an end. No king but Caesar! Then, the sceptre is taken from Juda, and Jerusalem is cast off, and the Messias is come!

Pilate washes his hands before the people, and says to them: ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just man: look ye to it!’ They answer him with this terrible self-imprecation: ‘His Blood be upon us and upon our children!’ The mark … here fastens on this [people]: Cain-like, they shall wander fugitives on the Earth. Eighteen hundred years have passed since then; slavery, misery and contempt, have been their portion; but the mark is still upon them.

In another passage he writes,

O unhappy Jews! what madness took you on that terrible day, when you called down upon yourselves that most terrible of all curses under Heaven and Earth, and which has pursued you from age to age, granting you neither rest nor peace on this Earth again?

The Church historian Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, notes that, when the Legions finally occupied Jerusalem after the Resurrection, the General, during the night, caused the Roman Eagles and idolatrous images of Caesar placed at prominent places throughout the city. The Jews were in fury over this: but Eusebius notes that the Fathers had commented that this had been permitted by God, because they had said, “We have no king but Caesar”.

But Our Lord, in His final words as He walked out of the Temple for the last time, left with a Prophecy of Hope:

‘For I tell you, will not see Me here again, until the day you shall say, Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord!’ (Mt 23:39)

 

[Valke2]

I am neither a bishop nor the pope. But after being told that he has to distance himself from this position, I do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is going to offer Bishop Williamson a position within the Church for a very long time. I beieve the Pope when he speaks of the Shoah. I also believe him when he says that Bishop Williamson must distance himself from this position, with an emphasis on the must.

In Church language, to distance yourself from a position means that you had better let go of it or you will be in trouble. At the very best, I can see Bishop Williamson in some beaurocatric post and at worse, I can see him remaining within the Church, but suspended indefinitely. The latter is fine with the Holy Father as long as he has him within the Church. Outside of the Church the Holy Father has no jurisdiction. Within the Church he has all the jurisdiction in the world over Williamson. It is a good thing for Williamson to accept being back inside the fold.

Fraternally,

JR

To be clear, I applaud the Pope’s recent comments about the Shoah and do not doubt his sincerity.

 

[JReducation]

To be clear, I applaud the Pope’s recent comments about the Shoah and do not doubt his sincerity.

John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been the most outspoken popes on the reality and gravity of the Shoah. The hope always is that Catholics and others around the world will follow their example and adopt the same worldview. Doing so denies nothing that Catholics and other Christians believe.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are like lawyers. They want an executive decree that mandates everything. It is a very black and white way of living. You can’t make decrees and rules on every issue in life. Sometimes you lead by example and others should take the example and run with it.

The SSPX bishops have to communicate this to their followers, especially now that they are in the process of reconciliation with the Church. The Church refuses to tolerate or hide the facts concerning the Shoah. Catholics who want to be part of the Church must accept that the Church has taken this position or go away.

There is not going to be a grand mandate that you have to accept the Shoah is is written in history books. History books are not infallible. However, there is going to be a leading by example in repudiating the Shoah and any possibility of this happening again to other human beings. It is in this venture where Jews and Catholics can come together, to protect humanity from this happening again to another target population.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Who is behind “all the poisonous venom spewed past, present, and future against our Roman Pontiff”, what are their motives and methods?

Manifold.

From your statement “will not yield a scratch on the walls of Christ’s Holy Church” do you think recent events have had no effect, a positive effect or a negative effect on attitudes toward the Catholic Church and the pope?

Negative attitudes toward the Church do not constitute harm.

If a person hates Jews does that have an effect on " the state of his soul" in any way or manner?

Sure. But people like Valke2 will have a hard time proving that Bishop Williamson wishes Jews grave evil. Mere speculation and claiming “it’s obvious!” isn’t enough.

Presuming that the Shoah was the result of two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in genocide against the Jewish people, can that be called “secular history”? If so, what is the definition of “non-secular history” from a religious historical context?

Presuming that the moon is made of cheese, would it be delicious?

 

[chosen_people]

tuviskazinai, I am very much aware that the lifting of the excommunications is but the first step in what I perceive as an impossible journey into full rehabilitation with a Rome that holds all Vatican II documents as tradition. I allowed that God could use tradition to create a Rome that would return to tradition and hope He was working that way. Anyone with the intelligence to see what previous popes said and what emerged in the documents of Vatican II will see immediately that they are contradictions. Now given St Paul warned us that even if an angel of light were to appear before us and tell us to believe a doctrine that is not of tradition we are to reject it. Vatican II was refused the status of an infallible doctrinal council by both Pope John XXIII and Paul VI, so is not binding in an absolute way.

Now to come to this absurdity where an opinion on a disputed matter of history is now being given an importance that determines the status of a Bishop of the Catholic Church . Whatever about asking Bishop Williamson to keep quiet because his opinion is used to cause trouble for the Pope, but announcing threats to him and the SSPX in front of the world is outrageous. God they didn’t say that about child-molesters in their own hierarchy did they? But it shows the power the Jews hold on the human psyche today when they can get Rome to remove crucifixes for their visits (an insult to Christ and the holy city of Rome) and now sour the path to dialogue between tradition and modernism.

I know of a 2003 Italian case where a Judge ordered the removal of a crucufix from a school wall. The suit was brought by a Muslim leader not a Jewish one. I have been unable to find any articles relating to the removal of crucifixes at the request of Jewish leaders visiting in Rome. Perhaps you could give your source? (If I am unable to get back to thank you please take into account that my participation in controlling all the money and all the power in the world leaves me little time to participate on this forum).

 

[Dupie24]

I have been very concerned over this issue. Can anybody tell me if the Vatican/Pope has re-excommunicated Williamson? Lifting the excommunication has caused quite a stir, and I know the Pope has demaned a retraction by the end of Feb. Well end of Feb is here and gone and I cannot find any information if the Pope has re-excommunicated the mentally ill Williamson. I will not be a part of a church that accepts this man, re-excommunication is mandatory in my opinion and I will leave the church in a heart beat if the vatican doesn’t clean its act up.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I have been very concerned over this issue. Can anybody tell me if the Vatican/Pope has re-excommunicated Williamson? Lifting the excommunication has caused quite a stir, and I know the Pope has demaned a retraction by the end of Feb. Well end of Feb is here and gone and I cannot find any information if the Pope has re-excommunicated the mentally ill Williamson. I will not be a part of a church that accepts this man, re-excommunication is mandatory in my opinion and I will leave the church in a heart beat if the vatican doesn’t clean its act up.

Hi Duprie,

Bishop Williamson isn’t going to be allowed to work as a bishop in the Church.

Excommunication is something that is done usually only for very specific things, like acts of schism or heresy, or murder. Canon law doesn’t really allow someone to be excommunicated for stateing hurtful opinions, although it does allow for Williamson to remain suspended. He has lost his job as the head of a seminary, and probably won’t be allowed to exercize any ministry in the church unless he recants.

But excommunication is more than that: it means the person can’t even go to confession or communion. As you said, Williamson might be mentally ill, and we can’t really judge whether he should be able to receive communion. He has apologized for hurting people’s feelings, even if he hasn’t changed his mind yet.

 

[Dupie24]

Hi Duprie,

Bishop Williamson isn’t going to be allowed to work as a bishop in the Church.

Excommunication is something that is done usually only for very specific things, like acts of schism or heresy, or murder. Canon law doesn’t really allow someone to be excommunicated for stateing hurtful opinions, although it does allow for Williamson to remain suspended. He has lost his job as the head of a seminary, and probably won’t be allowed to exercize any ministry in the church unless he recants.

But excommunication is more than that: it means the person can’t even go to confession or communion. As you said, Williamson might be mentally ill, and we can’t really judge whether he should be able to receive communion. He has apologized for hurting people’s feelings, even if he hasn’t changed his mind yet.

Neil_Anthony, thank you so much for that explanation, I understand a little bit better now. I don’t pretend to know about Canon Law, and I should have checked into it before posting. I mistakingly thought that excommunication was ordered at the Pope’s descrection. Maybe it should be…

and I admit I have not read all 30 pages of this thread

These are my feelings though.
The man was orginally excommunicated, for not agreeing or following Vatican II reforms, which is obviously an excommunicatable offense. Cannon law or just plain common sense should realize that obvious lying and agreement with such an evil position is just as bad (and I think worse) as not agreeing with what men have determined the direction of the Church. It is against all that Jesus represents. I have forgiven this man, but I find myself having to ask for forgiveness quite often regarding this issue. I just cannot believe that someone can be connected to such evil and be ok with him/her self.
Sorry for the ranting, I just get really worked up about this and it makes me question where I’m at and what I support.

Bob

 

[JReducation]

Neil_Anthony, thank you so much for that explanation, I understand a little bit better now. I don’t pretend to know about Canon Law, and I should have checked into it before posting. I mistakingly thought that excommunication was ordered at the Pope’s descrection. Maybe it should be…

and I admit I have not read all 30 pages of this thread

These are my feelings though.
The man was orginally excommunicated, for not agreeing or following Vatican II reforms, which is obviously an excommunicatable offense. Cannon law or just plain common sense should realize that obvious lying and agreement with such an evil position is just as bad (and I think worse) as not agreeing with what men have determined the direction of the Church. It is against all that Jesus represents. I have forgiven this man, but I find myself having to ask for forgiveness quite often regarding this issue. I just cannot believe that someone can be connected to such evil and be ok with him/her self.
Sorry for the ranting, I just get really worked up about this and it makes me question where I’m at and what I support.

Bob

Just one quick correction to what you said about Bishop Williamson’s excommunication. He was not excommunicated for disagreeing with Vatican II. He was excommunicated for accepting to be consecrated a bishop without the permission of the Pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Dupie24]

Just one quick correction to what you said about Bishop Williamson’s excommunication. He was not excommunicated for disagreeing with Vatican II. He was excommunicated for accepting to be consecrated a bishop without the permission of the Pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for the correction, I’m glad I got all this great information. I will definately rethink my position.

Bob

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for the correction, I’m glad I got all this great information. I will definately rethink my position.

Bob

You’re welcome. Sometimes I wonder if those of us, including me, who participate on CAF may be taking this SSPX issue too personally. The other day I was talking to one of our brothers about something that someone had said regarding the SSPX. It was a comment that appeared on CAF. He made what later seemed like a very wise remark.

He said, “I hope those who are so caught up in the SSPX issue, either for or against, put just as much passion into prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.”

It made me think.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

If a person hates Jews does that have an effect on " the state of his soul" in any way or manner?

Israel is not helping itself in the fight against anti-semitism:
haaretz.com/hasen/spages/899414.html
haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055574.html
english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/04/200861501257824275.html
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/08/international/i140033S61.DTL&feed=rss.news
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Gaza
yahoo.com/s/1040310