Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[Layman]

It’s a pity that this has come down to 1) The number killed and 2) The method.

When Gutenburg printed the Bible, every man could become his own Pope.

With the internet, every man is now his own historian, leading to all these conspiracy theories.

I remember being very shocked and disgusted seeing a film of piles of emaciated human bodies and more being flung on them, like garbage.

The lesson for me is that there is no infamy that human beings won’t stoop to, and to beware of emotionalist politics.

Too bad +Williamson got the Church involved in this. Rules for a cynical politician: Don’t March on Moscow and don’t get involved in Balkans, Israel or (sadly) the abortion issue if you want a quiet life.

 

[tuviskazinai]

With the internet, every man is now his own historian, leading to all these conspiracy theories.

Exactly.

The first thing that all of those Holocaust deniers need to do is learn how to conduct real historical research. Just providing “links” (as in, “Oh, yeah? Well, I can provide you with links”) with outrageous claims by authors no one has ever heard of does not cut it. At the very, very least, good research needs to be peer-reviewed to be considered reliable. That means that if you google the name of the author of an article, you do not get a million other sites proving what a phony he is; you get references of his work by respectable historians, evidence that he has actually published books and articles (and not just conspiracy theorist websites) and been invited to legitimate academic conferences (i.e., at Yale and Harvard, not The Frank Bob White Institute for the Discovery of the Truth of the Holocaust), etc.

I understand the argument that these poor (anti-Semitic) revisionists are “fighting for the truth” against a “Jewish conspiracy” that seeks to silence them, etc etc etc. But I mean, come on, one needs proof of that, too. At the very least, in this case, if peer reviews will never lend them a sympathetic ear, the deniers could produce hard physical evidence that contradicts the evidence we have that the Holocaust did take place (from meticulous documentations to eye-witness accounts to photographic evidence, etc.). No one has ever pulled this off – because their case is bogus.

But I mean, come on, people. Obviously all of us who want to contribute something to this forum just google whatever words we like, read the first article that comes up, decide it’s decent enough, and then post it. That is of dubious scholarly value, to say the least. I don’t mean to deny all of us history buffs and ordinary human beings the chance to participate in the pursuit of truth, but we can acknowledge a certain hierarchy without being elitist: those who are professional, academic historians – all of whom believe the Holocaust took place – are simply better qualified to judge than we are.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[cassini]

A quote from the article:

Vienna’s cardinal and archbishop, Christoph Schoenborn, on Sunday lashed out at the decision to bring Williamson back into the fold, saying that “he who denies the Holocaust cannot be rehabilitated within the Church.”

A cardinal said this?!! A CARDINAL?!! :banghead:

Where else, but in the Church, can someone be rehabilitated?! Where else does Christ come to us offering forgiveness?! Is he out of his mind? Or has he forgotten that he has his office because God Himself was born a man and suffered and died at the hands of His creation, precisely so that we can be rehabilitated? May God show him the mercy he refuses to others.

Lord, deliver us from the scandal of such men. May they have no influence over the souls of the faithful, unless they preach your Truth. Keep your priests true that we the faithful may not be lost.

God bless you Paladin V. Now you know how much they hate tradition. This whole thing was set up to make sure tradition did not re-enter Rome. God help Pope Benedict who was inspired by God when made pope but finds himself surrounded by enemies. Pray for him.

 

[tuviskazinai]

God bless you Paladin V. Now you know how much they hate tradition. This whole thing was set up to make sure tradition did not re-enter Rome. God help Pope Benedict who was inspired by God when made pope but finds himself surrounded by enemies. Pray for him.

But Cassini, with all respect, you’re reading selectively. If you look back a few pages you’ll see that a number of replies were made to this post – I suggested that the Cardinal was quoted wildly out of context, JR suggested that “rehabilitation” has a very precise meaning in the Church that the casual use of the word does not capture, etc. If that’s not enough, what do you make of this letter that came yesterday from the Pope’s own desk, which clearly aligns him with those you are calling his “enemies”?:

In the wake of the reactions elicited by the recent decree from the Congregation for Bishops, with which the excommunication of four prelates of the Fraternity of St. Pius X were lifted, and in relation to negationist or reductionist declarations on the Shoah from Bishop Williamson of that same fraternity, it is considered opportune to clarify certain aspects of the issue.

1. Remission of the excommunication.

As has already been published previously, the decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated Jan. 21, 2009, was an act by which the Holy Father graciously took in the reiterated petitions from the superior-general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.

His Holiness wished to remove an impediment that adversely affected the opening of a door to dialogue. Now he expects that the same willingness be expressed by the four bishops, in total adhesion to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.

The most grave penalty of excommunication latae sententiae [automatic excommunication], which these bishops incurred June 30, 1988, afterward declared formally on July 1 of the same year, was a consequence of their illegitimate ordination by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a most grave canonical penalty, but it has not changed in any way the juridical situation of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, which for the moment does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church. Neither do the four bishops, though liberated from the excommunication, have a canonical function in the Church and they do not licitly exercise a ministry in it.

1. Tradition, doctrine and the Second Vatican Council.

For a future recognition of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition.

As has already been affirmed in the decree of Jan. 21, 2009, the Holy See will not cease, in the ways in which it judges opportune, to go deeper with the interested parties in the questions that remain open, in such a way that a full and satisfactory solution to the problems that have given rise to this painful fracture can be reached.

1. Declaration on the Shoah.

The viewpoints of Bishop Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself noted last Jan. 28, when, referring to that savage genocide, he reaffirmed his full and indisputable solidarity with our brother recipients of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide should induce “humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the human heart,” adding that the Shoah remains “for everyone a warning against forgetting, against negating or reductionism, because violence committed against even one human being is violence against all.”

Bishop Williamson, to be admitted to episcopal functions in the Church, must also distance himself in an absolutely unmistakable and public way from his position on the Shoah, which was unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the lifting of the excommunication.

The Holy Father asks accompaniment in prayer from all the faithful, that the Lord may enlighten the path of the Church. May there be an increase in the determination of the pastors and all the faithful in support of the delicate and heavy mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter as “guardian of the unity” of the Church.

From the Vatican, February 4, 2009

(Boldface is mine.)

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[cassini]

But Cassini, with all respect, you’re reading selectively. If you look back a few pages you’ll see that a number of replies were made to this post – I suggested that the Cardinal was quoted wildly out of context, JR suggested that “rehabilitation” has a very precise meaning in the Church that the casual use of the word does not capture, etc. If that’s not enough, what do you make of this letter that came yesterday from the Pope’s own desk, which clearly aligns him with those you are calling his “enemies”?:

In the wake of the reactions elicited by the recent decree from the Congregation for Bishops, with which the excommunication of four prelates of the Fraternity of St. Pius X were lifted, and in relation to negationist or reductionist declarations on the Shoah from Bishop Williamson of that same fraternity, it is considered opportune to clarify certain aspects of the issue.

1. Remission of the excommunication.

As has already been published previously, the decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated Jan. 21, 2009, was an act by which the Holy Father graciously took in the reiterated petitions from the superior-general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.

His Holiness wished to remove an impediment that adversely affected the opening of a door to dialogue. Now he expects that the same willingness be expressed by the four bishops, in total adhesion to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.

The most grave penalty of excommunication latae sententiae [automatic excommunication], which these bishops incurred June 30, 1988, afterward declared formally on July 1 of the same year, was a consequence of their illegitimate ordination by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a most grave canonical penalty, but it has not changed in any way the juridical situation of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, which for the moment does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church. Neither do the four bishops, though liberated from the excommunication, have a canonical function in the Church and they do not licitly exercise a ministry in it.

1. Tradition, doctrine and the Second Vatican Council.

For a future recognition of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition.

As has already been affirmed in the decree of Jan. 21, 2009, the Holy See will not cease, in the ways in which it judges opportune, to go deeper with the interested parties in the questions that remain open, in such a way that a full and satisfactory solution to the problems that have given rise to this painful fracture can be reached.

1. Declaration on the Shoah.

The viewpoints of Bishop Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself noted last Jan. 28, when, referring to that savage genocide, he reaffirmed his full and indisputable solidarity with our brother recipients of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide should induce “humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the human heart,” adding that the Shoah remains “for everyone a warning against forgetting, against negating or reductionism, because violence committed against even one human being is violence against all.”

Bishop Williamson, to be admitted to episcopal functions in the Church, must also distance himself in an absolutely unmistakable and public way from his position on the Shoah, which was unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the lifting of the excommunication.

The Holy Father asks accompaniment in prayer from all the faithful, that the Lord may enlighten the path of the Church. May there be an increase in the determination of the pastors and all the faithful in support of the delicate and heavy mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter as “guardian of the unity” of the Church.

From the Vatican, February 4, 2009

(Boldface is mine.)

Peace,
+AMDG+

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.

 

[pnewton]

OK, you don’t believe in conspiracies either, but remember that if the same group of people control both nations there would be no problem in parroting the same line…

Let me guess: The Illuminati.

I don’t expect to convince you. I was only answering the reason why* I* think anti-Holocaust rhetoric is nuts. I just don’t think there is anything wrong with being nuts.

 

[tuviskazinai]

tuviskazinai, I am very much aware that the lifting of the excommunications is but the first step

Sorry, maybe I created some confusion by quoting the whole letter. I didn’t mean to rub it in your face or suggest that you weren’t aware the lifting was a first step. My point was just that the Pope and Cardinal Shoenborn are in lockstep – so the boldfaced parts were the most important.

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.

I think that’s a grossly unfair generalization. I consider myself (and the Popes!) intelligent and yet I don’t believe that they are contradictions.

I’d have to know exactly which contradictions you were talking about to say anything more. I respect your belief that Vatican II went wrong, I just don’t like the attitude that many Traditionalists have that they can choose which popes to be loyal to and which ones they can dismiss. Many Traditionalists lecture liberal Catholics until they’re blue in the face that when it comes to contraception, gay marriage, women’s ordination, etc, they simply have to put up or shut up because “the Magisterium says so.” But when the Magisterium asks us to believe, oh, that maybe not all Jews are going to Hell, it’s all of a sudden, “Oooh, Satan has infiltrated the Vatican.” Apologies if I am misunderstanding you as an individual, but frankly, that’s what I’ve heard from a number of people, and I simply don’t agree.

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.

I didn’t know that. Interesting. Can you provide more details?

Still, infallible doctrinal councils are not the only things binding on us. Ecumenical councils are still big deals.

I think it is noteworthy that Pope Benedict left room in that letter for debate of Vatican II. But his spirit of generosity is meaningless if we insist that an invitation to debate means that the Society can do whatever it wants and believe whatever it wants and that if the Pope doesn’t bend over backwards to defend a Holocaust denier, then He must be possessed by the Devil, too.

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

Ok, this is where I get sort of angry. For two reasons. The first is personal (and I am willing to laugh about it). Either because my arguments were so air-tight and intimidating, or because my responses are too long and pretentious and no one has the angelic patience to read them (hehe), I posted a long argument – twice – which proposed several reasons why matters of history are not irrelevant to moral theology, and not a single person ever responded. So it’s just hard for me to address your point, Cassini, because I am starting to feel like a broken record.

The second reason I am angry is because the Holocaust is not disputed. Just because a small minority of ignorant pseudo-scholars say it didn’t happen, doesn’t mean their position is valid.

But let me say something else.

If a non-Catholic dared to say that Jesus Christ was not risen from the dead, Williamson would call him an infidel and probably just dismiss him as beyond hope. Ok, that’s his prerogative. But if that non-Catholic went on to reason that there was no historical documentation for the Resurrection; that the few eye-witnesses to it left conflicting accounts; that it is physiologically impossible for a man to rise from the dead or for a virgin to give birth; that the story was kept alive by a conspiracy of cult-like believers; and that even if there is the slight possibility that the Resurrection is somewhat true one can nonetheless label it as just another “historical interpretation” among many – then Bishop Williamson would be calling that person a liar, a modernist, irresponsible, dead to the call of God, and I don’t know what else before you could say “Bob’s your uncle.”

This is my point: the worst thing about Holocaust denial is that it is usually a front for vicious anti-Semitism. The second worst thing is that it is just plain stupid, ignorant of the facts and of the methods of proper historical inquiry. But the third worst thing about Holocaust denial is that in the mouth of someone who professes a firm belief in an undocumented event that occurred 2,000 years ago, it is nothing but pure hypocrisy of the most staggering kind.

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) .

You make an interesting point about child molestation, but aside from that, I am afraid I cannot agree with you here. You may dispute the decision to take down the crucifixes, but even if you don’t recognize it through your anger, an absolutely unfounded statement like “it shows the power the Jews hold on the human psyche today” stinks with anti-Semitism. I am sorry, you may be a wonderful person; I don’t know you. But I need to call a spade a spade, and what you are saying is anti-Semitic.

It was ignorant conspiracy theories like that one that paved the way for public apathy and indifference towards the Jews in pre-war Germany, which in turn paved the way for the Holocaust. This is one of the many reasons that a responsible historical position on the Holocaust is no less a part of a Bishop’s moral grounding than his position on treatment of the unborn, of immigrants, what have you. We need to create a culture of life – which includes ensuring that something like the Shoah will never happen again.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[chosen_people]

“There really is anti-Semitism within the Traditionalist movement.”

Karl keating

 

[cassini]

This is my point: the worst thing about Holocaust denial is that it is usually a front for vicious anti-Semitism. The second worst thing is that it is just plain stupid, ignorant of the facts and of the methods of proper historical inquiry. But the third worst thing about Holocaust denial is that in the mouth of someone who professes a firm belief in an undocumented event that occurred 2,000 years ago, it is nothing but pure hypocrisy of the most staggering kind.

You make an interesting point about child molestation, but aside from that, I am afraid I cannot agree with you here. You may dispute the decision to take down the crucifixes, but even if you don’t recognize it through your anger, an absolutely unfounded statement like “it shows the power the Jews hold on the human psyche today” stinks with anti-Semitism. I am sorry, you may be a wonderful person; I don’t know you. But I need to call a spade a spade, and what you are saying is anti-Semitic.

It was ignorant conspiracy theories like that one that paved the way for public apathy and indifference towards the Jews in pre-war Germany, which in turn paved the way for the Holocaust. This is one of the many reasons that a responsible historical position on the Holocaust is no less a part of a Bishop’s moral grounding than his position on treatment of the unborn, of immigrants, what have you. We need to create a culture of life – which includes ensuring that something like the Shoah will never happen again.

Peace,
+AMDG+

tuviskazinai, I could reply to the above in detail but I simply do not have the time. But let me tell you a story told me by a barrister. After years in court he told me judges do not all absorb all they hear and see and make a judgement. So what such judges do is chose one major point and base their judgement on that point alone.

So I left the above visible.

On another post I told the poster chosen people of my total support for Isreal in their fight for survival against the Muslims. My mother, who is 93 remembers her greatest friend was a Jew. She loved her as a sister. I was reared with this frame of mind. She says that few remember that it was the jews who, while they were successful in business, also provided countless jobs in Europe in the 1920s and 30s. Whereas Hitler saw that as a things to hate, I was reared to see it as the way of the world. I never had any hatred of Jews, and even tell people that we ALL were responsible for Christ’s crucifixion.

Here on this thread I expressed my shock with the Jewish leaders (pharasees?) demanded the removal of crucifixes from the walls in Rome before they visited, obviously because it offends them. Now the only thing that shocks me more than that anti-Christ gesture is that Pope John Paul II did nothing to stop this removal of crucifixes.

 

[pnewton]

“There really is anti-Semitism within the Traditionalist movement.”

Karl keating

There is also some anti-semetism in many movements and areas. Likewise there is racism and nationalism in the Zionist movements. None of this is to say that anit-Semetism is intrinsic within the traditionalist movement, or that racism is intrinsic in Zionism.

However, I am glad you brought up that quote. I remember the article vaguely a while back. Do you happen to have a link? I think it would have more insight into this bishop than the television interview or the media onslaught would provide.

 

[tuviskazinai]

tuviskazinai, I could reply to the above in detail but I simply do not have the time. But let me tell you a story told me by a barrister. After years in court he told me judges do not all absorb all they hear and see and make a judgement. So what such judges do is chose one major point and base their judgement on that point alone.

So I left the above visible.

On another post I told the poster chosen people of my total support for Isreal in their fight for survival against the Muslims. My mother, who is 93 remembers her greatest friend was a Jew. She loved her as a sister. I was reared with this frame of mind. She says that few remember that it was the jews who, while they were successful in business, also provided countless jobs in Europe in the 1920s and 30s. Whereas Hitler saw that as a things to hate, I was reared to see it as the way of the world. I never had any hatred of Jews, and even tell people that we ALL were responsible for Christ’s crucifixion.

Here on this thread I expressed my shock with the Jewish leaders (pharasees?) demanded the removal of crucifixes from the walls in Rome before they visited, obviously because it offends them. Now the only thing that shocks me more than that anti-Christ gesture is that Pope John Paul II did nothing to stop this removal of crucifixes.

I’m glad to hear all of this, but it doesn’t necessarily surprise me…like I admitted, I don’t know you, and I am sure that you are more than the sum of your posts. But that doesn’t mean that you have not said some anti-Semitic things (or some things which have appeared anti-Semitic to me – I apologize if I have misunderstood or judged too quickly, but I stand firm in my judgment of those discrete statements).

I think one of the difficulties with the grandeur of the Holocaust is that it raises the discussion to an intense pitch. So there is, for instance, an implication that to be even remotely anti-Semitic must mean that you would condone the Holocaust or even perpetuate it yourself. Obviously, this is ridiculous…there are degrees of anti-Semitism just as there are degrees of just about anything. I’m not saying that you or Bishop Williamson or whoever is incapable of admiring individual Jews or anything like that. I just think (talking about him, now, since I have no desire to make this personal) that the excuse “Well, I have Jewish friends” is not enough to silence any accusations of anti-Semitism…which can take many subtle, unwitting, and prejudicial forms.

As for your accusation that I am a modernist…hehe…maybe in some ways, yes, or maybe I have said some modernist things without being “a” modernist. I can assure you that I embrace the Magisterium of the Church – and that most proud, self-proclaimed modernists wouldn’t want any such person in their ranks. I know full well how lonely it can be to be a Catholic in the “modern” world…it is not fun to have to say to a bunch of “enlightened” liberals that you are against gay marriage and know that suddenly everyone in the room wishes you dead.

But there are some aspects of modernism that I am proud to call my own – like Karl Rahner’s, for instance. What I take Catholic modernism to mean is a return to subjective human experience: which isn’t to say that truth is relative, but just to say that we need to understand man from the inside, out. This is nothing new – it’s not really modern – it’s in some ways a return to the 13th / 14th century spiritual piety that saw a resurgence of prayer, appreciation of the human suffering of Christ and not just His theological significance, etc. How that applies here, for me, is the ability to look at countless Jews and recognize the obvious fact that although they do not accept the Christ, they have a beautiful spirituality and a longing for God, all the same, that I can appreciate. And I can appreciate, also, the pain that they feel when someone denies the Holocaust without proof…

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[avflf]

Let me guess: The Illuminati.

I don’t expect to convince you. I was only answering the reason why* I* think anti-Holocaust rhetoric is nuts. I just don’t think there is anything wrong with being nuts.

Neither am I trying to convert you and I was only showing you that the matter of the Holocaust is far from being resolved because no independent debate can be had on the truth or falsity of the event. Reading the various posts here confirms that the slightest disagreement with the “official” Jewish story is met with wailing and gnashing of teeth by the devotees of the Human soap and skin chandeliers myths. There were no gas chambers in the camps overrun by the western allies. There were no Jews turned into soap bars. There were no Jewish skins used as lampshades. The Nuremberg trials were a farce, where confessions were extracted through torture and threats against the defendants’ families.and documents were forged, where the victors were the Judge, the Defence and the Prosecutor and most of them were Jews. These are facts. It’s like you being arrested on suspicion of rape and all court officials were family members of the alleged victim. The Red Cross had access to the camps almost up to the end of hostilities and not a word was written about gas chambers, lethal injections, carbon monoxide poisoning or whatever. Memoirs by Eisenhower, Churchill, de Gaule do not refer to any Holocaust. On the other hand, after the war, the treatment of German prisioners, who Eisenhower reclassified as “enemy combatants” from “prisoners of war” so as to circumvent the Geneva convention rules on their treatment, created the sickening photos of emaciated bodies that were then labeled “Jewish”. Where the Red Cross was barred from entering these camps and where the German soldiers were still working as slaves 3 to 4 years after the war ended. As for your sny remark about the Illuminati, their formation is an historical event. And I give you one guess of who was at the front of the movement. Heard of the “Young Turks”? Who was at the helm? One guess only.

So, I also think Holocaust rhetoric is nuts and I, too, just don’t think there is anything wrong with being nuts

 

[pnewton]

Neither am I trying to convert you and I was only showing you that the matter of the Holocaust is far from being resolved because no independent debate can be had on the truth or falsity of the event.

Nothing will ever be resolved for some, just as there is always a Flat Earth Society. If you think this rhetoric is crazy, then perhaps you need to consider the whole-world-is-crazy-but-me syndrome.

 

[avflf]

Nothing will ever be resolved for some, just as there is always a Flat Earth Society. If you think this rhetoric is crazy, then perhaps you need to consider the whole-world-is-crazy-but-me syndrome.

You must realize too that the Flat Earth theory was accepted by society for many, many years. Perhaps in future years you’ll discover that you were the one in that group. I shall now bring this discussion to a close and wish you peace, and the blessings of the God you serve.

 

[Agripa]

Neither am I trying to convert you and I was only showing you that the matter of the Holocaust is far from being resolved because no independent debate can be had on the truth or falsity of the event. Reading the various posts here confirms that the slightest disagreement with the “official” Jewish story is met with wailing and gnashing of teeth by the devotees of the Human soap and skin chandeliers myths. There were no gas chambers in the camps overrun by the western allies. There were no Jews turned into soap bars. There were no Jewish skins used as lampshades. The Nuremberg trials were a farce, where confessions were extracted through torture and threats against the defendants’ families.and documents were forged, where the victors were the Judge, the Defence and the Prosecutor and most of them were Jews. These are facts. It’s like you being arrested on suspicion of rape and all court officials were family members of the alleged victim. The Red Cross had access to the camps almost up to the end of hostilities and not a word was written about gas chambers, lethal injections, carbon monoxide poisoning or whatever. Memoirs by Eisenhower, Churchill, de Gaule do not refer to any Holocaust. On the other hand, after the war, the treatment of German prisioners, who Eisenhower reclassified as “enemy combatants” from “prisoners of war” so as to circumvent the Geneva convention rules on their treatment, created the sickening photos of emaciated bodies that were then labeled “Jewish”. Where the Red Cross was barred from entering these camps and where the German soldiers were still working as slaves 3 to 4 years after the war ended. As for your sny remark about the Illuminati, their formation is an historical event. And I give you one guess of who was at the front of the movement. Heard of the “Young Turks”? Who was at the helm? One guess only.

So, I also think Holocaust rhetoric is nuts and I, too, just don’t think there is anything wrong with being nuts

So . . . what’s your take on The DaVinci Code?

 

[cassini]

I’m glad to hear all of this, but it doesn’t necessarily surprise me…like I admitted, I don’t know you, and I am sure that you are more than the sum of your posts. But that doesn’t mean that you have not said some anti-Semitic things (or some things which have appeared anti-Semitic to me – I apologize if I have misunderstood or judged too quickly, but I stand firm in my judgment of those discrete statements).

I think one of the difficulties with the grandeur of the Holocaust is that it raises the discussion to an intense pitch. So there is, for instance, an implication that to be even remotely anti-Semitic must mean that you would condone the Holocaust or even perpetuate it yourself. Obviously, this is ridiculous…there are degrees of anti-Semitism just as there are degrees of just about anything. I’m not saying that you or Bishop Williamson or whoever is incapable of admiring individual Jews or anything like that. I just think (talking about him, now, since I have no desire to make this personal) that the excuse “Well, I have Jewish friends” is not enough to silence any accusations of anti-Semitism…which can take many subtle, unwitting, and prejudicial forms.

As for your accusation that I am a modernist…hehe…maybe in some ways, yes, or maybe I have said some modernist things without being “a” modernist. I can assure you that I embrace the Magisterium of the Church – and that most proud, self-proclaimed modernists wouldn’t want any such person in their ranks. I know full well how lonely it can be to be a Catholic in the “modern” world…it is not fun to have to say to a bunch of “enlightened” liberals that you are against gay marriage and know that suddenly everyone in the room wishes you dead.

But there are some aspects of modernism that I am proud to call my own – like Karl Rahner’s, for instance. What I take Catholic modernism to mean is a return to subjective human experience: which isn’t to say that truth is relative, but just to say that we need to understand man from the inside, out. This is nothing new – it’s not really modern – it’s in some ways a return to the 13th / 14th century spiritual piety that saw a resurgence of prayer, appreciation of the human suffering of Christ and not just His theological significance, etc. How that applies here, for me, is the ability to look at countless Jews and recognize the obvious fact that although they do not accept the Christ, they have a beautiful spirituality and a longing for God, all the same, that I can appreciate. And I can appreciate, also, the pain that they feel when someone denies the Holocaust without proof…

Peace,
+AMDG+

I will make one final comment. To my knowledge, Bishop Williamson did not deny what is called the holocaust. He gave an opinion that he did not believe six milliuon jews were gasses to death. That there occured a purge by Hitler on Jews is well documented and I did not hear the bishop deny this. Bishop Williamson based his opinion on the logistics of the exercise and the examination of the gas-chambers after the war.

One has to wonder why such an investigation has been made a crime in some countries. I certainly do not know how many were gassed but when I hear it could not have been possible in the opinion of experts that know more than I, I have to have reservations, that’s all. That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that what happened the Jews in WWII was a crime beyond any measure.

I have read an apology from Bishop Williamson who regrets causing such pain. But I then read that few accept this apology. Posts on other forums are vile in their hatred for the SSPX and are using the incident to rant their hatred of tradition. Outsiders are using it to rant their hatred of the Pope and Catholicism.

What I do not see on any catholic forum is this question: If a pope after Fatima’s warnings were made public had consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in conjunction with the bishops of the world, wouldn’t the holocaust have been avoided?

 

[Polycarp1]

Bishop Richard Williamson was not excommunicated for his views on the Holocost so that could not “legally” be considered in his reinstatement along with the other SSPX bishops. His views on the Holocost, however strange, are not a matter of him teaching something contrary to Church Doctrine.

Not all offenses are worthy of excommunication in the Church’s eyes. This is similar to the civil law where penalties are dispensed according to the severity of the crime. For example, life in prison might be a just penalty for a cold-blooded murder, but it would be unjust for theft of a bicycle. Similarly, consecrating bishops without papal mandate is a much more serious offense under canon law than the theft of a candle from the sacristy.

"Excommunication is a word that is often bandied about by Catholics, non-Catholics, and the media. However, when properly understood within the context of canon law, it is a penalty that the Church only applies in the rarest of cases, as a last resort, and for the purpose of helping to bring about the offender’s repentance

Excommunication is one of three types of censure (the other two are suspension and interdict). Censures are otherwise known as medicinal penalties. Their purpose is not to punish an individual for violating the law. The purpose is to act as medicine for the soul that will bring about repentance, so that the person can return to full communion with the Church.

Excommunicable offenses begin with canon 1364. Those who embrace schism, heresy, or apostasy incur automatic excommunication. Schism, heresy, and apostasy are offenses against the Catholic faith and the unity of the Church. The schismatic refuses subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or to maintain communion with those subject to the Holy Father; the heretic, despite having been baptized into the faith, obstinately denies a well-defined Christian truth; and the apostate totally renounces Christ and the Christian faith. The canon permits the competent ecclesiastical authority to add other penalties, including dismissal from the clerical state, when the offense is committed by a deacon, priest, or bishop.

Canon 1370 imposes an automatic excommunication upon any individual who physically attacks the Holy Father.

Canon 1378 automatically excommunicates a priest who absolves, through the sacrament of confession, his partner in a sexual sin. This excommunication is also reserved to the Holy See.

One of the most serious crimes, as we have seen already, is the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate. This is because bishops enjoy the fullness of the priesthood, which allows them to ordain and consecrate more clergy.

Canon 1388 severely punishes a priest who violates the seal of confession.

Finally, as already noted, canon 1398 imposes an automatic excommunication upon those who successfully procure an abortion, provided no diminishing causes are present. This should not surprise any Catholic: Abortion is one of the most serious offenses against human life. The act is intrinsically evil and the child in the womb is among the most defenseless of human life.

I don’t know what avenues are open to the Church to address the damage done to the Bishop’s and the Church’s credibility but I don’t think ecommunication is an option.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I will make one final comment. To my knowledge, Bishop Williamson did not deny what is called the holocaust. He gave an opinion that he did not believe six milliuon jews were gasses to death. That there occured a purge by Hitler on Jews is well documented and I did not hear the bishop deny this. Bishop Williamson based his opinion on the logistics of the exercise and the examination of the gas-chambers after the war.

Well, I think it’s so obvious that the Holocaust existed that no one tries to deny its existence entirely. My understanding is that just about anywhere you go, “Holocaust denial” never means unequivocal denial, but anything that significantly diminishes the evil that was wrought. I’d say that reducing a number like 6 million to a number like 250,000 is denying something fairly significant.

One has to wonder why such an investigation has been made a crime in some countries. I certainly do not know how many were gassed but when I hear it could not have been possible in the opinion of experts that know more than I, I have to have reservations, that’s all. That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that what happened the Jews in WWII was a crime beyond any measure.

Well, I myself do not believe that it should be illegal to deny the Holocaust, but I think I understand why certain countries where it was originated made that decision.

It may be that some “experts” who know more than you believe that it didn’t exist, but I mean, there are thousands upon thousands of real experts who assuredly know more than those guys and who believe that it did exist…no?

I have read an apology from Bishop Williamson who regrets causing such pain. But I then read that few accept this apology. Posts on other forums are vile in their hatred for the SSPX and are using the incident to rant their hatred of tradition. Outsiders are using it to rant their hatred of the Pope and Catholicism.

I wouldn’t reject his apology outright, but I personally don’t think it suffices. He apologized for bringing bad publicity to the Church, not for his views or for the pain they caused to Jews and to others around the world.

And yet it’s true that he brought bad publicity to the Church – you are right about the absolutely unfair way the lifting of the excommunication has been blown out of proportion, and it’s awful to read some papers (like the New York Times) and the cynical spin they put on it. I would definitely hope that the Bishop’s apology is genuine and that this controversy might lead him to do some soul searching, so that he might bring himself in alignment with the Church and put his charisma, faith, and intelligence to good use.

What I do not see on any catholic forum is this question: If a pope after Fatima’s warnings were made public had consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in conjunction with the bishops of the world, wouldn’t the holocaust have been avoided?

I am not sure I understand the question…the Soviet Union was certainly guilty of its own holocausts, but what does the Nazi-induced Shoah have to do with Russia?

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Thread temporarily closed for editing. All posts discussing other posters rather than the topic of the thread will be removed.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Thread is now open. Please note that the topic of the thread is the lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. Any future posts dealing with the history of the holocaust or other tangential subjects will be deleted without notice and infractions will be issued. Thanks for your help in keeping the thread on-topic from this point on.