Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[numealinesimpet]

Bishop Fellay is wrong. There are easy answers as to why. If you want to start a whole new thread on this topic, perhaps that would be best. I think the next major sidetrack will close this one, unless that is your intention.

No, I would hate to mess up the thread. The topic does have a bearing on the issue, as it touches on the relation between the various hierarchies of the Law. These were the considerations that led to Mgr Lefebvre’s initial action. Now that the decree of excommunication has been lifted, the SSPX bishops are entitled to their part of the debate without being told that they are ‘outside the Church’.

I don’t actually know how to start a new thread. If you are willing to discuss this, on a separate thread, i would be willing to take part.

 

[Valke2]

I did not say that. I just said that it does not have to equate to antisemetism.

Denying the holocaust and quoting the protocols. Unless he gets arrested for burning down a synagouge, that is about as much evidence as you can ever have confirming that he is an antisemite.

 

[chosen_people]

While his statement is disconcerting, it is not a matter of faith, morals, or doctrine. No matter how bizarre this statement, this has no bearing on the excommunication of the SSPX.

That is exactly the crux of the problem. The pope as well as everyone else was and is fully aware of the underlying anti-semitism within the SSPX. The inexcusable outpouring of anti -Jewish sentiment on this forum since the interview and the decision to lift the excommunications are viable proof, if indeed such proof was needed, as to its existence among some of those Catholics defining themselves as “traditionalists”. However, what is truly beyond understanding is the claim that it is totally irrelevant if a church official, a bishop, a person presumably who will be turned to for moral guidance, is a racist or an anti-semite. If morality and behavior toward others is not part of “faith,morals or doctrine”, than what place can religion serve?

 

[Valke2]

My guess would be that he should not be excommunicated for hating Jews but he should not be a bishop or any other type of paid leader in the Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

That is exactly the crux of the problem. The pope as well as everyone else was and is fully aware of the underlying anti-semitism within the SSPX. The inexcusable outpouring of anti -Jewish sentiment on this forum since the interview and the decision to lift the excommunications are viable proof, if indeed such proof was needed, as to its existence among some of those Catholics defining themselves as “traditionalists”. However, what is truly beyond understanding is the claim that it is totally irrelevant if a church official, a bishop, a person presumably who will be turned to for moral guidance, is a racist or an anti-semite. If morality and behavior toward others is not part of “faith,morals or doctrine”, than what place can religion serve?

I am not trying to be smart, but: Can you define ‘anti-Semitism’? Otherwise there is no possibility of rational discussion.

 

[Valke2]

actions and statements made to damage a people because they are Jewish. The term itself was basically invented to make hatred of jews sound more scientific.

 

[cassini]

That is exactly the crux of the problem. The pope as well as everyone else was and is fully aware of the underlying anti-semitism within the SSPX. The inexcusable outpouring of anti -Jewish sentiment on this forum since the interview and the decision to lift the excommunications are viable proof, if indeed such proof was needed, as to its existence among some of those Catholics defining themselves as “traditionalists”. However, what is truly beyond understanding is the claim that it is totally irrelevant if a church official, a bishop, a person presumably who will be turned to for moral guidance, is a racist or an anti-semite. If morality and behavior toward others is not part of “faith,morals or doctrine”, than what place can religion serve?

Chosen people,

would you consider the massive condemnations of Isreal’s overkill in Gaza as being anti-semitic? You are aware that our Scriptures recall how those jews who rejected Christ treated him. So, are the Scriptures anti-semitic? I am a ‘traditional’ Catholic that you are branding anti-semitic, but I fail to understand what you mean. I do not hate jews, or have any hang-up against them, quite the opposite, I have great sympathy with Isreal’s plight in the world, much to the annoyance of many of my secular friends. I have said on this thread that my mother of 93 still talks of her best friend a jewish girl she knew 80 years ago. The Catholic Faith demands we love all men but it does not say we are not allowed opinions on this or that. It seems to me that you are anti-traditionalist. Indeed I see the whole episode as an attack by Jews on the re-emergence of tradition within the Catholic Church. Does that make me anti-semetic? I have read an odd bit of the Protocols and it seems to me what it says has come to pass.

 

[pnewton]

That is exactly the crux of the problem. The pope as well as everyone else was and is fully aware of the underlying anti-semitism within the SSPX.

But this again begs the question. Equating the denial of the Holocaust and antisemetism may be acceptable to you and others, but it is not the same to all. From a point of view of logic, they are not the same. That is why, that while antisemetism is, as you pointed out, a matter of faith and morals, denying the Holocaust is not.

 

[chosen_people]

I am not trying to be smart, but: Can you define ‘anti-Semitism’? Otherwise there is no possibility of rational discussion.

Actually the question in relation to the SSPX is not only “smart” but “brilliant”.

In the SSPX the true ideologue of Catholic traditionalist anti-Semitism was Fr.Denis Fahey who talked of “Jewish naturalism”.

see here: traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Conversion_of_Jewish_Nation/Chapter-IV.html

The basic idea is that Jews use their power, and Jews have an inordinate amount of it, in order to undermine Christianity.

Fahey claimed he wasn’t an anti-Semite because he didn’t hate the Jews as such just what they were doing to good Christian society (there is nothing an anti-Semite enjoys more then defining anti-Semitism and then claiming “see I’m not anti-Semitic”, the one I personally like is “I can’t be anti-Semitic because Jesus was a Jew and the true anti-Semites are the Jews who rejected him” - 10 bonus points if you know which modern Catholic anti Jewish apologist makes this claim?)

Fahey’s anti- Jewish ideas were given a voice by another rabid Catholic church anti-Semite Fr. Leonard Feeney in the point magazine
see: crashrecovery.org/fatherfeeney/point/index.html

a modern secular Catholic has even given a secular scientific basis for these ideas:
see: adl.org/learn/ext_us/kevin_macdonald/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=7

Now you have to understand that since I’m extremely busy running all the banks and all the money in the world, all the world media and publishing including Hollywood, and having all the power in the world this may cut into the time available for our discussion.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That is why, that while antisemetism is, as you pointed out, a matter of faith and morals, denying the Holocaust is not.

Denying the holocaust is actually a matter of morals.

Morality covers a lot of what we say. Calumny, for example, is a sin. Rash judgement, especially when spoken to others, is a sin. Detraction is a sin. Lying is a sin. Bearing false witness is a sin.

If someone is going to make a statement on something as important as a holocaust, they have a moral duty to make sure they know what you’re talking about. If someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about, they should keep your mouth shut to avoid slandering the people who lost their relatives in the holocaust. If they realize that their opinions are quite different from the rest of society, including the Holy Father, they have a serious obligation to make sure before they start talking. Also, they have to avoid the sin of pride, which includes the tendency to think that one’s own opinion is better than the rest of the whole world.

Bishop Williamson’s comments are very much part of morality. They almost certainly indicate a person full of pride, and lacking compassion for those who suffered in World War II. These are moral issues, just as much as if he stole from his church or had a mistress. In fact I think they’re worse than either of those examples.

 

[chosen_people]

Chosen people,

would you consider the massive condemnations of Isreal’s overkill in Gaza as being anti-semitic? You are aware that our Scriptures recall how those jews who rejected Christ treated him. So, are the Scriptures anti-semitic? I am a ‘traditional’ Catholic that you are branding anti-semitic, but I fail to understand what you mean. I do not hate jews, or have any hang-up against them, quite the opposite, I have great sympathy with Isreal’s plight in the world, much to the annoyance of many of my secular friends. I have said on this thread that my mother of 93 still talks of her best friend a jewish girl she knew 80 years ago. The Catholic Faith demands we love all men but it does not say we are not allowed opinions on this or that. It seems to me that you are anti-traditionalist. Indeed I see the whole episode as an attack by Jews on the re-emergence of tradition within the Catholic Church. Does that make me anti-semetic? I have read an odd bit of the Protocols and it seems to me what it says has come to pass.

I did not claim and have never claimed that all Catholic traditionalists are anti-Semitic rather that within the SSPX movement there are anti-Semites and anti-Semitic ideologies. It should be remembered that a major part of the SSPX was its rejection of the Vatican II reforms toward the Jews. To put it in the context of Israel, while all anti-Semites are anti Israel not all people who are anti Israel are anti-Semitic.

If indeed you view the Protocol’s of the Elders of Zion as real and prophetic the kindest thing to say would be to say nothing at all.

 

[Valke2]

“The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity,” Benedict told thet visiting leaders, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust. “This should be clear to everyone, especially to those standing in the tradition of the Holy Scriptures.”

 

[numealinesimpet]

(there is nothing an anti-Semite enjoys more then defining anti-Semitism and then claiming “see I’m not anti-Semitic”,)
…
Now you have to understand that since I’m extremely busy running all the banks and all the money in the world, all the world media and publishing including Hollywood, and having all the power in the world this may cut into the time available for our discussion.

I sympathise, of course, if you are not too busy to throw “Boo-words” at the SSPX, but too busy to define your terms.
I believe the Pope was wise and courageous to lift the excommunications of the SSPX. The nature of the Church is such that Bp Williamson’s statements were a separate issue from that of the excommunications. I will not accept that this makes anybody “anti-Semitic” - or at least not until I am told what that actually means. I do support the SSPX, because I think their analysis of the situation in the Church is basically correct. I am prepared to debate this, which is why I’m on the thread. If the SSPX (or anybody else) are to be branded with a derogatory term, I like to know what the other person is talking about before we start going round in circles. I am not aware of there being an Official SSPX Line on International Banking, who is ‘really’ running the world (apart from God, with a lot of hindrance from Satan; and that we each need to pick sides), global Warming, or many other things. I happen to know one SSPX priest who is very much against ‘Conspiracy theories’; I haven’t really discussed it with the others, and it has never been the subject of sermons.
Father Denis Fahey was dead long before the SSPX came around. I know for definite that the SSPX, as a Fraternity of priests, do not have a “Party Line” on his works.
The SSPX do accept the literal truth of the New Testament. The Catholic Line is that I crucify Christ with my sins. That is all I have heard from the pulpit.

(there is nothing an anti-Semite enjoys more than …

Are you saying that we don’t have to bother about defining it? But we can see comparable things happening with other words, like ‘schism’. That is why I have posted a definition of ‘schism’ on this thread as a precondition to discussing whether the SSPX are, or were ever, in schism.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It should be remembered that a major part of the SSPX was its rejection of the Vatican II reforms toward the Jews.

Not so. A major point of issue is the concept of ‘Religious Liberty’ which, as the popes had warned since the French Revolution, is actually destructive of all religions. The SSPX maintain the line that was consistently held before 1962: that of religious tolerance, without losing sight of the Command of Christ…

The SSPX are against any movement within the Church that would militate against the attempt to “teach all nations, baptising them (etc)” … & that would certainly include an attempt to abandon the conversion of the Jews. But that does not make the Jews a special case. in the eyes of the SSPX.

 

[pnewton]

Denying the holocaust is actually a matter of morals.

Morality covers a lot of what we say. Calumny, for example, is a sin. Rash judgement, especially when spoken to others, is a sin. Detraction is a sin. Lying is a sin. Bearing false witness is a sin.

Being wrong is not a sin. All the examples you give are derived from the commandment because of the need to protect one’s good name. They apply to an individual, not an event. The only one that could possible apply would be lying, and that would require awareness on the part of the person making the statement. Assuming that Bishop Williamson is telling a lie is in itself a rash judgement.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Being wrong is not a sin. All the examples you give are derived from the commandment because of the need to protect one’s good name. They apply to an individual, not an event. The only one that could possible apply would be lying, and that would require awareness on the part of the person making the statement. Assuming that Bishop Williamson is telling a lie is in itself a rash judgement.

“The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity. … It is beyond question that any denial or minimisation of this terrible crime is intolerable and altogether unacceptable”. - Benedict XVI

You are NOT TO QUESTION whether holocaust denial or minimisation is intolerable or unacceptable. That is what you are doing on this thread. In obedience to the Holy Father you must STOP QUESTIONING it.

 

[pnewton]

“The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity. … It is beyond question that any denial or minimisation of this terrible crime is intolerable and altogether unacceptable”. - Benedict XVI

You are NOT TO QUESTION whether holocaust denial or minimisation is intolerable or unacceptable. That is what you are doing on this thread. In obedience to the Holy Father you must STOP QUESTIONING it.

FYI - “It is beyond question” is not the same as an order to all the faithful to cease all discussion. If you think I am behaving inappropriately, do not shout. Rather use the report post feature and I will abide by what the moderator says, rather than the whim of each individual here. The inability of some people here to control emotions is one of the reason I believe this topic should be given a rest.

But for the record, what I said was that denying the Holocaust does not equate to antisemetism. I believe this to be such a logical statement as to be self-evident.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Being wrong is not a sin. All the examples you give are derived from the commandment because of the need to protect one’s good name. They apply to an individual, not an event. The only one that could possible apply would be lying, and that would require awareness on the part of the person making the statement. Assuming that Bishop Williamson is telling a lie is in itself a rash judgement.

Precisely.

 

[numealinesimpet]

“The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity. … It is beyond question that any denial or minimisation of this terrible crime is intolerable and altogether unacceptable”. - Benedict XVI

You are NOT TO QUESTION whether holocaust denial or minimisation is intolerable or unacceptable. That is what you are doing on this thread. In obedience to the Holy Father you must STOP QUESTIONING it.

Actually, I think the holocaust - of Jews and the other victims - was even worse than is normally portrayed. There were clear signs of demonic ‘inspiration’ in the whole Nazi episode. But anybody with a primary school education in the Faith will know that the Pope’s authority on this matter - empirical facts of history - is on the level of human testimony only. Otherwise, to give only the most obvious example, S. Paul could never have ‘denied Peter to his face … because he was to be blamed’.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Precisely.

… not to mention that we are still awaiting a definition of Anti-Semitism.