M
MarkThompson
Guest
So you don’t sing the Stabat Mater?
Weird.
- Status
Weird.
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
“In the interview where he calls him an anti-Semite, the Holy Father says that had he known that Bishop Williamson did not believe in the Shoah the way that the Church believes it, he would have separated him from the other bishops and not have lifted his excommunication” (JReducation).
What grounds are there for the Supreme Pontiff to excommunicate someone over a fact (which has changed in the last two decades, from four- to six-million) of secular history?
- The Shoah isn’t a doctrine of the Catholic Faith, is it?
What grounds are there for the Supreme Pontiff to excommunicate someone over a fact (which has changed in the last two decades, from four- to six-million) of secular history?
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
We have made a concession for the Stabat Mater … but only sung in Latin, wearing a chapel veil, accompanied by an instrument that doesn’t use electricity. Lent would not be Lent without it.So you don’t sing the Stabat Mater?
T
TMC
Guest
As was previously pointed out, Bishop Williamson was not excomunicated for this reason. The SSPX bishops were excommunicated for illicit ordinations.
I have avoided speaking more about Bishop Williamson’s statements on Jews, but perhaps I should not be. Bishop Williamson did not merely question how many Jews were killed in the Shoah, he said that the Jews faked the Holocaust as part of a Zionist plot to get the Holy Land back and eventually take over the world. These statements, combined with other shocking anti-Semitic statements made by Bishop Williamson suggest that he subscribes to condemned teachings about Jews, including such things the blood curse.
T
TMC
Guest
Well, I am not a journalist and I have not slandered anyone. I said I didn’t want to bring it up, but some have persisted in make false statements about the Holy Father - such as saying he excommunicated a bishop because of a disagreement over how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
As for support for my statement, it was discussed in detail on some threads here around the time the excommunications were lifted. If I get a few moments later, I may google up the quotes and provide links, but anyone that wants to take a look can see for themselves what the bishop said.
P
ProVobis
Guest
We shouldn’t be that pessimistic. After all these four bishops still hold the power of Apostolic Succession, though obviously not the authority. Some reconciliation is still in order, even if full communion (canonical status) can’t be reached.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Slander is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative image, which you did. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not. If the you can’t prove the statement, that is libel.
I do not believe anyone, at least on this thread, is accusing the Holy Father of excommunicating anyone. As far as I know, he hasn’t excommunicated anybody during his pontificate.
T
TMC
Guest
Truthful statements are not slander or libel. The difference between slander and libel is that slander is spoken and libel is written.
Here is a quote from Bishop Williamson:
original article: Bild
There is much more out there from him if you care to look for it; I would rather not.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
That’s so magnanimous of you.
So, no organ; and the dudes have to put on chapel veils too?
You’re saying the Church didn’t have Lent from 1570 to 1727?
J
JReducation
Guest
The good bishop was not excommunicated over this issue. The Holy Father’s point was that he would have left him out of the group. The grounds for leaving him out of the group was because of his position on points on which the Church has strong moral concerns (ie. Antisemitism, among others) and an area on which the Holy Father has personally worked very hard to move forward: Jewish - Catholic dialog and Muslim - Catholic dialog. The bishop’s statements are unfortunate, because they hurt the progress made in these dialogs and they are disconcerting, because it can be interpreted as if the Holy See welcomes a bishop who discriminates against Jews.
Had Bishop Williamson been inside the Church when he made the different comments that he has made, the matter is handled differently. In that case, the Holy See would not be blamed because a single bishop is a lose canon. It’s when you have a lose canon outside the house and you invite him inside that you find yourself in a pickle. This is precisely what the Holy Father said happened to him with the other bishops. They reacted when they heard that Bishop Williamson was being invited inside, thinking that the Holy Father knew all of the details.
The Holy Father then goes on record as saying that he did not know and admits that they (the Holy See) should have been paying closer attention to the media. That’s why he came out with the explanation and makes the comment that he does not introduce anti-Semites into polite company.
Your statement has another important layer to it. You ask “on what grounds”? That’s a tricky point. The fact is that popes are not bound by Canon Law. The canons exist to bind everyone else, but not the pope. He can make, change, add or delete to canon law at his discretion. In addition, excommunication is not limited to a violation of a canon. It is true that there are some offenses that canon law identifies as serious enough to warrant excommunication; however, there is a precedent in Church history. Popes have excommunicated for reasons that are not in the canons and that have nothing to do with either faith or morals and the excommunication stands.
Excommunication is a remedy to a serious offense. It’s really up to the pope to determine if there is an offense that merits such a remedy. If one comes up that is not in the books, he can still excommunicate and he does not have to explain himself. That’s what it means to be a Pontiff. The man has absolute power and authority to bind and unbind, including temporal matters inside the Church. We really don’t have the right to ask the pope “on what grounds?” He does not owe the faithful explanations for disciplinary actions. In justice, he has to communicate with the party being disciplined, not the whole Catholic world.
I believe that in today’s world we tend to treat the papacy as we treat civil governments. We hold civil leaders accountable to their constituency. However, the faithful are not the pope’s constituency.
If he says that bishops may not say this, it may be a temporal matter, however, it’s inside the Church. Therefore, he has the authority to command them. What he cannot command is sin.
I hope I have helped rather than confused. Law is always a very tricky issue to discuss, especially on a forum.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
This is an excellent point. It was unfortunate that Bishop Williamson’s ignorant comments about the Holocaust became evident at the time when the Holy Father lifted his excommunication. The lifting of Bishop Williamson’s excommunication gave the impression that the Holy See agreed with his anti-semitic views.
The fact that the Holy Father is German made the situation worse. It looked like a German who lived through the Nazi regime was inviting a known anti-semite into the Church.
Anyone with half a brain knew this wasn’t the case, but the media pounced on the issue and used it to fan the flames of anti-Catholicism. The Holy Father was unfairly attacked by the media and Bishop Williamson was to blame.
J
JReducation
Guest
The media played its card very well. This interview was a few months old. One has to ask, why didn’t they publish it at the time that it took place. I can only guess that it was carefully preserved for the right moment. That moment was when the excommunications were lifted.
Bishop Williamson’s failure in this is to have surrendered to the media in the first place. Why on earth he agreed to this interview and to answer these questions when he knew it was illegal is beyond me. I have to simply believe that he did not foresee the explosion. I don’t want to think that he just didn’t give a darn. To think that would be unkind and disrespectful to someone who is better than I am.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Aramis
Guest
To be fair, Bp. Williamson is way out there even by SSPX standards. Quotes like that one do more to show that Bp. Williamson probably was a poor choice for ordination more than to show “the SSPX doesn’t accept the OF”…For one thing, it used to be well known that the Pope could declare a person to be a blessed or a saint. But the SSPX doesn’t like that anymore. So now, according to the revered SSPX bishop His Excellency +Richard (or is it Rowan? I forget) Williamson:
John-Paul II will not be beatified as a Catholic Blessed by a Catholic beatification in the Catholic Church, but as a Newblessed by a Newbeatification in the Newchurch. . . . [N]o Catholic should expect anything other than a Newblessed to emerge from a Newbeatification. . . .The procession is from God to Newgod to Nongod. Right now we still have Newrome pushing the Newgod of Vatican II with Newblesseds to match, but before long sheer criminals will be the “Blesseds” of the Nongod.
But oh, no, he’s not schismatic or anything …
they do, however, show that Bp. Williamson sure avoids showing any respect for the post V II modatities, and imply strongly that Bp Williamson doesn’t accept the OF.
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
Rowan Williams is the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (the head, apart from the queen, of the Church of England).
Richard Williamson is a Society of St. Pius X bishop.
But oh, no, he’s not schismatic or anything …
I didn’t like that article. I mean, he can make a point without so much Newspeak…
His point is that some of these modern saints are dubiously canonized or beatified – that the new process of canonization doesn’t really have enough safeties to ensure that the pope really has the intention to beatify or canonize someone (the whole part about gasoline and water).
My priest put it this way, some Traditionalists will complain and argue about whether this person or that person should have been canonized, like Josemaria Escriva, but once it’s done, it’s done and we really should just let it go.
I am no theologian or canon lawyer or anything, but my understanding is that canonization is pretty much infallible (although not in the same way dogma is) but what does it infallibly state? St. Thomas says that it states that the individual is in Heaven. So if Josemaria Escriva is canonized, we can agree or disagree about what he did but we know that he is in Heaven. Beatification is not infallible but it has a fair degree of certainty about it. So while the purpose of the canonization process is to show that this person is worthy to be raised to the altars and used as an example and model to follow, without those safeguards, we are left with the bare minimum – he or she is in Heaven, even if by the skin of their teeth. So I have no with accepting, were JPII to eventually be canonized, of saying that he is in Heaven – who am I to prove he is still in Purgatory or, God forbid, Hell? But the real question is, “What message does that send? What sort of example are you setting up?” Is it Totus Tuus or Assisi?
That is the reason why the Church is supposed to wait to canonize someone until history has shown their legacy. But JPII wrote new rules and B16 waived even that for the “Santo subito” crowd. What message does the Beatification of JPII send? That’s the real problem, not the question of whether he is in Heaven or not.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not reallly true. You are correct, that it exists on paper. When I say that it’s not true, I mean that what they put on paper is not binding. Here is the issue. It is put on paper by a pope. However, it does not bind him or any pope. It’s purpose is really by way of information, not by the way of law. The canonization process is whatever the pope wishes it to be.
As you so well stated, once the pope delcares that someone is in heaven, it is an infallible statement, because it’s a statement of faith. Pope cannot err on matters of faith. Once the pope decrees that the entire Church must venerate the saint, there is no appeal or room for dissent. The Church must include the saint in her book of saints and into her liturgy, where ever the pope places him. Individuals do not need to have a devotion to the saint, but they must honor him or her with the title and the recognition.
This has been discussed here at nauseam. There are many examples given when the process was overruled by a pope… In this case, Pope Benedict simply waived the waiting period, but he did not waive the process. There are a number of cases where the popes took on the bishops and the faithful and waived the entire process. They canonized without a study, without declaring the person venerable or blessed. In my own family we have three: Francis, Anthony of Padua and Clare of Assisi. All of them went directly to canonization in less than two-years by two different popes. And both popes simply stated that they were personal friends of the deceased; therefore, they believed what everyone said about their sanctity. They did not need further proof.
Getting back to the subject at hand, the SSPX talks. this particular statement by the good bishop does not help their cause. It’s very unfortunate that he made it and that it reached the general population. It’s offensive and a bishop does not have the right to question this decision by the Pontiff. Canonizations are reserved to the Pontiff. They were once in the hands of the bishops. Precisely to avoid question marks in people’s heads, bishops stopped canonizing and the whole thing was taken over by the popes in the 9th or 10th century. Because if it came from the pope, there could be no reason to doubt.
Assisi conference aside, the question is not about the Assisi gathering. The question is whether is a person is in heaven. If the Church knows, without a doubt that he is, in justice she owes it to God and to the saint to proclaim it. To hide it denies the glory of God and what God has accomplished through his saints.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
Bro Jr, I think the poster’s implication was that until the actual canonization (May 1st?) is completed, then we can question or present reasons why he or she shouldn’t be canonized. I agree that once canonized, May 2nd, let’s move on and let’s not let this be a distraction. Yes, JPII did excommunicate the particular bishops, there are going to be grudges against that, but JPII becomes a saint, love it or not.
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
The plan is to beatify JPII May 1st, not canonize him. So he will be Blessed John Paul II, not Saint. Will it make much of a difference in people’s view of him? I don’t think so, just as it doesn’t seem to matter in people’s minds that Pope John XXIII was beatified or the hundreds and hundreds of other people that were beatified and canonized by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
I don’t see the objection to the beatification of JPII as having to do with a personal “grudge” but rather about the question of what his legacy is, what statement is being made by beatifying him. Of course, one of those issues is Assisi and Assisi was one of the reasons Abp. Lefebvre decided that he needed to consecrate bishops before he passed, including the aforementioned Bp. Williamson but I think the excommunication (to be technical, the ruling that Lefebvre, de Castro Meyer, and those they consecrated had excommunicated themselves automatically by doing so without a papal mandate) is just a side-issue. It may be part of an underlying, private reason, but it is not a publicly-stated one.
J
JReducation
Guest
Lately, this has become an important issue with some members of the laity in the Latin Church. I’m referring to “we have a right to voice our position on a beatification”. It’s a really good question to which I do not know if there is an official response, because this never happened before and it is does not happen in the Eastern Churches nor among most laity in the Latin Church and certainly not among religious and clergy in full communion with the Church.
I can share with you the rule for religious and clergy. We’re not allowed to say a word. If the Holy Father confirms the miracle. We give assent. There is a reason. The Holy Father cannot make a mistake on miracles. Miracles are matters of faith. Second, if God works a miracle through the intercession of John Paul II, God deserves the Glory. Therefore, the Church has the right to proclaim the miracle, which obviously means that she has to explain how it happened. In essence, this is what a beatification is.
There is another part. A Blessed is not a “may be” saint. If the Church believed that, she would not include them in her liturgical calendar. They are included, just not in the universal calendar. John Paul II has been assigned a feast day to be observed in the diocese of Rome and in Poland. John XXIII has a feast day that is observed in the Diocese of Rome, Bergamo and in some dioceses in the USA. There are churches named after Bl. John XXIII in the USA and several named Bl. Mother Teresa. You can’t consecrate a church and assign it a patron if you’re unsure about their state. You certainly cannot celebrate a liturgy in any diocese, invoking the name of a person, if you’re unsure about them.
So, I can’t tell you that the lay faithful don’t have a right to express their opinion on the beatification. I can only tell you that it is unusual to do so. It is forbidden to many of us. The pope can and does proclaim the miracle by the Blessed. This is a statement of faith. And we do have holy days and sacred places under their patronage.
My question is, why bother saying anything at all. If you’re in Rome and you go to mass on the feast of Bl. John Paul II, you’re stuck. You’re not going to be asked if you agree or disagree. It’s either come in or wait outside for you.
As I said above, it depends where you live and who you are. Blessed Mother Teresa and Bl. John XXIII have many parishes in the USA and several dioceses that celebrate their feast days. A bishop just has to ask for permission and it’s granted.
That was already answered by the Vatican and we’ll just have to accept that response and move along. It gets old to beat the same dead horse.
Happy Easter everyone!
Br. JR, OSF
T
Timothysis
Guest
Brother JR, I have often wondered about popes in previous centuries who would excommunicate monarchs because they wouldn’t perform something such as a crusade. I always thought that such an excommunication would be invalid since it stems from political bickering. Am I right in assuming (based on your previous post) that such excommunications would be valid? Can a monarch really be placed outside of the Church because he didn’t take up arms against an adversary of the pope?
- Status