Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

Please discuss the subject, not each other.

Remember, proselytizing for the SSPX is not allowed on this forum. Let us wait for the Church to tell us what is right or wrong with their situation rather than defend or condemn. Both are speculations. The Church has not yet spoken.

There is no need to have conflicts with each other, only to find out in the morning that the Holy See disagrees with you.

 

[numealinesimpet]

… with the SSPX plea of “case of necessity”… Bl. John Paul suspended the law so that it could not be applied in that situation.

I would be interested if you could supply the quotation for this, Bro. J.R. It would expedite our discussion.

 

[JReducation]

I would be interested if you could supply the quotation for this, Bro. J.R. It would expedite our discussion.

Actually, I don’t have it, because I read it in a letter that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote many years ago. In that letter he complained to Bl. John Paul about the pope’s suspension of the law, which in the Archbishop’s mind was his right and in the pope’s mind, it was not, because the law could not be applied. Eventually, the letters stopped going back and forth. That’s the last we heard of that debate.

But there is really nothing to discuss, because Pope John Paul made his decision and it is binding. No one can challenge it. Why discuss what we cannot change?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[fakename]

fakename;9295273:

I see more clearly what you’re asking.

The answer is not so simple to understand . . . just simple to state.

The pope executes the law using the same way of thinking as God uses. The law says, “you shall not ordain bishops without the permission of the pope. If you do, you will cut yourself off from the Church (excommunication).” There is nothing more that God or the pope need to say here. If you ordain without permission, the consequences are excommunication.

The pope does not look at any evidence other than one, “Where is your permission to ordain bishops?” If you can’t present that evidence, then you suffer the consequences of the law.

The good bishop presents another law. “There is a state of emergency and even if it only exists my imagination, as long as I honestly believe that there is a state of emergency, I cannot be punished for this.”

The pope comes back again trying to look at the law through God’s eyes. Here is what he sees.

We have discussed this.
You have been given options
We made an agreement.
You made some promises.
You violated that agreement and broke those promises
God gives us law to protect the innocent
You were warned.
You broke the law.
You’re not innocent

Therefore, the law cannot be applied to you.

It’s a very effective system of law, which has actually been the model for many countries and it is the oldest legal system in existence. It works and survives, because it’s so concrete and there is no room for appeal beyond the pope. The pope’s decisions can only be appealed if he agrees to hear the appeal. He does not have to do so, just as God does not have to hear our appeals. At some point, even God says, “The conversation is over.”

We can disagree with the law. We can disagree with how the pope is applying it. But we can do nothing about it. He has absolute and total freedom to bind and unbind.

It’s genius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think I’ve got it.

A person’s intelligence and likelihood of being correct is proportioned to how close they are to God. So sinless men and popes and sinless popes are especially close to God. Therefore they have authority over matters w/o needing to explain themselves.

But I don’t think this answer is correct because it leads to a new problem: a sinless man could have authority over a sinless pope.

But do you think I’m on the right track?

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;9295473:

I think I’ve got it.

A person’s intelligence and likelihood of being correct is proportioned to how close they are to God. So sinless men and popes and sinless popes are especially close to God. Therefore they have authority over matters w/o needing to explain themselves.

But I don’t think this answer is correct because it leads to a new problem: a sinless man could have authority over a sinless pope.

But do you think I’m on the right track?

No no no. They don’t have to be sinless. In fact, most popes are like the rest of us. They struggle through life. They have to be honest about how the use the law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[fakename]

fakename;9303413:

No no no. They don’t have to be sinless. In fact, most popes are like the rest of us. They struggle through life. They have to be honest about how the use the law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

They don’t have to be sinless but just less sinful than anyone else.

Still no though eh?

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;9303423:

They don’t have to be sinless but just less sinful than anyone else.

Still no though eh?

We hope that they’re trying to be less sinful than the rest of us. It doesn’t always happen. Usually, popes are fairly holy men. They fall. They get up. But they don’t usually rank in the top 500 sinful people in the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

Actually, I don’t have it, because I read it in a letter that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote many years ago. In that letter he complained to Bl. John Paul about the pope’s suspension of the law, which in the Archbishop’s mind was his right and in the pope’s mind, it was not, because the law could not be applied. Eventually, the letters stopped going back and forth. That’s the last we heard of that debate.

It sounds from your words that Bl, Pope John Paul II simply refused to address that matter; he does not seem to have said, 'I declare the matter closed because the Canons 1321-4 do not apply in your case (because I have decided they don’t). He doesn’t seem to have said this.

But there is really nothing to discuss, because Pope John Paul made his decision and it is binding.

But is it? It is no slur on the papacy, or on the person of Bl. Pope John Paul II, to recall that ‘not every act by a lawful authority is binding, if it conficts with Divine Law’ as S. Thomas Aquinas explained. N.B. I am not making the satement here that this was so in the present case. I am recalling the theoretical possibility, which is beyond dispute, as there have been precedents in the history of the church, which were examined by Vatican I in the 19th century. Pope Benedict closed the book on this by his unilateral lifting of the decree of excommunication. In my humble opinion, that was an extremely wise move. Perhaps 2007 was not the time to re-hash it. Yet it has left the central issue still un-addressed.

No one can challenge it. Why discuss what we cannot change?

Because there are important principles involved here. In fact, in future times, I believe that the post-Vatican II period will be seen historically as the period in which the delicate relationship between Authority, Obedience, the Faith, and the interaction between the different hierarchies of the Law, became more explicit - just as, in the 3rd Century, the precise definitions of the Blessed Trinity were explicated in a way that before had been only implicit.

 

[fakename]

fakename;9303501:

We hope that they’re trying to be less sinful than the rest of us. It doesn’t always happen. Usually, popes are fairly holy men. They fall. They get up. But they don’t usually rank in the top 500 sinful people in the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Nonetheless I assume that you don’t think that I’m barking up the right tree theoretically?

 

[numealinesimpet]

For what seems to be a reliable ‘Breaking News’ on the SSPX/Vatican dialogue (not from an SSPX source) see catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201998.htm

 

[johndoe100]

I pray that God will grant us the grace to be friends. It has worked out well for me ohere in the San Frsncisco area.

 

[JReducation]

For what seems to be a reliable ‘Breaking News’ on the SSPX/Vatican dialogue (not from an SSPX source) see catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201998.htm

It’s very well written. I saw the video with Fr. Lombardi and another with one of the cardinals on the commission. They both say the same thing that’s in the article. The question remains, will the Holy Father want more dialogue or will he go at this another way, maybe taking in part of the Society.

It’s obvious now that the three bishops will have to come in one at a time negotiating directly with the Holy See. Bishop Williamson is going to have the most problems. He has to profess obedience to the pope, like any other bishop, but he’ll have to give the pope some type of guarantee that he will behave on this issue.
**
In addition to the hesitancy of the three bishops to support fully Bishop Fellay’s efforts, Father Lombardi said, Bishop Richard Williamson’s public denials of the Holocaust and anti-Semitic statements also would require discussions separate from those of reconciliation with the SSPX as a whole.**

I thought that the Holy Father had moved past that, but I guess I was wrong. It sounds like he’s still very concerned about this. I remember when he said that if he had known, he would not have lifted Bishop Williams excommunication. Somehow I thought that through all of this dialogue, this would have become a non issue. Everyone would agree that it was a dumb thing to say and move on. Guess not.

We have to be more patient and continue to pray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

JReducation;9309150It’s obvious now that the three bishops will have to come in one at a time negotiating directly with the Holy See.]

Since they are not bound by a vow of obedience, except to the Papacy - which they already are (see the numerous discussions we’ve had for years on the nature of true obedience) - they would always have had to make individual submissions, I suppose.

Bishop Williamson is going to have the most problems. He has to profess obedience to the pope, like any other bishop, but he’ll have to give the pope some type of guarantee that he will behave on this issue.

He was evey indiscreet, on more than one occasion. SSPX Standing Rules are that absolutely no literature is to be disseminated from SSPX Mass Centres unless directly authorised by the SSPX clergy. The reason is the obvious one that, if one of the documents was blameworthy in any way, their enemies would use THAT to discredit them, insstead of the real issues. It’s a ploy as old as history. Catholics have regularly been martyred ostensively for treason to the ruler, when the real reason was their adherence to the Faith. Bp W. ought never to have broached the issue of the Holocaust. Do remember that his comment was years and years old. HIs enemies clearly had it in their back pocket to bring forth at ‘the right time’ - which they did. It was the clearest possible ‘Ambush’. Yet he did leave himself open to it.

In addition to the hesitancy of the three bishops to support fully Bishop Fellay’s efforts, Father Lombardi said, Bishop Richard Williamson’s public denials of the Holocaust and anti-Semitic statements also would require discussions separate from those of reconciliation with the SSPX as a whole.

Actually, he didn’t ‘deny the Holocaust’. He - in his original statement of years ago - pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim that 6 million Jews died, or that there was mass use of the gas-chamber. Also, the word ‘Anti-Semitic’ is used a good deal too freely. I know Jews who are very much against the Zionist Movement on religious grounds, and they have a very cynical view of the whole Holocaust issue. After the “huge uproar” - in Pope Benedict’s own words - over Bp williamson’s live interview -(yet another example of his naivete - he ought to have kept to press statements) - I checked what facts I could on the Net. Others might like to do the same. The evidence is there.

I thought that the Holy Father had moved past that, but I guess I was wrong. It sounds like he’s still very concerned about this. I remember when he said that if he had known, he would not have lifted Bishop Williams excommunication. Somehow I thought that through all of this dialogue, this would have become a non issue. Everyone would agree that it was a dumb thing to say and move on. Guess not.

We have to be more patient and continue to pray.

I know that he was very deeply hurt by the barrage of hatred that was unleashed.Pope Benedict got a very heavy dose of the kind of treatment the SSPX have been enduring when he withdrew the decree of excommunications. Remember his anguished letter at the time? Pope Benedict wrote:–

“Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope … an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”

 

[pnewton]

Actually, he didn’t ‘deny the Holocaust’. He - in his original statement of years ago - pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim that 6 million Jews died, or that there was mass use of the gas-chamber. Also, the word ‘Anti-Semitic’ is used a good deal too freely.

Yes, he did deny it. His figure reduced the Holocaust by 95%, or, he denied 95 % of it. When one of his stature has beliefs based on Nazi sympathizers who write revisionsist histories, then the Holy Father has reason to be concerned. Also, his position on the Protocols of Zion also needs to be understood. That is clearly antisemetic.

 

[JustaServant]

Yes, he did deny it. His figure reduced the Holocaust by 95%, or, he denied 95 % of it. When one of his stature has beliefs based on Nazi sympathizers who write revisionsist histories, then the Holy Father has reason to be concerned. Also, his position on the Protocols of Zion also needs to be understood. That is clearly antisemetic.

I’ve heard reputable historians, even Jewish ones, question the 6 million number, but NEVER reducing it by 95%. The problem with revisionists is they forget WW2 was primarily an Eastern war, and we might never know the exact numbers because the Germans and the Russians were butchering each other right and left.
So it could actually be more.
The remark on the gas chambers is pretty silly considering the evidence.
Williamson believes in the Protocols?!?
That’s scary.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve been reading what Traditionalists are saying around the intraweb and I believe that most are missing the most important issue here. The Holy Father’s indignation may have less to do with the numbers than with other real facts.

1. Revisionist historians have also attacked Catholic history. From our Catholic perspective, we know that they are not to be trusted. These are the same people who claim that there have not been 25 million children killed by abortion and that the Catholic Church was fully culpable for the Crusades.
2. The gas chamber statement was absolutely indefensible. One of our own saints was gassed and we have eyewitnesses who gave testimony at her canonization hearings.
3. The Church had to do some tap dancing at the time of the canonization of Edith Stein to assure the Jewish population that the canonization was because of her heroic faith and not because she had abandoned Judaism. Eventually, the faith of the Jewish community on that issue was restored. No one ever associates St. Teresa Benedicta with anything other than martyrdom, not an apostate Jew.
4. The most important piece is that such a statement can and did throw a monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. Pope Benedict has been very involved with Jews and Muslims for more than 20 years. At one time he was the head of the Committee on Catholic - Muslim relations. If I’m not mistaken, that is the one curial post that he still personally holds.

The question about the excommunication hinges on number four. People are arguing that the Holocaust is not a dogma. They are forgetting that excommunication is not just for those who deny dogmas. In fact, the denial of a dogma is not an automatic excommunication. A trial must be held and the person must be proven to be a heretic, which is very hard to do.

Excommunication is a disciplinary action, not a theological action. Striking the pope is not a dogma either. However, it’s an automatic excommunication. In the Code of 1917, it covered clergy and religious as well. The ordination of bishops without a mandate is not a breach of dogma, but it’s an excommunicable offense. Declaring war on the Holy See can lead to an excommunication.

Any action that does direct or indirect harm to the pope can lead to an excommunication, if the pope chooses to impose it. These actions do not require a trial, because the action speaks for itself, unlike a statement of error, which is not conclusive evidence that the person is a heretic.

I can see where Pnewton calculated the 95% denial. There are reportedly 11 million victims of the Holocaust: 6 million Jews and 5 million Christians and other. There were gypsies, homosexuals, children with Down Syndrome, Catholic clergy and religious, Protestant clergy, and the many people who protected the Jews.

Bishop Williamson made references to unknown sources who believe that two or three thousand Jews died in the Holocaust, but none in gas chambers. Two or three thousand don’t make up even the 5% that Pnewton is crediting. Two or three thousand makes up less than one percent of the six million and far less than that of the total 11 million people. That makes the Holocaust look like a gang war compared to the Viet Nam War. We know that was not true.

The use of those references is going to stir up the Jewish community. My own mother lost five brothers in the concentration camps. We know, through family friend who were at the camp, that at least two were gassed. These five boys were between the ages of 12 and 18. Even Hebrew Catholics were stunned by these statements.

On another Traditionalist forum, I read a scathing post by someone who insists that the pope should not “meddle” in secular affairs such as the Shoah. Obviously, these individuals have forgotten that genocide is a moral issue, whether it’s Jews or unborn children. The Church has an obligation to teach the Catholic faithful to view these events through a Catholic lens, not a secular lens.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[JustaServant]

I can see where Pnewton calculated the 95% denial. There are reportedly 11 million victims of the Holocaust: 6 million Jews and 5 million Christians and other. There were gypsies, homosexuals, children with Down Syndrome, Catholic clergy and religious, Protestant clergy, and the many people who protected the Jews.

Bishop Williamson made references to unknown sources who believe that two or three thousand Jews died in the Holocaust, but none in gas chambers. Two or three thousand don’t make up even the 5% that Pnewton is crediting. Two or three thousand makes up less than one percent of the six million and far less than that of the total 11 million people. That makes the Holocaust look like a gang war compared to the Viet Nam War. We know that was not true.

The use of those references is going to stir up the Jewish community. My own mother lost five brothers in the concentration camps. We know, through family friend who were at the camp, that at least two were gassed. These five boys were between the ages of 12 and 18. Even Hebrew Catholics were stunned by these statements.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

When I was kid my dad took me to a Ukrainian barber who survived two concentration camps. Members of his family, including his father were brutally butchered. Whole generations of Ukrainians, Poles, Slavs and many others were wiped out.
There is a documentary called “War of the Century” I saw on the History Channel years ago (before it became the Bigfoot Channel) that documented the brutality of the war in the east. There are many interviews with survivors, including old elderly Germans still wanting to defend Hitler. I recomend it for anyone who wants a whole picture of the devestation of WW2.
BTW, you know what always amazed me about that barber? Dispite the horrific tragedies in his life, I never met a more happy and cheerful human being.

 

[JReducation]

When I was kid my dad took me to a Ukrainian barber who survived two concentration camps. Members of his family, including his father were brutally butchered. Whole generations of Ukrainians, Poles, Slavs and many others were wiped out.
There is a documentary called “War of the Century” I saw on the History Channel years ago (before it became the Bigfoot Channel) that documented the brutality of the war in the east. There are many interviews with survivors, including old elderly Germans still wanting to defend Hitler. I recomend it for anyone who wants a whole picture of the devestation of WW2.
BTW, you know what always amazed me about that barber? Dispite the horrific tragedies in his life, I never met a more happy and cheerful human being.

Thanks for sharing that. When I was a kid, my grandparents would tell us the stories. My grandfather would cry as he told the story about the day that his five boys were separated from him. As you say about your barber, my grandfather did not become a bitter person. He had a calm and a sense of joy about him that was uncanny.

I believe that God gives people inner peace at times like these.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JustaServant]

Thanks for sharing that. When I was a kid, my grandparents would tell us the stories. My grandfather would cry as he told the story about the day that his five boys were separated from him. As you say about your barber, my grandfather did not become a bitter person. He had a calm and a sense of joy about him that was uncanny.

I believe that God gives people inner peace at times like these.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

My mother’s brother was like that. He was wounded at D-Day and rarely spoke of his time in the army in WW2. My dad would say when he did speak of it, this VERY large uncle of mine would cry like a baby.
That’s why I get upset with neo-con “conservatives” who want bomb and go war everywhere. Unless they have been in a real war, they have no clue what they are talking about.
Back to the topic, quite frankly if Williamson has these opinions, and his articles appear to be in Sede territory, I doubt very much he will agree to reconcile with Rome. Some of the comments from his supporters on sites like Fisheaters come off sounding more like Protestant fundamentalists than Catholic.
But even they (the fundies) aren’t anti-semitic.

 

[TimothyH]

Some of the comments from his supporters on sites like Fisheaters come off sounding more like Protestant fundamentalists than Catholic.
But even they (the fundies) aren’t anti-semitic.

Some of the comments could pass for standard fundamentalist rhetoric with a few name changes.

I find it supremely ironic.

-Tim-