Why Can't Anyone Have A Different Opinion About The Holocaust?

[Mannyfit75]

I think that no one can have different opinions about the holocaust because the holocaust did in fact happen. It has been proven to have happened and we have document that six million Jews died.

To deny it would be to deny the events of Pearl Harbor never took place, or that 9-11-01 never happened, or that those planes never hit the WTC and what we saw was a hollywood production, or that moon landing in 1969 never happened.

I find revisionist historians as individuals with poor scholarship in regards to history. I am a history buff and those who deny the truth of an historical event are nothing more than ignorant.

Tell me what if someone tell you, that your birthday never happen? Now tell that to the survivors of the Holocaust and tell them what they experience was never happened.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Just for the record I’d like to point out that the bishop in question, Richard Williamson, was never a Catholic bishop. I.e. he was not, at any time, simultaneously Catholic and a bishop. (He was consecrated a bishop in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, at which time he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. That excommunication has recently been lifted, by Williamson is still not in full communion with the Catholic Church.)

If you watch Richard Williamson on youtube, he made some pretty outrages claims about 9-11-01 was a conspiracy. He also claimed that the collapse of the WTC building were caused by bombs implanted inside…

 

[whatevergirl]

I think that no one can have different opinions about the holocaust because the holocaust did in fact happen. It has been proven to have happened and we have document that six million Jews died.

To deny it would be to deny the events of Pearl Harbor never took place, or that 9-11-01 never happened, or that those planes never hit the WTC and what we saw was a hollywood production, or that moon landing in 1969 never happened.

I find revisionist historians as individuals with poor scholarship in regards to history. I am a history buff and those who deny the truth of an historical event are nothing more than ignorant.

Tell me what if someone tell you, that your birthday never happen? Now tell that to the survivors of the Holocaust and tell them what they experience was never happened.

I agree, manny. It sort of doesn’t make sense how anyone can ‘deny’ the holocaust…Maybe people have varying opinions on it, but to deny it, doesn’t seem to make sense. I don’t know.

 

[whatevergirl]

agreed, manny.

 

[Valke2]

Just for the record I’d like to point out that the bishop in question, Richard Williamson, was never a Catholic bishop. I.e. he was not, at any time, simultaneously Catholic and a bishop. (He was consecrated a bishop in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, at which time he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. That excommunication has recently been lifted, by Williamson is still not in full communion with the Catholic Church.)

Good point.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
There are videos out on the web that show you the gas chambers and the people who were liberated from the death camps. To claim that this was all made up or exaggerated is beyond bizarre. How did the guy become a bishop without anyone realizing what his views were?

Just for the record I’d like to point out that the bishop in question, Richard Williamson, was never a Catholic bishop. I.e. he was not, at any time, simultaneously Catholic and a bishop. (He was consecrated a bishop in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, at which time he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. That excommunication has recently been lifted, by Williamson is still not in full communion with the Catholic Church.)

You said, and I quote: “He was consecrated a bishop in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre …” Thank you for supplying the date and by whom he was made a bishop.

What do you mean by “at which time”? Why was he excommunicated? Why would the excommunication be lifted?

 

[catharina]

You said, and I quote: “He was consecrated a bishop in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre …” Thank you for supplying the date and by whom he was made a bishop.

What do you mean by “at which time”? Why was he excommunicated? Why would the excommunication be lifted?

OK. As best I understand this:

Williamson and others were raised to the episcopacy by the unauthorized action of one Archbishop Lefebvre. The archbishop took this action in direct DISobedience to the Holy Father, then John Paul II. That means that the “new” bishops were therefore consecrated validly - but illicitly. (Meaning: M. Lefebvre has the power to consecrate bishops but had no permission to do so. In fact, he’d been forbidden to do so. As a result, all of the men [including the archbishop] were excommunicated for their acts of disobedience. The bishops are validly consecrated but illegaly consecrated.) The excommunications were lifted for all (excepting the deceased archbisop) when Rome decided that it seems clear these men were willing to become obedient to the Vatican.

 

[catharina]

I believe you are mistaken.
The archbishop and the bishops were excommunicated together,
at the same time and for the same action - the disobedience of all.

 

[djconklin]

Ah! That info should have been included–it changes everything.​

The bishops are validly consecrated but illegaly consecrated.

That smacks of splitting hairs.

 

[catharina]

Ah! That info should have been included–it changes everything.

Again, I’m rather certain that the info is INcorrect,
so it changes nothing.

(name removed by moderator) said he will fact-check.

 

[catharina]

Ah! That info should have been included–it changes everything.​

That smacks of splitting hairs.

Not really.
The entire Anglican/Episcopalian church (of Henry VIII) grew out of such a circumstance.

 

[GKC]

I believe you are mistaken.
The archbishop and the bishops were excommunicated together,
at the same time and for the same action - the disobedience of all.

Excommunication *latae sententiae *.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Not really.
The entire Anglican/Episcopalian church (of Henry VIII) grew out of such a circumstance.

It’s covered if you only reference the Anglican Church.

And that would be the case, according to* Apostolicae Curae*, until roughly 1559, and the consecration of Archbishop Parker.

And covers the Old Catholics/Utrecht and the PNCC. too.

GKC

 

[catharina]

Excommunication *latae sententiae *.

GKC

Yes - and bless you!

 

[catharina]

Closer to the truth? Why the hedging?

All incurred excommunication together.
Then the Vatican announced the fact re ALL together.

 

[GKC]

Yes - and bless you!

You are very welcome.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[catharina]

It’s covered if you only reference the Anglican Church.

And that would be the case, according to* Apostolicae Curae*, until roughly 1559, and the consecration of Archbishop Parker.

And covers the Old Catholics/Utrecht and the PNCC. too.

GKC

Thanks for any clarification. The Church of England makes my head spin -
but then I’m of Irish-American descent. The “troubles” continue to this day.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for any clarification. The Church of England makes my head spin -
but then I’m of Irish-American descent. The “troubles” continue to this day.

That they do.

The issue could be even more complicated, getting into details, but for this purpose, no need.

GKC

 

[catharina]

No hedging? Ah, forgive me then.
Guess I forgot to allow for cultural differences in verbal expression.

 

[catharina]

That they do.

The issue could be even more complicated, getting into details, but for this purpose, no need.

GKC

… and I fully agree, brother.