www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Argentinian government expells Bishop Williamson

Hi,

I wonder what would be this forum's opinion if the remarks that sparked all this mess were not about denying the Holocaust of the Jews last century, but rather the Holocaust of aborted babies today.

Would we see a double-standard? Would anybody here sympatize with such a position?

But that's just speculation.

I believe the government of Argentina has every right to kick out this person from its territory and yes, until he recants from his error, it is perfectly understandable for him to be persona non grata in a LOT of places.

The door will always be open, but he has to turn around and cross the threshold back in.

Shalom,
Memo

I'm not sure what your question is. Are you asking:

1) What our opinion would be if Williamson had denied "the Holocaust of aborted babies today," or

2) What our opinion would be if Williamson had asserted that there is an on-going "Holocaust of aborted babies today"?

This is a very broad characterization and I wonder if you can document it.

indigo:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

My point was that the "good old days" of excommunications and interdicts are effectively over. I'd bet a nickle that if an interdict were imposed for disobedience to a papal decision that there would be daily Liturgy in open defiance of the interdict. IMHO the whole idea of communion and its eternal implications has been lost and with that the fear that excommunication used to have.

In Christ,
BOB

Hmmmm.... post

Hello

I didn't mean to say that John Paul II was a left wing liberal, but I do believe that even if he certainly opposed some radical tendencies of the Liberation Theology in Latin America, he did tolerate and appointed bishops who supported such tendencies (in my country they came mostly from the offices of the government secretariat and the official party and were imposed among catholics through Communist infiltration).

I'm not fully opposed to the concept of Liberation Theology. I'm in favour of social revolution and change but do not agree with the marxist, humanistic and secularist way that some Christians chose because it despises Tradition, spiritual values and holds the erroneous belief of the absolute equality of men.

Regarding Williamson, it's my personal conviction that no one must be forced to accept a certain view of history and that freedom of speech must be respected. After all, the Communist holocaust was also a terrible thing and no one talks about it, the atrocities against Armenians by the masonic Young Turks, the Mao Tse Tung atrocities, the Kim Jong Il atrocities and so on. Several scholars defend these men and they've not been expelled from any country.

The establishment labels those who hold Revisionist views as "Antisemite", those who reject the way the world is governed by financial Capitalism as "Antisemite", those who disagree with the way the medias are being controled as "Antisemite", those who reject the Zionist atrocities in Gaza "Antisemite".
It's true that he is a Catholic bishop and that his actions caused serious distress to Pope Benedict. But again, The Jewish Holocaust is not a dogma of the Orthodox Catholic faith. This must remain a matter of politics/history and not of religion. Apostolic Christians should defend themselves from their enemies. The establishment is not friendly to Christians.

The Pope should receive support from Traditionalist Christians from the East and the West so that he is not forced to kneel before Rabbis and Atheist authorities from all over the world.

The establishment is not honest in the way it controls the world, it's not Christian, it's a secular dictatorship that we Christians should reject.

This is my opinion.

It seems to me that anti-semitism is alive in traditionalist circles no matter if Orthodox or Catholic - it may eminate from some European or Latin American ideology that people in the US can't relate to (since the US is generally adamantly pro-Israel to the point of absurdity). I've heard conspiracists mention "the Jews" as the cause of some odd things, I don't know if they are necessarily "antisemitic" or whether this is because those in certain parts of the "old country" just don't think to delve further into the ideologies of individual who happen to be Jewish, rather then attack the surface.

Mexican,

Thank you for this clarification of your views.

I agree that "anti-semite" is not always a helpful term, e.g. criticism of specific policies of the Israeli government is not in itself anti-semitic. Nor is anti-Zionism in itself anti-semitic, since there are orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism and even the State of Israel. Indeed, it is problematic that effectively the Holocaust is sometimes invoked to justify the actions of Israeli politicians.

On the other hand I think the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II (the Shoah or Holocaust) is a well-documented historical fact. I don't understand why anyone would want to deny or explain away this fact, unless the reason is some kind of hatred for Jews as an ethnic or religious group, i.e. anti-semitism.

However, as Christians we cannot but love the Jewish people, since both our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as the blessed Apostles, were all Jews, and we must all pray and wish that today's Jews follow the example of great men like Cardinal Lustiger, and acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.

Well, the SSPX is a good example! All SSPX priests and bishops are still technically suspended, meaning that they shouldn't be celebrating Mass at all.

There was already a "Peter" elected as Pope -- PIetro Buccaporca who reigned as Sergius IV from 1009 - 1012 -- so I don't think having another Peter on the Petrine throne signals the end of the world. However, given the mania for the St. Malachy Prophecies in some circles that obsess about Benedict XVI as "Gloria Olivae", it is interesting to see the attention increasingly being given to the Cardinal from Ghana.



I wouldn't consider the new translations to be a new "reform", since nothing is changed in the underlying Latin text. However, the Holy See is already consulting with the bishops of the world on whether to move the Kiss of Peace to before the Offertory -- a change first proposed from the floor in the 2005 Synod of Bishops. The initial reports are that the bishops are overwhelmingly endorsing the move. This may seem like no big deal, but it is a big deal for the following reasons:

1) The Kiss of Peace has been where it is in the Roman Rite since the time of Pope St. Innocent I. Having the Kiss of Peace just before Communion is, in short, not a relatively recent innovation, but the historic Roman practice. Many liturgical commentators have pointed out how this actually fits into the rich Eucharistic theology of the Latin Church, with the Peace evidently flowing from the altar. As late as 2003, the Holy See defended the current placement of the Kiss of Peace, in Redemptionis Sacramentum. To have the Holy See suddenly change its stance so soon after affirming the current discipline doesn't speak highly of the Holy See's capacity to resist episcopal pressure.

2) This signals that Pope Benedict XVI is not, in principle, opposed to changing even the venerable parts of the Ordo Missae for the sake of modern adaptation... bad news for advocates of the TLM and of the Reform of the Reform




I agree that the Gates of Hell will never prevail over the Catholic Church. However, there is no guaranteeing that the "casualty count" will be low, in the fight between Satan and the Church.

Pope Benedict isn't opining the change of the Kiss of Peace based on "modern adaptation" or "episcopal pressure" - His Holiness notices that in the way the Peace is implemented today in the Pauline Rite, the congregation is not aware of the Holy Altar at all, in fact, most get distracted in conversation with each other (unfortunately, sometimes caused by the priest..) and completely disregard the Presence of the Lord on the Holy Altar. The EWTN option seems to be another proper option - that is, to not make use of the optional "you may offer one another the sign of peace".

LC,

Some would say that last part of the paragraph you wrote is "antisemitic". I am not one of them.

No one forced the Pope to do anything. He is a man of honour and needed no prompting to act honourably. Some ultra right wing people seem to act decently, is to be pushed. Bishop Williamson mocks all those Catholics of all nations who went to their often slow deaths in Nazi death camps, some who since have been raised to the altars of the church. I have often wondered where the British Black Shirts disapeared to after 1939. No one I have ever heard of has put their hands up to claim to a be a former member of that organisation. Now I am thinking they joined the already very large British expat comunity in Argentina.

Praying and wishing for the conversion of someone is an act of love, not an act of hate. But if the person doesn't believe or know that he needs conversion, it might seem very different to him: judgmental or even threatening. Therefore, tact is obviously required, and I am sorry if anyone feels offended.

Sergius IV reigned before the birth of St. Malachy. So technically, this is why the "Peter the Roman" still is viable as a prophetic utterance. (I'm just sayin'...)