www.byzcath.org
The Argentinian government could not avoid the political pressure of the Zionist lobby and finally decided to expell Bishop Williamson:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7900591.stm

Argentina is governed by the leftist government of Cristina Kirchner.

These are very bad news, as it seems that freedom of expression is dying again in countries that suffered under dictatorships like Argentina.

People who do not share the views of the establishment in matters of history and politics are victims of censorship and political persecusion.

The Roman hierarchy in Argentina will probably not oppose the government's decission, as most of its leadership is also left-wing and liberal (Latin American hierarchs were in most cases appointed by John Paul II).

Argentina is the Latin American country were Eastern Christianity is best represented. There is a ROCOR diocese, formerly headed by Bishop Alexander who traslated several works of Russian Orthodox authors into Spanish. In addition to the ROCOR you can find the Constantinople Diocese led by American born Archishop Tarasios.

The Armenian Catholic Church (and its Oriental Orthodox counterpart) have several thousand followers and there is a small Ukrainian Catholic community (although, latinized).

Argentinian Nationalists (who are in many cases Traditional Catholic, as well as Eastern Orthodox) have been the only ones to protest this decission.




My understanding is that he does not have citizenship and was there as an NGO employee, now that he is no longer head of the seminary he has no legal right to be in the county. I agree that it is a political move, but nonetheless from the info I have it is legal.
It is of course legal. It is equally obvious what the real, underlying reasons for the expulsion are.

Behold, guys, the dictatorship of political correctness.

I am confident this is only an example of the logical beginning of the West's slow march to social suicide, unless something changes.

Alexis
First of all Bishop Williamson's declaration that the Holocost did not happen and that 911 was an American Plot are totally unacceptable whether one is liberal or conservative.
Stephanos I
What Logos - Alexis said.
Posted By: asianpilgrim Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/20/09 03:44 AM
Permit me to indulge in some analysis:

I would like to revise the question into: "What is going on in France-Germany-Austria?" All of this started with the controversy over Williamson and, in Austria, simply boiled over into the question of Fr. Wagner's elevation to the episcopacy. There is actually a common denominator to the Williamson and Wagner controversies: the fear of the liberals that the "conservatives" and "traditionalists" are being given more and more space in the Church (never mind that the SSPX hasn't even been regularized).

I'd like to remind everyone that Fr. Wagner's appointment is just the latest of the elevations to the episcopacy of clergy who, a few years ago, would have been considered too conservative or traditionalist. (Prior to Fr. Wagner there was Fr. Jean-Pierre Batut in France). Perhaps this was the proverbial last straw for the liberals...

I think that this is all part of the attempt of Western episcopacies to limit the ground gained by Catholic "conservatives" and "traditionalists" under Pope Benedict's papacy. Pope Benedict moves much more slowly compared to his predecessors, but his actions from 2006 - 2008 have been enough to greatly alarm much of the Catholic hierarchy, and we are seeing the beginnings of renewed rebellion against papal authority. In addition to the noise in France-Germany-Austria, please keep in mind Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's recent snub of Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Rosales' insulting guidelines on the (non) application of Summorum Pontificum. Many are afraid of what this Pope intends to do next, and would like to remind him that he will face much opposition for every unpopular and "ultraconservative" decision he makes... perhaps in the hope that the Holy Father will thus be deterred from implementing his will.

There is much talk nowadays of the following impending decisions of the Holy Father:

1) Regularization of the SSPX
2) Reception of the Traditional Anglicans into the Catholic Church
3) Restriction (if not banning) of communion in the hand
4) Institution of certain reforms into the Ordo Missae

While #4 has elements that will please liberals, Nos. 1-3 are definitely anathema to them. The recent noise from the European bishops will guarantee that the Pope will be more cautious in implementing his intentions.

Keep in mind also that Pope Benedict XVI is turning 82 in April. He has a very tiring year ahead, few popes have lived past 82, the Pope has himself spoken of reigning for but a short time. More ominously, the upcoming Synod on Africa is providing an opportunity for a lot of noise in favor of an up-and-coming papabile, Peter Cardinal Turkson of Ghana, one of the youngest Cardinals, and a reputed "liberal". (Interesting first name, no?)
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/20/09 04:49 AM
I have never believed the papal prophecies, but yes, Asianpilgrim, if Peter Cardinal Turkson becomes Pope, consider me a believer.

#4 you mention as having elements which are pleasing to liberals. Which elements? From what I can tell, from Pope Benedict's liturgical reforms to the upcoming mostly-accurate translation of the Ordo Missae into English, there is more or less a traditional bent.

We need to pray earnestly for our Holy Father. I am not alone in believing that his steps toward reorienting the Church towards Tradition have let loose a whole host of attacks by Satan, more of which are to come.

Of course, I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that in the end the liberals, progressivists, whatever one wants to call them, cannot and will not win the war that rages in the Church.

I hope it pleases God to grant Pope Benedict many, many more years on this earth. The eternal salvation of countless millions of souls may very well depend on it.

Alexis
I for one was not surprised he was living in Argentina given it is a well known bolt hole for Nazis and Fascists. The various governments were nerver ones to shun raping a nun and shoot her dead for nursing, or feeding the poor, or dropping her with priests alive from a great height into the southern Atlantic such was their hatred for Christ's Church. Dictators of right, or left are all the same. A government decides to act decently (possibly for the first time in the nations history) and they are "leftists" and no good.
Originally Posted by Mexican
The Roman hierarchy in Argentina will probably not oppose the government's decission, as most of its leadership is also left-wing and liberal (Latin American hierarchs were in most cases appointed by John Paul II).

Mexican,

are you suggesting that Pope John Paul II was a left-wing liberal? If so, your suggestion is simply not credible, given the late Pope's stance against communism in his native Poland as well as so-called "liberation theology" in Latin America.

Or are you perhaps suggesting that the late Pope didn't know what he was doing and that he appointed left-wing liberal bishops by accident?

Wonder if Bishop Williamson will now be hounded where ever he attempts to travel to. What's next, extraditing him to the Hague to face One World justice.
Quote
First of all Bishop Williamson's declaration that the Holocost did not happen and that 911 was an American Plot are totally unacceptable whether one is liberal or conservative.

What do you mean "unacceptable"? Do you mean "not true"? If so, I agree. If you mean it is unacceptable for someone to even hold such erroneous beliefs, then I am afraid that this is what Logos-Alexis warned about.
By posing as a Catholic bishop and making statements that are both offensive and untrue, Williamson has caused grave damage to the Catholic Church. This is what makes his statements so scandalous.

Those who oppose the Catholic Church in general, and Pope Benedict XVI in particular (such as these "Catholic members of Congress" [delauro.house.gov]), have been only too happy to exploit Williamson's scandalous statements and use them as a stick with which to beat the Holy Church and the Holy Father.

There is only one word for a man like Williamson: ANAXIOS!
He is more worthy than a large percentage of the European and Latin American episcopate...but that's not saying much.

Alexis
For those who read Spanish, here is more on the decision by the Argentine government:

El gobierno echó al obispo antisemita [criticadigital.com]
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
He is more worthy than a large percentage of the European and Latin American episcopate...but that's not saying much.

Alexis

I have to disagree with this--emphatically. In my mind, fidelity to traditionally teaching does not excuse something so intellectually dishonest and dangerous as denying the Holocaust (or in the case of Bishop Williamson, trivializing the Holocaust by denying its extent). Doing so gives the appearance of anti-Semitism. We are called to avoid even the appearance of evil, and in my mind, denying the Holocaust or its scope gives the appearance of evil. I'm always glad to see fidelity to traditional teaching, but that in itself does not mitigate the offense and danger that can be caused when those who hold a pastoral office engage in such ridiculous and reckless speech as has Bishop Williamson.

Ryan
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
Originally Posted by Memo Rodriguez
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.

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"?


Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
He is more worthy than a large percentage of the European and Latin American episcopate...but that's not saying much.

Alexis
This is a very broad characterization and I wonder if you can document it.
Posted By: theophan Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/20/09 10:14 PM
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
Posted By: AMM Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/20/09 10:25 PM
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.
Posted By: asianpilgrim Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/21/09 02:30 AM
Originally Posted by theophan
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.

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.
Posted By: asianpilgrim Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/21/09 02:46 AM
Quote
I have never believed the papal prophecies, but yes, Asianpilgrim, if Peter Cardinal Turkson becomes Pope, consider me a believer.

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.


Quote
#4 you mention as having elements which are pleasing to liberals. Which elements? From what I can tell, from Pope Benedict's liturgical reforms to the upcoming mostly-accurate translation of the Ordo Missae into English, there is more or less a traditional bent.

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



Quote
We need to pray earnestly for our Holy Father. I am not alone in believing that his steps toward reorienting the Church towards Tradition have let loose a whole host of attacks by Satan, more of which are to come.

Of course, I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that in the end the liberals, progressivists, whatever one wants to call them, cannot and will not win the war that rages in the Church.

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.
Posted By: Michael_Thoma Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/21/09 04:00 AM
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.
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
LC,

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

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.
Posted By: Dr. Eric Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/21/09 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by asianpilgrim
Quote
I have never believed the papal prophecies, but yes, Asianpilgrim, if Peter Cardinal Turkson becomes Pope, consider me a believer.

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.

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'...)
Quote
Latin Catholic said:
This is a very broad characterization and I wonder if you can document it.

If you're asking if I'm going to spend hours on the Internet tracking down scores of scandalous comments by Latin American and European bishops, no I am not. I do have somewhat of a life.

If you are asking me whether, in the course of my years reading about the Church and her bishops, I have come across scores of scandalous comments that hit at the very center of the Faith in ways that Bishop Williamson's comments never did, then the answer is absolutely yes. I'm sure many others have experienced the same and there is no need for me to track down the comments. Just read the newspapers for a few weeks; you'll find however many you need.

Alexis
Posted By: Lawrence Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/22/09 01:48 AM

We appear to be headed for a period of real polarization between Traditional Catholics and those who reject Tradition. Austria, London, Brisbane, and otherplaces may just be the beginning. More than ever our Pope is in need of our prayers just as are bishops like Burke, Martino, Chaput and Bathersby.
Posted By: asianpilgrim Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/22/09 08:19 AM
Originally Posted by Lawrence
We appear to be headed for a period of real polarization between Traditional Catholics and those who reject Tradition. Austria, London, Brisbane, and otherplaces may just be the beginning. More than ever our Pope is in need of our prayers just as are bishops like Burke, Martino, Chaput and Bathersby.

This is a fearful but very real possibility -- the division of the Roman Catholic Church into a "High Church", "Broad Church" and "Low Church." In a sense, this division is already a reality.

The "High Church" would consist of the SSPX (once regularized -- if ever they are reconciled), the Traditionalist congregations, parishes and communities in communion with Rome, and the "Reform of the Reform" parishes that dot the US, Canada and Western Europe. Opus Dei, Legionnaries of Christ / Regnum Christi, the various reform Franciscan movements and small but vibrant colleges such as Christendom, Magdalen, Wyoming Catholic and others would also be part of this.

(To pursue the analogy further, it could be pointed out that just as the High Church party of Anglicanism was divided into "Romanizing" and "Prayer-Book" factions, so the Catholic "High Church" would be divided into "Tridentine" and "Reform of the Reform Novus Ordo" factions)

The "Low Church" would consist of the vast but often under-reported and under-estimated Charismatic and Quasi-Pentecostal movements that now dominate Church life in much of the Catholic Church in the "Third World", as well as such New Movements as the Neo-Catechumenal Way. The African Church is also becoming more and more "Inculturated" and open to Pentecostalist influence.

The "Broad Church" would be the great majority of Roman Catholic parishes and dioceses, with the "usual" liturgy and a spiritual life composed of varying doses of traditional piety and Charismatic fervor and praxis.

If the much-touted Traditionalist project of having a "Personal Apostolic Administration" covering all TLM congregations were to succeed, that will definitely signal the establishment of a distinct "High Church" in the Catholic Church. I myself am of two minds regarding the project. On one hand, it may very well be the only way to protect the Classical Roman Rite from continued attack and marginalization. On the other hand, it does run the very real risk of confining Traditional Catholicism into a ghetto.
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Quote
Latin Catholic said:
This is a very broad characterization and I wonder if you can document it.

If you're asking if I'm going to spend hours on the Internet tracking down scores of scandalous comments by Latin American and European bishops, no I am not. I do have somewhat of a life.

If you are asking me whether, in the course of my years reading about the Church and her bishops, I have come across scores of scandalous comments that hit at the very center of the Faith in ways that Bishop Williamson's comments never did, then the answer is absolutely yes. I'm sure many others have experienced the same and there is no need for me to track down the comments. Just read the newspapers for a few weeks; you'll find however many you need.

Alexis

Thank God we haven't had problems like that with any of our Catholic bishops here in Scandinavia.
Latin Catholic the words [ OK I have mixed them up a wee bittie ]

are chickens don't till count hatched your they

come to mind .
Our Lady's slave,

I have only heard good things about Archbishop Mario Conti (and I have spoken with people who know him well), so at least Glaswegians should be well provided for.
With deference Latin Catholic , I think you have missed the point I was making.

You said
Quote
Thank God we haven't had problems like that with any of our Catholic bishops here in Scandinavia.

Until the comments actually come to light - none of us can be certain that there are no problems.
Posted By: Michael_Thoma Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/23/09 12:01 AM
The only Traditionalist Apostolic Prelature I've heard mentioned had to do with the "Traditional Anglican" group which is seeking union with Rome. Never heard that the TLM folks wanted anything of the sort - seems unnecessary to me, considering any Latin priest can offer the Gregorian/Tridentine form any time, any place.
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/23/09 12:33 AM
Michael,

Well if the SSPX is reconciled, they don't want to be under the Ordinary, for obvious reasons. So something must be devised for them.

Alexis
Posted By: asianpilgrim Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/23/09 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
considering any Latin priest can offer the Gregorian/Tridentine form any time, any place.

That is the theory. The practice is entirely different, as bishops still flex their muscles. Here in the Philippines, the Archbishop of Manila has explicitly forbidden the TLM except for one ferial weekday a month, and only in the cathedral.
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/23/09 04:08 AM
I would be shocked if Ecclesia Dei doesn't squash that nasty, disrespectful little "guideline." Of course, it will probably be at a snail's pace.

In the meantime, priests are free to simply ignore it; unfortunately its true strength is that it is a scare tactic, and if a priest openly defied (as is his right), then he would probably be subjected to some bogus punishment.

Alexis
Posted By: theophan Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/23/09 12:06 PM
Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

What no one seems to understand in all this is that a priest is the deputy of his bishop, not of the Pope. A priest receives his faculties--his authority and permission to celebrate/serve the Liturgy and other sacraments/mysteries--from his bishop, not from the Pope. The bishop is the final liturgical authority in his geographic space--his dioces/eparchy. So a priest who dares to defy his superior is cut off--something like being court-marshalled in the army. A priest takes a vow of obedience to his bishop and to the bishop's successors at ordination. So to be defiant in any matter that hsi bishop forbids is to break his vow.

In the Orthodox Chruch, the bishop simply defrocks or suspends that priest. In the Catholic Church, the priest can also be suspended and ultimately defrocked--though removal fromt he clerical state is reserved to the Pope. We've had a couple men "disappear" around my neck of the woods for one reason or another, so it isn't a wise thing to defy the man who is your superior, even if he may be outside the boundaries of what one may have papal permission to do. Vatican I gave the impression that bishops were simply the Pope's man in a specific place. Vatican II restored the idea of the episcopate being a college of bishops. Catholics are still sorting out what that may mean in practice, but it's obvious that the days of everything coming from Rome and being immediately obeyed or implemented is over.

And if you take note, I don't know of a bishop yet who publicly spoke out against a Roman mandate who has been removed. In fact, there's a bishop near us who openly decries Roman "interference" in liturgical and biblical translations, openly espouses feminism, and lots of other defiant positions. He's still in place.

In Christ,

BOB
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/23/09 04:10 PM
Bob,

The thing is, the laws of the Bishop must be in line with laws of the Church at large. Since the Manila guidelines do not even approach this, they have no effect. They are contrary to the laws of the Church at large.

You are certainly right about the consequences of defying a bishop's commands, regardless of whether or not he has the authority to command such a thing. But bishops are in place to guard, protect, and guide the faithful of the Church, not to be dictators. They, too, have to answer to the wider authority of the Church and the authority of the Pope. To quote John Donne (a Catholic, wasn't he?), "No man is an island." Bishops are not free to impose whatever they wish on their priests, and in cases in which these "guidelines" are openly contemptuous of and contrary to the universal laws of the Church, they surely have no weight.

Alexis
Posted By: Dr. Eric Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/23/09 05:01 PM
John Donne was a Catholic who abandoned his Faith and became an Anglican minister. (That doesn't mean that I don't like his poetry.)
Our Lady's slave

yes well true, but we have to trust a little in God too, don't we?

don't be so pessimistic!

after all, NYC just got a wonderful new archbishop! [stlbeacon.org]

I am so happy to be a Catholic, and I don't want always to criticize the Bishops that our Holy Father have given us (not including Richard Williamson, who had the awful temerity to receive the episcopate against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II)
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Originally Posted by Memo Rodriguez
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.

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"?


The question is: If this was not an ultra-conservative bishop, but an ultra-liberal one, would people here in this forum still concede him the benefit of the doubt, as it is obvioulsly happening with bishop Williamson?

Shalom,
Memo
Probably not, but perhaps that's because Bishop Williamson does not espouse heretical views, unlike many ultra-liberal ones.

Aside from that, I would like to think that I would defend someone whose personal opinions get him kicked out of countries because of their politically incorrect nature, whether or not he was liberal, conservative, Catholic, atheist, pagan, Muslim, - whatever.

Alexis
Posted By: John K Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/24/09 12:40 PM
Originally Posted by Dr. Eric
John Donne was a Catholic who abandoned his Faith and became an Anglican minister. (That doesn't mean that I don't like his poetry.)

And his memorial at St. Paul's in London is the only remaining piece of the old Cathedral which burned in the Great Fire.
Posted By: theophan Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/24/09 01:49 PM
ALEXIS:

Quote
The thing is, the laws of the Bishop must be in line with laws of the Church at large. Since the Manila guidelines do not even approach this, they have no effect. They are contrary to the laws of the Church at large.


I love your idealism. Keep it as long as you can. I've been around long enough to see priests disciplined--suspended and removed--for trying to argue that their bishop's interpretations do not have effect because they are contrary to the laws of the Church at large.

The bishop is given the authority to interpret the general laws of the Church and to apply them concretely in his own territory. And, as I learned some years ago in a canon law seminar prior to the new Code's being implemented, there is essentially no one who can question his interpretations or implementations. If challenged, the Roman authorities will defer to the bishop of the place when he explains his reasons at the appropriate dicastery in Rome during his ad limina. Other than that, the principle of subsidiarity applies--decisions are to be taken at the lowest level. In other words, Rome can't enforce every little thing in every little place in the world. The world is too big for that and there are more pressing issues internationally for the Vatican to be concerned about than solving every lay complaint in the world.

Quote
Bishops are not free to impose whatever they wish on their priests . . .


ROFLOL

Alexis, come on, you're too intelligent to stand behind this statement. A priest is his bishop's agent, assistant, servant. He vows obedience at ordination. This vow does not include "dialogue" if he happens to think the bishop is wrong. It's absolute. I know how this works because the previous two pastors of my parish were told months prior to their official transfer that it would be announced and they were both sworn to secrecy--to reveal it to no one--before the official announcement. I was close to both and both came to me afterward and apolgized for not telling me in advance. But I understand how the system works. I was being groomed for it in high school.

The clergy is like the army. You obey your superior's orders, even if it costs you your life. Period. You risk the harshest punishments for not doing so--loss of status, loss of income, loss of everything. I guess I've been around too long, seen too much, and been the confidant of too many priests. But keep up your idealism and don't become cynical over the disparity between Roman mandates and actual practice.

In Christ,

BOB
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: What is going on in Austria? - 02/24/09 03:01 PM
Bob,

An idealist? You flatter me. wink Sometimes I worry I'm too much the cynic.

Quote
Bob said: The bishop is given the authority to interpret the general laws of the Church and to apply them concretely in his own territory. And, as I learned some years ago in a canon law seminar prior to the new Code's being implemented, there is essentially no one who can question his interpretations or implementations. If challenged, the Roman authorities will defer to the bishop of the place when he explains his reasons at the appropriate dicastery in Rome during his ad limina. Other than that, the principle of subsidiarity applies--decisions are to be taken at the lowest level. In other words, Rome can't enforce every little thing in every little place in the world. The world is too big for that and there are more pressing issues internationally for the Vatican to be concerned about than solving every lay complaint in the world.

Yes, the bishop has authority to interpret, within limit. He is not free to attempt to infringe upon universal rights of each priest of the Latin Rite. He is not free to impose guidelines that are outside of his authority.

I fully understand the reality of how this plays out. Like I said, scare tactics work. I get that.

Quote
Bob said: ROFLOL

Alexis, come on, you're too intelligent to stand behind this statement. A priest is his bishop's agent, assistant, servant. He vows obedience at ordination. This vow does not include "dialogue" if he happens to think the bishop is wrong. It's absolute. I know how this works because the previous two pastors of my parish were told months prior to their official transfer that it would be announced and they were both sworn to secrecy--to reveal it to no one--before the official announcement. I was close to both and both came to me afterward and apolgized for not telling me in advance. But I understand how the system works. I was being groomed for it in high school.

The clergy is like the army. You obey your superior's orders, even if it costs you your life. Period. You risk the harshest punishments for not doing so--loss of status, loss of income, loss of everything. I guess I've been around too long, seen too much, and been the confidant of too many priests. But keep up your idealism and don't become cynical over the disparity between Roman mandates and actual practice.

I still stand by my previous statement that bishops are not free to impose whatever the wish on priests. You say that priests are the servants of their bishops; but they are servants of Christ first. No one is obliged to comply with demands made which are contrary to the laws of the Church. If a bishop told a priest to fall down and worship a statue of the Buddha, would he be obliged to do so? Of course not. I am not saying that forbidding priests their right to say the Traditional Mass is the same as demanding they worship the Buddha, but permit me the illustration in order to advance the idea that they are in the same vein, in that they are both contrary to the laws of the Church, and so are outside of the bishop's authority to demand or force his priests to do.

I think we mostly agree. Theoretically, a bishop's authority is limited to certain things. In reality, this is often not the case.

Alexis



Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Probably not, but perhaps that's because Bishop Williamson does not espouse heretical views, unlike many ultra-liberal ones.

Aside from that, I would like to think that I would defend someone whose personal opinions get him kicked out of countries because of their politically incorrect nature, whether or not he was liberal, conservative, Catholic, atheist, pagan, Muslim, - whatever.

Alexis


Ultra-conservatives can be heretics.

Besides, there are no dogmatic pronounciations about abortion, so this theoretical Ultra-liberal I was speculating about would NOT be a heretic.

Shalom,
Memo
I agree that ultra-conservatives can be heretics.

As far as abortion, a whole other thread devoted to what the Faith means would have to be started. Suffice it to say that a Catholic cannot believe that abortion is permissible and be considered Catholic, just like a Catholic in the second century could believe that Christ wasn't Divine and still be said to be orthodox. That abortion is a moral evil is simply something that has always been believed by the Church in her infallible Tradition.

Alexis
Interestingly, the Pope recently reaffirmed [212.77.1.245] that abortion is a matter of natural moral law, not faith. In other words, all human beings should, simply by using their reason, be able to see that abortion is evil.

If this was 1909 instead of 2009, you'd have quite alot of trouble telling a SSPX'er (I know, they didn't exist) from any other Catholic.
Quote
Yes, the bishop has authority to interpret, within limit. He is not free to attempt to infringe upon universal rights of each priest of the Latin Rite. He is not free to impose guidelines that are outside of his authority.


ALEXIS:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We had this question answered at our canon law seminar in 1983 so I won't discuss it again. In practice, the bishop operates in his diocese or eparchy as a medieval lord. No better explanation. Since that time, I've seen plenty of priests disciplined, suspended, and even "disappear"--which is a good way to say they were taken in by some other bishop across the country and forbidden to contact anyone in their former place. And while a priest is a servant of Christ, he is still the agent of his bishop, like it or not.

Today we've had plenty of bishops ride roughshod over their clergy and sas the stories have gotten out--slowly--they have had an inmpact on an increasingly educated laity.

I suggest you read the book "Goodbye, Good Men." I know of a few of the stories contained therein being true.

As for the case you mention, the permission for the TLM is not in the form of a mandate. And it is understood that a priest must be trained to do it correctly. As one of my friends who just received biritual faculties told me, the permission contained in faculties doesn't mean you jump right in and begin using the faculties. He has yet to pass the test of being competent in the Liturgy for which he has been granted those faculties. Back to the TLM--which isn't traditional at all; it's the last in a string of modifications in the 20th century begun under Pope St. Pius X--there has to be a stable group of people who request this Liturgy. As of this date, there is one place in our diocese where this Liturgy is celebrated. There is a full church, but there is no great surge to it. And few of our priests want to be involved in studying it in order to celebrate it.

We're getting off topic here. These tangential issues of epsicopal authority don't directly bear on the thread title.

BOB
Bob,

I have to wonder at why you go out of your way to suggest that the Traditional Latin Mass is not traditional. Yes, it is! It has been substantially the same for centuries upon centuries. Yes, a few things have changed here and there (as with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), but it has been an organic development. I will not speak about the Novus Ordo, leaving the distinctions to be inferred by the reader...

I wish bishops were checking to see that their priests were celebrating the Novus Ordo correctly as much as some of them are doing for the Traditional Latin Mass. I can't tell you the last time I attended a by-the-rubrics Novus Ordo (maybe Christmas Midnight Mass at my parish back in my hometown). Alas, in a city of over 100,000, a Novus Ordo Mass that is faithful to the guidelines of the Church cannot be found. The Novus Ordo's so darn simple a four year-old could celebrate it; I'm not sure why grown men find it so hard (well, actually, I am rather sure why).

Alexis
He has yet to pass the test of being competent in the Liturgy for which he has been granted those faculties.

Wonder how many are tested for the Ordinary Rite...not many I guess
Back to the OP
Quote
The two appointments, both apparently without consultation with local churches, sparked doubt about Benedict's leadership and concern the Church was turning increasingly conservative.


Schoenborn said the uproar had caused "irritation and resignation" and the Church needed "damage control" for the sake of its future, according to the Catholic news agency Kathpress.

Four times as many Catholics have officially quit the Church in Linz so far this year as in early 2008, the Austrian Press Agency APA reported, and departures have also been running higher than usual in Vienna, Salzburg, Tyrol and Lower Austria.

In one of the bluntest criticisms from a prelate, Salzburg Archbishop Alois Kothgasser said on Tuesday the SSPX bishops seemed to be heretics who had shut themselves out of the Church.He also said the Church must not shrink into "a sect ... with few but strictly obedient members" -- a veiled criticism of Pope Benedict, who once suggested the Church might have to reduce to a hard core to survive the secular modernist age.

Besides obedience, what other conservative principle is questioned there?
Quote
The Novus Ordo's so darn simple a four year-old could celebrate it; I'm not sure why grown men find it so hard (well, actually, I am rather sure why).


ALEXIS:

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

I'll tell you why. It's very simple. The liturgists who trained clergy in the seminaries during the 1970s, 80, and 90s trained them to "develop their own personal style." In other words, here's the outline, now "wing it." So you have the "Father Bob Show" and the "Fahter Alexis Show" and the "Jim Dandy Show" so everyone stays entertained, complete with bad jokes, bad Liturgy, improv theology, improv prayers, tacky vestments, poor music, and a sick feeling in the pit of your gut when you leave--unless "touchy, feely" is your thing and you leave with your warm fuzzy.

But let's stay on topic. I could go off on a tangent, but I won't. This is an Eastern Board where the problems of the Latin Church should not take up all this bandwidth.

BOB
Originally Posted by Jakub.
He has yet to pass the test of being competent in the Liturgy for which he has been granted those faculties.

Wonder how many are tested for the Ordinary Rite...not many I guess

I just wanted this to be posted again because it is a great point.
Ok, just to reinforce Theophan's point that has been made twice, to keep this thread on topic. If not, then it will be assumed that there is no further need to discuss the topic and thread will be closed.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator
Richard Williamson is now back in Britain [news.bbc.co.uk].

Today, I understand that the following declaration from Richard Williamson was released [paparatzinger2-blograffaella.blogspot.com] by the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei":

Quote
DECLARATION

The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.

Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (..."I believe"..."I believe"...) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I saidbefore God I apologise.

As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.

+Richard Williamson
London 26 February 2009.

Thanks to Raffaella at the Papa Ratzinger Blog [paparatzinger2-blograffaella.blogspot.com] for posting this declaration [paparatzinger2-blograffaella.blogspot.com].
Hmmm...

So, he's sorry he said what he said.

I guess we're not going to get much more out of him and, since we are not in full communion yet anyway, I propose moving along...

Shalom,
Memo
In fact, we are in full communion. Since the excommunication has been lifted, Richard Williamson can go to confession and receive Holy Communion in any Catholic church. However, he and all the Bishops and clergy of the Society of St. Pius X remain suspended from ministry, i.e. they cannot function as Catholic clergy and cannot celebrate the sacraments.

As for me, I accept what Richard Williamson has to say about the "harm and hurt" he has caused "to the Church." From the point of view of the Catholic Church, I think his apology should be accepted in a Lenten spirit.

As for the "survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich," it is entirely up to them if they want to accept Richard Williamson's apology. I hope they do, but I shall understand if they do not.
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
In fact, we are in full communion. Since the excommunication has been lifted, Richard Williamson can go to confession and receive Holy Communion in any Catholic church. However, he and all the Bishops and clergy of the Society of St. Pius X remain suspended from ministry, i.e. they cannot function as Catholic clergy and cannot celebrate the sacraments.

As for me, I accept what Richard Williamson has to say about the "harm and hurt" he has caused "to the Church." From the point of view of the Catholic Church, I think his apology should be accepted in a Lenten spirit.

As for the "survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich," it is entirely up to them if they want to accept Richard Williamson's apology. I hope they do, but I shall understand if they do not.


Unfortunately (or not... whatever), the lifting of excommunications is not equivalent to full communion.

Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the mutual excommunications of 1054, but nobody claims that Catholics and Orthodox are already in full communion.

The lifting of excommunications is the starting point of a process that hopefully, leads to full communion, but just that, the starting point. In both cases, the goal is not quite around the corner.

Yes, the SSPX Bishops may go to confession, but at that point, they would have to confess the sin of schism that placed them under excommunication. They would have to repent from receiving episcopal ordination against the norms of the Latin Church and they would also have to repent from their rejection of the current teachings of the Church.

Personally, I would hope they also repent from the harm and sufferent they and their followers have inflicted to faithful Catholics around the globe, but I am not holding my breath.

In other words, they would have to become fully Catholic. At that point, of course they would be in full communion and it would be a happy day.

Shalom,
Memo
Memo,

As you rightly point out, our communion with the Catholic Church always depends on our making a good confession, with the grace of God.

And wouldn't it be wonderful if Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew were to hear each other's confessions...? (but that's a sidetrack and not really relevant to this thread)

May we all make good confessions during this sacred season of Lent.
Quote
In fact, we are in full communion. Since the excommunication has been lifted . . .


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

In fact, the lifting of the excommunication is just the start of the road to full communion. When one enters schism, it takes a profession of faith togethre with confession to be back in full communion. None of these four gentlemen can just show up at a confessional this Saturday and think he can go to Holy Communion on Sunday.

Been there. Done that.

BOB
Holocaust-denying Bishop apologises
27th February 2009, 5:43 WST

British bishop Richard Williamson apologised to all those he offended with his Holocaust-denying remarks, in a letter to the Vatican released on Thursday through a Catholic news agency.

"Observing these consequences, I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks," said Williamson in the letter made public a day after his return home from Argentina.

"If I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them," he said.

"To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologise," he wrote, according to the Zenit news agency. "As the Holy Father has said, every act of unjust violence against one man hurts all mankind."

The agency said the letter was written from London. Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, however, told AFP he had not yet been informed of it.

Williamson, 68, indicated in the letter he was responding to a demand by the Pope to reconsider his comments.

The bishop has been at the centre of a raging controversy after saying on Swedish television last month: "There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies."

Williamson said he believed "200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers".

He was among four bishops Pope Benedict XVI agreed to take back in January in an attempt by the Vatican to heal a split with traditionalist Catholics who rejected the church's liberal reforms of the early 1960s.

Until now, Williamson had refused to withdraw his claims, despite Vatican demands for him to unequivocally distance himself from his statements.

The Pope on February 12 sought to pacify Jewish anger over his lifting of Williamson's excommunication by saying Holocaust denial was "intolerable".

"Any denial or minimisation of (the Shoah), this terrible crime, is intolerable and altogether unacceptable," the pontiff told visiting American Jewish leaders at the Vatican.

He added: "The (Catholic) church is profoundly and irrevocably committed to reject all anti-Semitism and to continue to build good and lasting relations between our two communities."

The Argentine government last Thursday gave Williamson 10 days to leave the South American nation - where he lived at a seminary run by the ultra-conservative Saint Pius X Society - for having "deeply shocked Argentine society, the Jewish people and all of humanity".

The Vatican said earlier the bishop's views on the Holocaust were not known to the Pope when he decided last month to lift the excommunication.

AFP
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=554460
Apparently the Vatican does not think Bishop Williamson's apology is sufficient.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7915022.stm

Quote
Vatican rejects bishop's apology


The bishop said he did not mean to cause offence
The Vatican has rejected an apology by a British bishop who denied the full extent of the Holocaust.
It said the bishop needed to "unequivocally and publicly" withdraw his comments.
Earlier, Jewish leaders said the bishop had failed to address the issue of whether he believed that the Holocaust was a lie.
Richard Williamson said if he had known the full harm his comments would cause, he would not have made them.
'Ambiguous' apology
The bishop said that his opinions had been formed "20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available".
But Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said the bishop "does not seem to respect the conditions" it set after he had made the comments.
Meanwhile Renzo Gattegna, the president of Italy's Jewish Communities, described the apology as "absolutely ambiguous".
Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said the statement "is not the kind of an apology that would end this matter" because it failed to address the central issue.
The row began after Bishop Williamson was reinstated into the Church.
The Vatican has been embroiled in an international row after Pope Benedict XVI lifted an excommunication order on the British bishop in January.
Church leaders said the Pope had not been aware at the time of an interview given by the bishop, a member of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X (SSPX), to a Swedish TV programme last November.
In it, he disputed that six million Jews had been killed by the Nazis, and said that none had died in gas chambers.
The Pope has since called on Bishop Williamson to recant his views.

The one thing he doesn't say, and the main thing, is that the Holocaust occurred, that it is not a fabrication, that it is not a lie
Rabbi Marvin Hier
In a statement published on the SSPX website, the bishop says his superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, and the Pope "requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy".
"Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them."
He added: "On Swedish television I gave only the opinion… of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since.
"However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise."
The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says the apology stops short of fully recanting the bishop's earlier statements.
The bishop was one of four ultraconservative SSPX bishops whose excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI on an unrelated matter.
He is back in the UK after being expelled from Argentina earlier this week for concealing "the true motive for his stay in the country".
The problem seems to me to be that Williamson fails to retract his comments on the Holocaust, something which does makehis apology seem rather ambiguous.
However misplaced His Excellency's opinions are on the matter, would it not be sinful for him to say he doesn't believe something anymore when he actually still does?

These people need to get it through their heads that you cannot FORCE others to believe something just by making them feel bad about it.

Alexis
Profile: Bishop Richard Williamson

By Robert Pigott
BBC Religious Affairs Correspondent

Richard Williamson's views on Holocaust
Pope Benedict's decision to rescind the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson last month appeared to be the latest in a series of olive branches held out to Roman Catholic traditionalists, who have never come to terms with attempts to modernise the Church.

Three other men ordained as bishops at the same time were also readmitted to the Church.

But if the Pope hoped to prevent a split in the Church from widening, without damaging the Vatican's fragile relations with Jews, he seems not to have reckoned with Bishop Williamson's incendiary views on the Holocaust.

Bishop Williamson, who was born in Britain, gave an interview to a Swedish television programme last November in which he disputed that six million Jews had died at the hands of the Nazis, and claimed that none had died in gas chambers.

He said: "I believe there were no gas chambers," and insisted that up to "300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers".

Controversial views

These are not the only eccentric views held by Richard Williamson, whose "illicit" ordination as bishop by the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 led Pope John Paul II to excommunicate him from the Roman Catholic Church.

A woman can do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman

Bishop Williamson has claimed that the United States planned the attacks of 9/11, and has accused Freemasons of conspiring against the Church.

He also has controversial attitudes towards women. He is quoted as saying: "A woman can do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman. Did this lawyeress check her hairdo before coming into court? If she did, she is a distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman."

Richard Williamson was born an Anglican, the son of a vicar, in 1940. He went to Winchester College and read literature at Cambridge University, before teaching in Africa and converting to Catholicism in 1971.

He became a member of the Society of St Pius X, which had been founded by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1970 to counter the reforms in the Church made by the Second Vatican Council during the previous decade.

Richard Williamson was a novice at the London Oratory, studied at Lefebvre's seminary and was ordained a priest in 1976. Archbishop Lefebvre announced in 1988 that he intended to ordain Fr Williamson, and three other priests, as bishops, and did so despite warnings that he would be excommunicated.

The Vatican has said it was unaware of Bishop Williamson's views about the Holocaust when it decided to cancel his excommunication. But, given that they have not been exactly secret, the explanation seems unlikely to pacify Jewish critics of the decision.

As recently as March last year, Bishop Williamson described as "authentic" the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which purports to reveal Jewish plots to achieve world domination. The document is considered to be a forgery, which originated in Tsarist Russia.

Bishop Williamson denies prejudice against Jews. He said, "My definition of anti-Semitism is to be against every single Jew purely because he's a Jew. That's not at all my case. I once had a Jewish rabbi come and speak to seminarians. Does that sound to you like anti-Semitism?"

Rehabilitation

Just how complete is Bishop Williamson's rehabilitation? He is regarded as a bishop; his ordination, although "illicit" was "valid". But Bishop Williamson - and the other three "illicit" bishops - will continue to be forbidden from practising as bishops. There is no immediate sign that the Society of Pius X will itself be welcomed back into the fold by the Pope.

Some liberal Catholics say Bishop Williamson and his colleagues have had their excommunications rescinded only because they are validly ordained bishops. Fr Thomas Reese of Georgetown University suggests that because the four men could ordain other bishops (validly, if illicitly) "the schism can go on forever".

Fr Reese continues: "If the bishops ordain more bishops, they will again suffer excommunication. If the bishops refrain from ordaining new bishops, the schism ends when these four bishops die even if they are not reconciled with the pope. If lifting the excommunication is the price for keeping the bishops from ordaining more bishops, then in the view of the Vatican it is a cheap price to pay".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7869565.stm
This has all become ridiculous, complete with self-appointed pundits writing with uneducated pseudo-expertise about Catholicism.

First, it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Catholics had never even heard of Bishop Williamson until this current sensation began - and it began, not with anything from the Church, but with a foolish interview that the man gave to some journalist.

I think that I actually laid eyes on Bishop Williamson in Toronto, but all that I heard him say on that occasion was the Rosary, which is edifying but hardly newsworthy.

I would have found it impossible to name the four bishops whose excommunications were lifted by the Pope had the list not been included. I had no idea at all of what, if anything, Bishop Williamson was doing. Come to think of it, I still cannot name the four bishops from memory; the Society of Saint Pius X is not a great interest of mine.

As a rule, the Catholic Church does not trouble to take much interest in the political or secular views of individual Catholics, no matter how bizarre those views might be. The only exception I can think of in recent times is the excommunication of Communists around 1950.

I am not an expert on the massacres of Jews and others during World War II. Forgive me, but I was only born in 1942, so I would hardly have been aware of this while it was going on. Several of the relevant generation of my family served in the American armed forces (this includes my father), but, as it happens, most of them were in the Pacific theater, so I naturally heard more about that - the Rape of Nanking, to name only one Japanese atrocity out of many, was no picnic, to say nothing of the bombing of Nagasaki. Unlike the Nazi war criminals, those Japanese war criminals who managed to evade the Communists tended to get off rather lightly. Nobody, of course, has ever been punished for the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I have no reason to doubt the horrific events which took place particularly in Eastern Europe; anyone who does have doubts about it would be well advised either to keep quiet or to embark upon a thorough-going work of research.

I do know the difference between an "illicit" and an "invalid" ordination - unlike the journalists who throw these words around in such a way as to make it clear that they understand neither term. The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that the ordination of the four bishops was illicit; she has never asserted that the ordination of the four bishops was invalid.

Bishop Williamson, to the extent that one can go by reports in the secular press, was remarkably foolish in "shooting his mouth off" to a journalist in a denial of the massacres in Eastern Europe in World War II (if Msgr Williamson has any claim to expertise in that field, nobody has informed us of what this claim might consist of), and his timing was downright idiotic. Unfortunately however, neither remarkable foolishness nor downright idiocy are sufficient grounds for excommunication!

Now can we all please calm down, leave the events of World War II to the historians and researchers, and leave Catholic doctrine and technical terminology to the theologians? As to Bishop Williamson, I will be more than satisfied if he allows me to return to my previous position, which was one of only a very slight awareness that such a man existed.

Fr. Serge
Fr Serge is more than half-right.

I met Bishop Williamson once and all he said were 1) studying Latin is good — it disciplines the mind and 2) a sermon on the general state of the Roman Church at the time. All true; nothing against faith or morals.

Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
This has all become ridiculous, complete with self-appointed pundits writing with uneducated pseudo-expertise about Catholicism.

As a rule, the Catholic Church does not trouble to take much interest in the political or secular views of individual Catholics, no matter how bizarre those views might be. The only exception I can think of in recent times is the excommunication of Communists around 1950.


That's what I've been repeating all this time.

The left of course have an agenda (and don't understand Catholic doctrine because they don't want to), which is why they defend outright heretics and apostates yet want the church to overstep its authority and excommunicate on these matters.

(Slapping on the condition that he recant those views to have his orders regularised is in the church's authority but wrongheaded, giving into political correctness and nothing to do with doctrine.)

To be fair Bishop Williamson is not a Holocaust denier; he has never denied nor defended the Nazi murder of literally hundreds of thousands of people (including Archbishop Lefebvre's father). He is a Holocaust revisionist.

Guilt by association - 'everybody knows [commonknowledge.sub-page.com] that all who deny the figure 6 million think the Jews had it coming to them anyway' (it is true that anti-Semitism as part of French right-wing politics is part of SSPX culture) - doesn't work because AFAIK the man has never said that let alone taught it as church teaching.

As for his reputed dottiness (again not excommunicable - 'women shouldn't go to university', IIRC against mixed swimming etc.) his old enemy in the SSPX Fr Anthony Cekada (now a sedevacantist not SSPX) has noted that unlike him the bishop did not grow up in and thus did not know the real pre-conciliar RC Church, which of course wasn't like that in many places and was broader and deeper than the RC traditionalist movement today. The SSPX is all he knows.

(As for 9/11 again guilt by association with 'truthers' has never scared me away from ruling out the unthinkable - that the hijackers may well have been working for people who were working for people who were working for somebody in the US government. The bishop is anti-New World Order and anti-Iraq war and here is spot-on.)

Fr Serge's old acquaintance Fr Leonard Feeney had outrageous views that did sound like doctrine - 'all non-RCs are going to hell'. But they are allowable Catholic opinion found in the Fathers. So he never had to recant.

Like him or not, Bishop Williamson deserves the same fairness.

(If not for Archbishop Lefebvre of blessed memory there would be no RC traditionalist movement nor Pope Benedict's revival today. Again the Orthodox vision of a reunited Western Catholicism looks broadly like this and not 1970s RC practice.)

P.S. My WWII revisionism: The America Firsters were right, the Nazis and the Soviets should have been allowed to destroy each other without American involvement, imperial Japan was no threat to American sovereignty (FDR goaded them into attacking Pearl Harbor, a military target unlike Hiroshima) and friendly trading relations with it then or now would have no more or less a problem than the ones with Communist China today.
© The Byzantine Forum