FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Holocaust is Now Catholic Dogma
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
The Holocaust is Now Catholic Dogmahttp://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/02/05/title-21

The last time a Pope of the Catholic Church defined an infallible dogma was in the year 1950. Pope Pius XII used this power reserved for the Vicar of Christ when speaking ex cathedra to define the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary. It was an extraordinary event because a pope using the power of infallibly to define a dogma is done so rarely, and most popes have never used this power. Before Pius XII, the last pope to invoke papal infallibly to define a dogma was Pius IX in 1854, when he defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Both of these dogmas referred to events that had occurred 19 centuries before , and that had been studied by the best minds of the Church for almost as long. That’s because when making an infallible statement - it goes without saying - it can’t contain any errors! Fast forward to 2009 and Pope Benedict XVI has just defined a new dogma regarding a secular event that has nothing to do with the Faith. Moreover, this ‘dogmatic event’ only occurred in the middle of the 20th Century- and no one is allowed to investigate to see if it contains any errors! A dogma is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that must be believed by every Catholic or they’re not in communion with the Church. In the past, a dogma referred only to a matter of Christian faith, and Catholics could believe whatever they wanted about historical events. But today’s remarks from the Vatican make it clear that the Jewish version of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed in gas chambers, must be believed by every Catholic or they’re not in communion with the Church. That makes the Holocaust an official ‘dogma’ of the Catholic Faith (*sarcasm*). Here’s the news out of the Vatican.
Quote:On Jan. 28, the pope said he felt “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews, and warned against any denial of the full horror of the Nazi genocide.
Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted,” the statement said. The Shoah is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.
Jewish groups welcomed the Vatican statement, saying it satisfied their key demand.
“This was the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for,” said Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress.
Yes, this is the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for, but what exactly does this “sign” really mean? It means that in the post-Vatican II Church, the “Shoah” has replaced the Crucifixion as the central event in history. And do you notice the subtle switcheroo here? Now, instead of the central tenet of the Christian faith pertaining to the murder of the Christ by Jews, the new central tenet refers to the murder of Jews by Christians! This should come as no surprise to those who understand what really lies at the heart of the problem. At its core, this is a spiritual battle that’s being waged above our heads. It’s Christ vs. anti-Christ, and each of us must choose a side.
Lucifer wanted to be equal to God and out of pride refused to accept being a servant. When he uttered his famous “non servium” he took a third of the angels with him and set about waging war against God. When God sent His Son to redeem the world, Lucifer tried to prevent it. He took Jesus to the mountain top and tempted Him, saying “if you just bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.” Jesus told the devil to buzz off. The Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah did so out of racial pride and ambition. They wanted an earthly kingdom where they would always be the ‘Chosen Ones’ and did not want to share a kingdom with the gentiles. But Jesus emphatically said that His kingdom was not of this world and to share the good news with the gentiles. The Jews who accepted the Messiah became the first Christians, and those who rejected Him fell into spiritual blindness. Satan takes advantage of Jewish hatred of Jesus and uses them to battle against the Church of Christ. The Jews continue to wait for a wordly Messiah, but the Messiah they await is known to us as the anti-Christ. Therefore, all Christians must love and pray for the Jewish people to accept Christ as the Messiah, thereby snatching them from the jaws of Satan, whom they don’t realize they are serving.
This battle between Christ and anti-Christ is 2,000 years old and all popes throughout history have waged it (at least until 1958). That’s what makes the Church’s post-Vatican II attitude toward the Jews so perplexing, since it enables them to continue in spiritual blindness and sets the stage for the coming of the anti-Christ. Pope Leo XIII had a vision at the end of the 19th Century in which he forsaw that the devil had been given extra powers for 100 years to try to destroy the Church. This seems to coincide with the shift in power that took place in the 20th Century when after two world wars, the Jews took Palestine and solidified their control over the West. This was also the century in which the Jews unleashed their most deadly weapon, Communism, which caused the deaths of millions of people. But these people’s genocides go unnoticed and certainly have not been declared ”dogma” by a pope of the Catholic Church. Another clue that something is amiss inside the Church is that the Second Vatican Council refused to condemn Communism, but declared that anti-Semitism was a sin (without defining what constitutes anti-Semitism).
Enter Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and the man who’s currently being crucified, Bishop Richard Williamson. Archbishop Lefebvre himself had fought inside the Second Vatican Council to prevent the coup of the liberals. He also stated that the mere fact that the Council refused to condemn Communism was enough to call the Council into question. The Archbishop knew that something nefarious had happened inside the Church and sensed that he was waging a battle against powers and principalities. In terms of his plans to restore Tradition, in the Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he quotes the Archbishop as saying (pp. 500-501):
Quote:The Council is a non-infallible act of the Magisterium and, therefore, it is open to being influenced by a bad spirit … Therefore, we need to apply the criterion of Tradition to the various Council documents to see what we can keep, what needs clarifying, and what should be rejected.
And that’s exactly the whole point of the negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican that have been going on for almost 40 years. After the release of the Latin Mass and the lifting of the excommunications, the next phase is doctrinal discussions. But somebody doesn’t want that to happen. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970 in order to train priests in Tradition and not in the confusing, untraditional, Judeo-Masonic manner of the post-Conciliar era. The greatest threat to Revolutionaries is those who are not afraid to resist them to the face, i.e., the Counter-Revolutionaries. That is why Pope John Paul II would not allow Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrecate bishops, something that is usually rubber-stamped for every other order. John Paul II wanted the SSPX to go extinct after the death of its founder and put a stop to the Counter-Revolution. And if the Council really was influenced by a “bad spirit” as the Archbishop said, then certainly any attempt to exorcise this bad spirit would be met with the fiercest resistance by those who work for the anti-Christ.
This is where the controversy over Bishop Williamson’s remarks about the actual number of Jews killed in the Holocaust comes into the scenario. If the Jews are (wittingly or unwittingly) working to bring about the reign of the anti-Christ, then part of their strategy has to be to neutralize the Church. In their effort to overturn the crucifixion and replace it with the “Shoah,” they’re trying to utilize the Church to bring this about. And any force that appears to provide resistance to this switcheroo will be seen as the gravest possible threat. Because truly, it wouldn’t have mattered if Bishop Williamson had not said a word about the Shoah, they would have found something else to try to impede the Church’s return to Tradition. Because Christ and anti-Christ cannot co-exist on equal terms - one must naturally dominate the other. And the Church returning to Tradition and her normal role as the Church Militant is the one monkey wrench that could be thrown into the plans of the anti-Christ. No other challenger intimidates them, absolutely no one else causes them to tremble. But a fully traditional Church Militant with a billion souls in her army is the one thing that could defeat their plans. And that’s what this is really all about.
Bishop Williamson now finds himself in the center of a controvery that has been coming to a head for a very long time. In perusing the Catholic blogosphere, it appears that most Catholics (even trads) wish that he had just kept his mouth shut. But they would probably have said the same thing to Jesus, so as not to annoy the Pharisees. But I’m convinced Our Lord Jesus Christ knows what he is doing. Because it is time to confront the truth, as the the hour glass of time winds down, and get ready for the final conflagration. But it appears most Christians would rather retreat to the hills, rather than risk not being popular with the world. Thankfully, for the sake of our salvation, Jesus Himself was not so pusillanimous. And hopefully Bishop Williamson won’t be so pusillanimous either, since his founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, most assuredly was not. The Archbishop personally chose Richard Williamson to carry on his work after his death, to be a successor to the apostles. The only question that remains is: will he be like St. John or like the others who abandoned Jesus ”for fear of the Jews.’
The Church and the Jews have been locked in this battle for 2,000 years, so this latest controversy is nothing to be surprised about. Satan uses the poor, blinded Jews to attack the Lord’s Church because he doesn’t want us or them to be saved. But at least in the past, it used to be clear which side the popes were on! The Pope and SSPX bishops need all our prayers and support right now, because they are going through a trial by fire. And, at least in this early stage, it appears Bishop Fellay is starting to get cold feet. Every day for the past several days he has issued a denunciation of his colleague, Bishop Williamson, each one more hysterical than the last. He even went so far as to refer to the Jews as our “elder brothers in the faith,” as though the Talmud has anything to do with our Faith. When I said last week that I wished Bishop Fellay would one day be pope, I didn’t mean in the mold of John Paul II!
Let us pray especially for Pope Benedict XVI, the keeper of the keys to heaven, that he prove himself a worthy successor of St. Peter, and that he not imitate Peter in his denial of Jesus Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that the day would come when the SSPX would be called on to save the Church. And judging by the howls and screams from the satanic press, that day might be just around the corner. Let us hope that we also have the courage to stand beside them, no matter how much the media attack and lambaste us. It’s for the Jews’ own good after all, for they know not whom they are serving. As the Archbishop wrote in 1966 (ibid, pp. 382-83):
Quote:When the Holy Father realizes that those whom he trusted are leading the Church to her ruin, he will find himself a group of bishops … who are ready to rebuild. Unfortunately, the time has not yet come, because the Holy Father himself must change what he is doing, and that conversion will be painful.
Let us hope that the time has come and that Pope Benedict will accept the help of the SSPX. It is time for the Holy Father to stop taking sides with the enemies of the Church and stop defining secular events as “dogma,” especially ones so riddled through with holes. May God save the Church through His servant, Pope Benedict, although the Pope’s conversion will be painful.
On the flip side, someone I know has posite these defenses for Rome's position. Thoughts?


1. The decision to allow a priest to become a bishop or the continued good standing of a bishop with Rome would seem to rest strongly on prudential judgment. I would imagine that if a bishop were, say, making racist comments about a particular ethnic group, it would be within the legitimate competency of the Vatican to remove him from the exercise of his office because he is causing scandal, regardless of heresy.
2. I suppose the same question could be applied to Galileo. It is within the competence of the Church to compel obedience from the faithful, clergy or otherwise, when what they proclaim publicly comes into conflict with the exercise of the Church's functions in the world. We are compelled to give our assent to dogma, even if we find it personally disagreeable or even suspect. By submitting in a spirit of docility to the Church on this matter, I can't see how it would be construed as a sin for Williamson to repudiate."
His comments are obviously not concerning doctrine, but they do involve a matter which has profound implications for the Church's evangelical mission. Whatever internal reservations he has about history (and my understanding is that the scholar he refers to has been thoroughly disproven, so there is also that to consider) he could make an act of public repudiation because his comments are damaging to the Church.
3. People might not believe him if he repudiates his views, but I suppose in the end that's their problem, not his. He may never be able to convince people that he's trustworthy, but he has a long history of saying controversial and offensive things.
4. One must not confuse the lifting of the excommunications with the suspension of faculties. I doubt the Vatican would have found reason to not lift his excommunication directly because of this, but it is more likely they would have pressured the society to deal with him before making such a public act of lifting the penalties."

Quote:the “Shoah” has replaced the Crucifixion as the central event in history

A very powerful idea.
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:the “Shoah” has replaced the Crucifixion as the central event in history

A very powerful idea.

A hideous idea. There is only Christ.
Quote:A hideous idea. There is only Christ.

That doesnt mean that, as an idea, it isnt powerful. Dangerously and evilly powerful, but the quote is very biting. Hits the nail on the head as to what has happened in society.
StevusMagnus Wrote:On the flip side, someone I know has posite these defenses for Rome's position. Thoughts?


1. The decision to allow a priest to become a bishop or the continued good standing of a bishop with Rome would seem to rest strongly on prudential judgment. I would imagine that if a bishop were, say, making racist comments about a particular ethnic group, it would be within the legitimate competency of the Vatican to remove him from the exercise of his office because he is causing scandal, regardless of heresy.
2. I suppose the same question could be applied to Galileo. It is within the competence of the Church to compel obedience from the faithful, clergy or otherwise, when what they proclaim publicly comes into conflict with the exercise of the Church's functions in the world. We are compelled to give our assent to dogma, even if we find it personally disagreeable or even suspect. By submitting in a spirit of docility to the Church on this matter, I can't see how it would be construed as a sin for Williamson to repudiate."
His comments are obviously not concerning doctrine, but they do involve a matter which has profound implications for the Church's evangelical mission. Whatever internal reservations he has about history (and my understanding is that the scholar he refers to has been thoroughly disproven, so there is also that to consider) he could make an act of public repudiation because his comments are damaging to the Church.
3. People might not believe him if he repudiates his views, but I suppose in the end that's their problem, not his. He may never be able to convince people that he's trustworthy, but he has a long history of saying controversial and offensive things.
4. One must not confuse the lifting of the excommunications with the suspension of faculties. I doubt the Vatican would have found reason to not lift his excommunication directly because of this, but it is more likely they would have pressured the society to deal with him before making such a public act of lifting the penalties."

My thought is more of a question: why have you posted the same thing on this thread that you posted earlier on this thread?
frerejacques Wrote:My thought is more of a question: why have you posted the same thing on this thread that you posted earlier on this thread?

Because you hijacked the other thread and the comments are relevant to this very article and issue. Please don't hijack this thread as you did the other one. Either provide your thoughts on the comments or the article or don't post here. If you have questions for me, PM me. I simply want responses to the comments I posted. In the alternative, start your own thread speculating and wondering about the origin of the comments. I'm not interested in that discussion. Thanks.
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:the “Shoah” has replaced the Crucifixion as the central event in history

A very powerful idea.
A very Jewish idea.[Image: rolleyes.gif]
StevusMagnus Wrote:
frerejacques Wrote:My thought is more of a question: why have you posted the same thing on this thread that you posted earlier on this thread?

Because you hijacked the other thread and the comments are relevant to this very article and issue. Please don't hijack this thread as you did the other one. Either provide your thoughts on the comments or the article or don't post here. If you have questions for me, PM me. I simply want responses to the comments I posted. In the alternative, start your own thread speculating and wondering about the origin of the comments. I'm not interested in that discussion. Thanks.

I didn't hijack the thread, I just asked a question that you were unwilling to answer. Looks like you're still unwilling to answer it.
Thanks for posting this piece. It's the best thing I've read concerning this entire sordid affair.

And I see it was written by the same person who provided the wonderful defense of Bishop Williamson the other day.

http://truthisbeauty.wordpress.com/2009/...lic-dogma/
Pages: 1 2