SSPX threatens to expel Bishop Williamson
#41
Aviz Wrote:
columba Wrote:Fr. Gaudron said this action is being taken because "Williamson has caused great harm to our society." Not that Bishop Williamson's statements are false or against the Faith.

Demands on Bishop Williamson are equivalent to demands made by the Inquisition on heretics against the Catholic religion. Is there any historical precedent for inquisitional demands on non-heretics? If not, it would appear that fear of the media has led to treating Holocaust revisionism religiously equivalent to Catholic heresy.

Am I missing anything?
No. You only forgot to mention who is pulling the strings here and publicly lynching Msgr. Williamson.
String-pullers aside, it is reasonable argue that the SSPX implies Holocaust-inspired heresy in its treatment of Bishop Williamson. Ironically, the action is thought necessary to begin discussions on suppressing the heresies sprung forth in the wake of Vatican II.

The SSPX should not try to move forward with these discussion until it removes all  question of heresy concerning its treatment of Bishop Williamson. A formal definition and renunciation of Holocaust-inspired heresy would restore SSPX credibility, put its attackers on the defensive, and force the Vatican to clarify it position on the Shoa religion.
Reply
#42
columba Wrote:
Aviz Wrote:
columba Wrote:Fr. Gaudron said this action is being taken because "Williamson has caused great harm to our society." Not that Bishop Williamson's statements are false or against the Faith.

Demands on Bishop Williamson are equivalent to demands made by the Inquisition on heretics against the Catholic religion. Is there any historical precedent for inquisitional demands on non-heretics? If not, it would appear that fear of the media has led to treating Holocaust revisionism religiously equivalent to Catholic heresy.

Am I missing anything?
No. You only forgot to mention who is pulling the strings here and publicly lynching Msgr. Williamson.
String-pullers aside, it is reasonable argue that the SSPX implies Holocaust-inspired heresy in its treatment of Bishop Williamson. Ironically, the action is thought necessary to begin discussions on suppressing the heresies sprung forth in the wake of Vatican II.

The SSPX should not try to move forward with these discussion until it removes all  question of heresy concerning its treatment of Bishop Williamson. A formal definition and renunciation of Holocaust-inspired heresy would restore SSPX credibility, put its attackers on the defensive, and force the Vatican to clarify it position on the Shoa religion.

I agree that there a lot of questions unanswered here, such as the ones you mentioned regarding H.E. Bishop Williamson's "affair" and also the "lifting" of the excommunications.

Since the behaviour of the SSPX seems a bit erratic at the moment, I suspect that the string-pullers are very active.
Reply
#43
Aviz Wrote:Since the behaviour of the SSPX seems a bit erratic at the moment, I suspect that the string-pullers are very active.
The string-pullers have been very active for 2000 years but the Church once held them in check and will do so again, by God, unless we have reached THE END.
Reply
#44
I'm looking forward to him "reviewing the evidence". I'm sure Bishop Fellay is hoping he will too. I think that even Bishop Williamson has realized that he's been a tad obsessed by a certain view which may be (I hope he'll have the humility to admit) wrong. The Society and those who like his uncompromising stance for Truth would love him to remain a part of it all, but the fact is that at times he has argued some pretty silly things for a guy who is supposed to be a defender of Truth. I doubt he's even "viewed the evidence" re the Holocaust, let alone "re-viewing" it. It seems as if he was caught up in his own cult of personality for too long, and it's way past time his bluff was called on some issues.
Reply
#45
What a load of rubbish!
Quote:
The ones who have been obsessed with a certain view are the jews and liberal cancers who have made it a crime in most western nations to even entertain a thought about an event that has happend (supposedly) over 60 years ago. Not to mention some on this board who refuse to even consider that perhaps the sacred six didn't really go down as we all have been fed. Remember the human flesh lamp shades? The  soap made from ashes and bones etc etc.
The only ones who refuse to even consider or even think for a second they are mistaken are the jews and liberal cancer. you have things very twisted. After all in how many nations is it a crime that you will be hunted down for to Question the sacred six? How many nations is it a crime to question the crucifixition?
Quote:for a guy who is supposed to be a defender of Truth. I doubt he's even "viewed the evidence" re the Holocaust, let alone "re-viewing" it
This "guy" is a holy and good Bishop you should use proper and respectfull language when you speak about him even if he doesnt by the historical narrative you charish. Have you viewed the evedence? Would you even consider to review it? Whats the provenence of the evedence your so certain of?
Quote:and it's way past time his bluff was called on some issues.
What bluff? isnt the responsibility on those who claim this happened to really prove it without the threat of prison for those who just need a little more convincing? Why do catholics such as yourself believe you must at all costs believe some other faiths narrative on what they say has happened to them at the hands of not only evil nazis but catholics. do you realize how utterly confused cowradly  you sound?




Reply
#46
Benno Wrote:it's way past time his bluff was called on some issues.
LOL. Deploying oppressive measures to silence debate only legitimizes an alleged "bluff." The only way to call a bluff is to expose the facts in open debate. His Excellency's tormentors obviously fear that. Why?
Reply
#47
columba Wrote:
Benno Wrote:it's way past time his bluff was called on some issues.
LOL. Deploying oppressive measures to silence debate only legitimizes an alleged "bluff." The only way to call a bluff is to expose the facts in open debate. His Excellency's tormentors obviously fear that. Why?

What if Bishop Williamson went around preaching that the moon landings were not real?  How comfortable would Traditional Catholics be in that situation?  Would there be an uproar if he was expelled in that case?
Reply
#48
devotedknuckles Wrote:What a load of rubbish!
Quote:
The ones who have been obsessed with a certain view are the jews and liberal cancers who have made it a crime in most western nations to even entertain a thought about an event that has happend (supposedly) over 60 years ago. Not to mention some on this board who refuse to even consider that perhaps the sacred six didn't really go down as we all have been fed. Remember the human flesh lamp shades? The  soap made from ashes and bones etc etc.
The only ones who refuse to even consider or even think for a second they are mistaken are the jews and liberal cancer. you have things very twisted. After all in how many nations is it a crime that you will be hunted down for to Question the sacred six? How many nations is it a crime to question the crucifixition?
Quote:for a guy who is supposed to be a defender of Truth. I doubt he's even "viewed the evidence" re the Holocaust, let alone "re-viewing" it
This "guy" is a holy and good Bishop you should use proper and respectfull language when you speak about him even if he doesnt by the historical narrative you charish. Have you viewed the evedence? Would you even consider to review it? Whats the provenence of the evedence your so certain of?
Quote:and it's way past time his bluff was called on some issues.
What bluff? isnt the responsibility on those who claim this happened to really prove it without the threat of prison for those who just need a little more convincing? Why do catholics such as yourself believe you must at all costs believe some other faiths narrative on what they say has happened to them at the hands of not only evil nazis but catholics. do you realize how utterly confused cowradly  you sound?


Good points.hey, we get to be on same team for at least now!![Image: salute.gif][Image: tiphat2.gif]
Reply
#49
didishroom Wrote:'Fr. Williamson?" I don't like the man, be he should be referred to by his proper title as bishop.


True, only the most un-educated do not recognize his title, whether "irregular" or whatever term is used......
Reply
#50
c'mon peterII? was his Excellency preaching or was he answering a trap question? yes i would have the same position if he was expelled for answering a question re the moonlandings that wasnt an acceptible answer tot he press or those who run the show because what does the moonlandings have to do with anything re our faith?
thats just me im a sticler for these things and i just discovered that it was the indiians who first went to the moon on the backs of turtles a few thousand years ago. nothing is what it seems.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)