Monday, June 1, 2009

SSPX Bp. Fellay Interview

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=27430

I remain puzzled by the fact that the Bp. Williamson "Holocaust denial" controversy continues to be framed as a mere matter of history and law by Bp. Fellay (and even Bp. Williamson himself before he was silenced) when everyone from politicians to academics to the rabbis to the bishops and even the Pope piously speaks of it in theological language.

Every Catholic is within their right and responsibility to resist the errors of "Holocaust" theology as much as any other theological error.

49 comments:

Michael Hoffman said...

In his videotaped remarks, Bishop Fellay does not mention the revolutionary new Catholic "Shoah" theology introduced by "Pope John Paul the Great" and confirmed and expanded by his papal successor. Bishop Fellay seems oblivious to this powerful heresy and the extent to which Bishop Williamson's doubts about Auschwitz execution gassings is a very necessary bulwark against it.

What does Bishop Fellay have to say about the Archbishop of Paris and Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston stating that so-called "Holocaust deniers" cannot be Catholic?

Is not the Shoah theology at least as pernicious, if not more so, than the Bugnini theology? Why then the claim that the struggle against it is a mere distraction that detracts from the mission of the Church?

Bishop Fellay appears to reduce Bishop Williamson's principled stand on this issue to a strictly abstruse historiographical realm, when the spiritual combat over the Talmudic subversion of the Roman Church by means of the newly minted Shoah dogma is of the most critical importance to the survival of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please see:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=1043

Prodinoscopus said...

My impression is that Bishop Fellay is answering to his new masters. He evidently fears for the very survival of the SSPX, and apparently did not realize the trap that was being set by the lifting of the excommunications.

Rabbinic power and influence is immense and disturbing.

Prodinoscopus said...

Regarding the "trap" mentioned in my last comment: I do not think that the Pope consciously set the trap. I do not even think that the Rabbis set the trap. It is the Prince of this World who sets all traps to ensnare the faithful, and he uses willing and unwilling tools to help him. Of course the Pope wishes to draw the SSPX into an acceptance of the "Shoah" theology that he himself has embraced, and he thinks that it is for their own good. Of course the Rabbis hate the idea of the Pope welcoming the SSPX back into the Conciliar fold, yet their hatred of Tradition obscures their view of the advantages that such a move presents to them.

Henry said...

This man (Bernard Fellay) is, I suspect, a moral coward. He talks of Bishop Williamson's sole function as being one of simply upholding the faith, yet, unlike Williamson, he chooses to ignore the bleeding obvious regarding the sacred Holocaust and Christianity, that is: The "faith" he claims he'd give his life for, is being destroyed and replaced by this false idol, which comes complete with six million new Christ's for us all to meekly worship and follow.

The "Holocaust" has been used by various Jewish interests to undermine and reorder western peoples and society. Its happening, real or otherwise, was the catalyst which brought together the destructive evil of the various schools of Talmudic pseudo-science - From Boasian anthropology to Freudian corruptions in psychology, to the insane Frankfurt Yeshiva Of Social Engineering.

Through this strategy, western Europeans everywhere have been shamed into accepting that a love of tradition, culture, education, and family life are merely symptoms of a mental illness which finally found horrible expression behind the gates of what is now a tourist attraction called "Auschwitz."

Today, Christians are expected to repent for things that they have not done. Acceptance of this fallacy is a rejection of truth - But Bishop Fellay says "truth" is fundamental to his faith.

Reclining in front of a grand fireplace and calling himself "Excellency" might give Fellay a sense of importance, but as he sits in his splendid hideaway the world outside is morphing into hellish Babylon,

It is Bishop Williamson who has tried to keep the faith in Christ, while Fellay chooses to break bread and parley with those who reject Christ.

By rejecting Bishop Williamson, Fellay has rejected faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm sure "Rabbi" Fellay will feel well at home, with the silver-tongued paymasters of Judas.

One final thought regarding Bishop Williamson: Given that his mentor and founder of SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was the son of a man who died in the Nazi concentration camp at Sonnenberg, I think it highly likely that Williamson's well known and long held opinions on the Holocaust and Jewry in general, are more in keeping with Lefebvre's own opinions, and that it is in fact Fellay who is taking a stand contrary to the position formerly held by the SSPX and its founder.

HallnOates said...

Some of the comments here are totally over the top.

Maurice Pinay said...

Of course the Rabbis hate the idea of the Pope welcoming the SSPX back into the Conciliar fold, yet their hatred of Tradition obscures their view of the advantages that such a move presents to them.

***

With some modification and reinterpretation, which has already begun, traditional Catholicism could serve a "Noahide" function as well as any Protestant Evangelical megachurch, if not better. The rabbis not only know this, they and their "conservative" helpers in the curia, and in Catholic academia and journalism are working to bring it about.

Maurice Pinay said...

HallnOates writes: "Some of the comments here are totally over the top."

***

Perhaps.

Elsewhere you have written: "Some people have no problem being an accessory to the slander of a cleric (itself a sin of sacrilege) by allowing comments like "Rabbi Fellay" to be published when they have an opportunity to prevent such slander from being shown."

According to this reasoning Bp. Fellay is an accessory to the grave attack on the Gospel, Holocaustolatry, through his minimization of it and by silencing those who would speak against it when he has the opportunity to speak against it himself.

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear HallnOates, should Bp. Fellay not be held to at least as high a standard as this blogger?

Henry said...

HallinOats said..."Some of the comments here are totally over the top."

Is that it?

Is that the extent of your complaint?

Do you not want to dismember and expose the "comments" which cause you particular distress?

"HallinOats" what should be causing you real distress is the fact that two brother Bishops, now stand diametrically opposed, on issues (Jews/Holocaust) that once drew them so tight together, that neither a Papal edict nor a cigarette paper, could pass between them.

Inside SSPX; there has been a collapse in faith - ButI don't think Williamson has moved an inch on his or Lefebvre's opinion.

Anonymous said...

I was bothered by Bishop Fellay's comparison of the situation in the Church to a cancer of the body...I dislike his use of pointless analogies to illustrate the terrrible and unprecedented crisis which exists in the Church, it doesn't need explaining, it is as obvious as the nose on his face. Furthermore, he lessens the crisis by stating that in every century the church has had to endure and suffer problems. He is only comforting himself for his own unwillingness to take a strong stand such as a true defender of the faith would do. If there is a cancer in the Church then cut it out, radiate it, defeat it...don't speak of the slow, careful, 'kid gloves' kind of treatment which will yield no results. I wish the churchmen of today would show some real courage.
The Society has bitten off more than it can chew, they are now compromising themselves to protect their assets, their name, and to avoid total destruction. Their undoing may come with the twists and turns that occurred, and it will be Bishop Fellay's own folly.

HallnOates said...

In the interview Bishop Fellay clearly stated how strange it was to accept Holocautolatry(not those words exactly) in regards to the unsigned note written by the Vatican's Secretary of State. His statement of it being a mere historical event if anything minimizes what the enemies of the Church want the Holocaust to be elevated to, so why get all worked up about that.

The quality of Bishop Fellay's activism against the Shoah dogma appears not to be to the liking of some, but Bishop Fellay is working towards the restoration of the True Catholic faith in the Church. Holocaustolatry appears to exist where there is a void of the True Faith. Tradition and the True Faith tells Judaics that in order to attain salvation one must accept Our Lord Jesus Christ and enter into His Holy Church. This does not exist in Holocaustolatry where the likes of Cardinal O'Malley and Fr. Neuhaus deny the True Faith and exempt Judaics from accepting the Christ and the Church.

While Bishop Fellay works towards the authorities of the Church to embrace Tradition and the Faith, the enemies work against this by exploiting the words of Bishop Williamson. When one has the Faith, Holocaustolatry is seen for the absurdity it is, so while Bishop Fellay may appear by some to be lacking in the activism department, he most certainly is not as he and the SSPX are the only ones who have taken Tradition, the Faith, and Christ Crucified(all 3 being the very antidote to Holocaustoltry amongst every other error) to the authorities of the Church so that the visible Church will be once again what she is supposed to be and when the Church is what she is then once again we shall see the freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother Church rather than the freedom and exaltation of Judeo-Masonry and the Shoah dogma.

This is a war to recover the visible Church-what Bishop Williamson has called a war to the death. Our Lord said to be wise as serpents and simple as doves. If Bishop Williamson had heeded these words especially after the Catholic Herald attacked him in March 2008(or thereabouts) then he would have been more careful in preventing the enemy from grabbing hold of a weapon to attack for the purpose of preventing the restoration of the Church. We wouldn't even be here talking about this. Bishop Williamson is a great teacher and knows where the Truth is and where others should stand in relation to the Truth, but he doesn't know how to outmaneuver the enemy in battle. Maybe God allowed this uproar so we can all see who the big enemies are in this war to recover the Church and just how terrible the enemy truly is.

HallnOates said...

Henry wrote: Inside SSPX; there has been a collapse in faith

----------------

Thinking people don't make such ludicrous statements such as this.

Maurice Pinay said...

HallnOates writes: "The quality of Bishop Fellay's activism against the Shoah dogma appears not to be to the liking of some ..."

***

Dear HallnOats, on what basis do you claim that Bp. Fellay is engaged in *activism* against Shoah Dogma? To my knowledge he's never even acknowledged it as a matter of religion.

Bp. Fellay has consistently identified this merely as a matter of history and law and has made a strong distinction between defending the faith and opposition to the Shoah idol. He says defending the faith and the Shoah have nothing to do with each other (17:15 in the interview video). Later in the interview, he says that it's "strange" that the Church would require belief in this "historical" matter of the Shoah, but he excuses himself from making a judgment as to whether this is good or bad (42:15 in the video).

I am sorry to say that as far as I can tell, far from being an activist against Shoah dogma, Bp. Fellay seems to be engaged in contriving a dispensation for those who ought to be speaking against it, i.e. "we don't concern ourselves with 'historical' matters; doing so brings harm on the society." The silencing of Bishop Williamson and the expulsion of Fr. Abrahamowicz seem to indicate that acceptance of Bp. Fellay's dispensation from defending the faith from the Shoah idol is compulsory.

To call the man an activist against Shoah dogma is an abuse of terms. I would love to be proven wrong--with evidence from Bp. Fellay's writings or statements, not rhetoric from his supporters.

HallnOates said...

MauricePinay wrote:The silencing of Bishop Williamson
-------------------------


So what Bishop Williamson did in front of the Swedish TV cameras was a wise and prudent thing to do?

Do you want the Church to be restored and the Shoah dogma to be done way with or are you all for adopting strategies for its perpetuation?

Maurice Pinay said...

HallnOates writes: "Our Lord said to be wise as serpents and simple as doves. If Bishop Williamson had heeded these words ... he doesn't know how to outmaneuver the enemy in battle.

***

Bp. Williamson was as simple as a dove. He stated his belief plainly, without guile. He also seems to exhibit more wisdom of the serpent than Bp. Fellay.

Traditionalists often interpret the first half of Matthew 10:16 so as to negate the second half. Our Lord wasn't advocating craftiness. How does one behave as a cunning simple dove?

The wisdom of the serpent is that when it is under attack it protects it's head. It will most certainly live if it's tail is cut off, but an injury to it's head can be fatal. Our head is our faith. We protect it above all and at all costs.

"But let us see what manner of wisdom He here requires. That of the serpent, He saith. For even as that animal gives up everything, and if its very body must be cut off, doth not very earnestly defend it, so that it may save its head; in like manner do thou also, saith He, give up every thing but the faith; though goods, body, life itself, must be yielded. For that is the head and the root; and if that be preserved, though thou lose all, thou wilt recover all with so much the more splendor. (St. John Chrysostom HOMILY XXXIII)

It seems to me that it is, rather, Bp. Fellay who could stand to pay heed to this teaching.

Maurice Pinay said...

HallnOates writes: "So what Bishop Williamson did in front of the Swedish TV cameras was a wise and prudent thing to do?

Do you want the Church to be restored and the Shoah dogma to be done way with or are you all for adopting strategies for its perpetuation?


***

Dear HallnOates, Bp. Williamson has spoken against the "Holocaust" idol. That's what the prophets did. When the errors of Vatican II came about, that's what Archbishop Lefebvre did, he spoke and wrote against them to alert others to a threat to the faith.

Your comments seem to suggest that you believe there is some other way of toppling the "Holocaust" idol other than speaking and writing against it and that Bp. Fellay is engaged in such a method. If this is so, please tell us what method it is you (or Bp. Fellay) advocate for overcoming Holocaustolatry and show evidence of how Bp. Fellay is thus engaged.

Henry said...

HallnOats

I've noted your comment(s) on my thinking, or rather lack of it - In response, I would say that having read your latest exercise in paradoxical reasoning: Your own thoughts on this issue seem to be something of a work in progress - Unfortunately, progress seems to be painfully slow.

Henry said...

Headline in today's Telegraph:

"Barack Obama condemns 'ignorant and hateful' Holocaust deniers"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5454554/Barack-Obama-condemns-ignorant-and-hateful-Holocaust-deniers.html


In a thinly veiled attack on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who on Tuesday branded the Holocaust a "big deception", he said the site was the "ultimate rebuke" to people who questioned the killing.

Mr Obama laid a single white rose at a grey slate memorial in the former camp in eastern Germany, where 56,000 people died at the hands of the Nazis.


He then toured former barracks, crematory ovens and guard towers with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a former camp inmate whose father died of starvation at Buchenwald.

"To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened, a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful," said Mr Obama, the first American President to visit Buchenwald.

"This place is the ultimate rebuke of those thoughts – a reminder of our duty to confront those who tell lies about our history. These sites have not lost their horror with the passage of time."

The president's visit was seen as a gesture of solidarity towards Israel and American Jews, a day after he sought to reach out to the Muslim world with his keynote speech in Cairo.

He said the close relationship between Germany and Israel demonstrated how former enemies could come together. His own pilgrimage was to "celebrate how out of that tragedy you now have a unified Europe, a Germany that is a very close ally of Israel, and the possibilities of reconciliation and forgiveness and hope," he said.

Mr Obama also listened to Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel's recollections of camp life. Mr Wiesel was liberated from Buchenwald's complex of camps in April 1945 by US troops who included Obama's great-uncle, Charlie Payne.

Mr Payne, 84, decided not to accompany the president to Buchenwald, but will join Obama's party at ceremonies for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, France on Saturday.

Dr Gary Smith, the executive director of the American Academy in Berlin, said Mr Obama's trip to Buchenwald would help balance the reaction in the Middle East.

"He is aware that his speech in Egypt may be making parts of the American Jewish community and the Israeli public nervous. This visit will comfort a very important constituency," he said.

The German stopover was intended in part to reaffirm America's relations with its European allies, after the ill will caused by the invasion of Iraq under George W Bush.

Analysts said it would also remind the American public of the country's record in fighting wars abroad.

Josef Braml, an expert on the US-German relationship at the German Council on Foreign Relations, said: "The Americans fought two great struggles here in Germany – one against Nazism and the other against Soviet Communism. His message is that they were good wars, and that today Afghanistan is also a worthwhile fight.

"The American public is asking why the US should spend so much money and risk so many lives in Afghanistan. Obama's message to the folks back home is that isolationism is not an option."

Earlier, Mr Obama held talks with Chancellor Merkel, in the former East German city of Dresden, which was all but destroyed by American and British bombers in February 1945 in an operation which remains controversial.

Once known as 'Florence of the Elbe', many of its historic monuments and museums have been restored, including the imposing Baroque Frauenkirche, or Church of Our Lady, which he visited....

HallnOats

Can you please inform us as to what Bishop Fellay has been doing today to counter this nonsense?

Prodinoscopus said...

Maurice, thank you for sharing St. John Chrysostom's gloss on Mt 10:16. I had never thought of it that way.

I was bothered by Bishop Fellay's remarks, yet I think that HallnOates makes a reasonable case for the prudence of H.E.'s approach. Clearly the most important thing is to defend the Faith. Bishop Fellay is a staunch defender of the Faith; to suggest otherwise is not reasonable. Does the defense of the Faith include a refutation of idols that undermine the Faith? Yes, absolutely. This blog does a great service in that regard. Should the Superior General of the SSPX be directly and publicly engaged in such a refutation at this particular point in time? That is a more complicated question. The Enemy wills the destruction of the Church, and he is intent especially upon destroying those who are the most loyal defenders of the Catholic Faith. Does the Enemy seek to destroy Pope Benedict XVI? Of course not! The Enemy loves Pope Benedict XVI! At the present time, the Enemy has his sights set upon the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, and for good reason. Make no mistake, the Enemy is already taking steps to literally and utterly DESTROY the SSPX, and H.E. Bishop Fellay knows it.

The question to this forum is, do we really want Bishop Fellay to do and say things at this present time that will facilitate the total destruction of the SSPX?

HallnOates said...

I think that Bps. Williamson, Fellay and the SSPX given the nature of their combat against the Conciliar Church have to really pick their spots of when to engage the enemy. They have to be more careful than others seeing they have a huge target on their back.

The fruits of Bishop Williamson's conduct so far don't look good to me at least. In the end obviously though God will certainly work it towards His advantage and the triumph of the Church, but the fruits don't look good: We have a bizarre note from the Secretary of State making the shoah idol some requisite for membership in the Church, that disgusting meeting with the Rabbis by the pope where there is that panoramic photo with Abe Foxman, most likely an acceleration of "Holocaust education" in nominally Catholic schools(http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2009/03/chief-rabbis-ask-pope-for-holocaust.html), a mass centre here or there being closed, etc.... It looks like it merely unnecessarilly provoked the enemy to take action disadvantageous to the Catholic cause. In the big picture we all the Church will be triumphant in the end though:

Apocalypse 3:9: Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.

Maurice Pinay said...

Prodinoscopus writes: "The Enemy wills the destruction of the Church, and he is intent especially upon destroying those who are the most loyal defenders of the Catholic Faith. Does the Enemy seek to destroy Pope Benedict XVI? Of course not! The Enemy loves Pope Benedict XVI! At the present time, the Enemy has his sights set upon the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, and for good reason. Make no mistake, the Enemy is already taking steps to literally and utterly DESTROY the SSPX, and H.E. Bishop Fellay knows it.

The question to this forum is, do we really want Bishop Fellay to do and say things at this present time that will facilitate the total destruction of the SSPX?"


***

Prodinoscopus, the above seems to be a suggestion that one should not defend the faith too strongly because attacks against the faith come in direct proportion to the strength of defenses of the faith. Taking this to it's logical end, the strongest defense of the faith is the cause of the strongest attack--one that brings total destruction.

For a number of reasons which should need no pointing out, this reasoning is anti-traditional in the extreme. We protect the faith by defending it; by speaking against the errors that threaten it. There is nothing about the error of Holocaustolatry or its advocates that requires a different method of defense than the one that the people of God have used since the chastisements and jeremiads of the prophets to the encyclicals of the 19th-20th century popes; to the writings and statements of Archbishop Lefebvre. A true traditionalist will do what they did and trust in God's providence as they did.

Maurice Pinay said...

HallnOats writes: "I think that Bps. Williamson, Fellay and the SSPX given the nature of their combat against the Conciliar Church have to really pick their spots of when to engage the enemy. They have to be more careful than others seeing they have a huge target on their back.

The fruits of Bishop Williamson's conduct so far don't look good to me at least."


***

This is an apologia pro timiditas.

The fruits of Bishop Williamson's statement are good. It's forced discussion and debate on this topic. Holocaustolatry is no longer working underground.

Since January a window has been opened that has allowed me to discuss this issue with Novus Ordo and traditional priests and be taken quite seriously. It's been an excellent eye-opening opportunity for people I have spoken to.

Even non-Christians understand that something is wrong when pronouncements are forced from outside the Church. Priests understand when I point out to them that it's not possible for me to accept that "The Holocaust" is a greater crime than the murder of God incarnate at Calvary. They understand when I tell them I believe that pronouncements by the pope and the cardinals to that effect diminish the central event of our faith.

In my estimation, Bp. Fellay and those who imitate his silence are squandering an invaluable opportunity to counter a grave threat to the faith, and in so doing to restore Calvary to it's proper place.

It doesn't require entering into debate of specifics of gas chambers and numbers of casualties. To simply say that as terrible as the persecutions that Judaic people underwent during WWII, whatever the true extent may be, it can never be accepted as a theological event by true Catholics. The supreme Holocaust is the crucifixion of God incarnate at Calvary which surpasses all human so-called holocausts by an infinite degree.

There is no hatred or 'antisemitism' in this. It's a simple affirmation of our faith which is terribly needed at this late hour. Calvary is our salvation and it's being supplanted by "The Holocaust" which can save no one.

Believe me when I say that due to unrelenting "Holocaust" preaching in media, academia, from politicians, bishops and even the popes, in the minds of many nominal Catholics, even traditionalists, "The Holocaust" does hold a higher place than Calvary. To the extent that this is allowed to happen, the faith is being destroyed. God have mercy on those who see it and say nothing.

Prodinoscopus said...

Maurice,

I think that you are right.

Bishop Fellay could have even said something like this: "Let us accept (for sake of argument) that the official narrative regarding the fate of the Jews during World War II is correct in all of its details. Let us even accept the official number of six million killed and the official accounts of the gas chambers. Assuming that all of that is true, we must never allow any historical atrocity such as this to eclipse the one true Holocaust that is the fundamental axis of history: the Crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary. The so-called 'Holocaust' of the Jews has become the object of what can rightly be called an idolatrous form of secular worship, the adoption of which has corrupted the faith of countless Catholics. This cannot be tolerated."

Bishop Fellay could have said something like the above without incurring the risk of civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution. Would it have caused some trouble for the SSPX? Certainly. The SSPX is no stranger to trouble. Maurice, I think that you are right. Bishop Fellay is missing a golden opportunity.

Maurice Pinay said...

HallnOates writes: "In the big picture we all the Church will be triumphant in the end though:

Apocalypse 3:9: Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.


***

I am not so confident that I, having knowledge of this grave threat to the faith and the capacity to speak against it, would be counted among those so blessed if I were to remain silent.

bernadette said...

Dear Mr. Pinay, you gave a very good and thorough answer to Prodinoscopus (10:55 a.m.), and I agree with his answer to you that you are right. And it is refreshing to see someone acknowledge agreement with such honesty, or perhaps I should say, dignity.

Maurice Pinay said...

Prodinoscopus writes: "Maurice, thank you for sharing St. John Chrysostom's gloss on Mt 10:16. I had never thought of it that way."

***

St Augustine also wrote:

"Wherefore, Beloved, I must explain to you, though I have often spoken already on this subject, what it is to be "simple as doves, and wise as serpents." Now if the simplicity of doves be enjoined us, what hath the wisdom of the serpent to do in the simplicity of the dove? This in the dove I love, that she has no gall; this I fear in the serpent, that he has poison. But now do not fear the serpent altogether; something he has for thee to hate, and something for thee to imitate. For when the serpent is weighed down with age, and he feels the burden of his many years, he contracts and forces himself into a hole, and lays aside his old coat of skin, that he may spring forth into new life. Imitate him in this, thou Christian, who dost hear Christ saying, "Enter ye in at the strait gate." And the Apostle Paul saith to thee, "Put ye off the old man with his deeds, and put ye on the new man." Thou hast then something to imitate in the serpent. Die not for the "old man," but for the truth. Whoso dies for any temporal good dies "for the old man." But when thou hast stripped thyself of all "that old man," thou hast imitated the wisdom of the serpent.

Imitate him in this again; "keep thy head safe." And what does this mean, keep thy head safe? Keep Christ with thee. Have not some of you, it may be, observed, on occasions when you have wished to kill an adder, how to save his head, he will expose his whole body to the strokes of his assailant? He would not that that part of him should be struck, where he knows that his life resides. And our Life is Christ, for He hath said Himself, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." Here the Apostle also; "The Head of the man is Christ." Whoso then keepeth Christ in him, keepeth his head for his protection.
(St Augustine, SERMON XIV)

Maurice Pinay said...

Church Father Jacob of Serugh wrote:

When a serpent is seized and struck, he guards his head,

But gives up and leaves exposed all his body to his captors:

And, so long as his head is kept from harm, his life abides in him;

But, if the head be struck, his life is left a prey to destruction.

The head of the soul is men's faith;

And, if this be preserved unharmed, by it is also preserved their life:

Even though the whole body be lacerated with blows,

Yet, so long as faith is preserved, the soul is alive;

But, if faith is struck down by unbelief,

Lost is the soul, and life has perished from the man.

James said...

Much ink has been spilled over the so called imprudence of Bp. Williamson's remarks on Swedish TV. Even the good bishop, under no small amount of duress, no doubt, beat out a mea culpa for same.

In offering an apology H.E. never distinguished between worldly imprudence and spiritual imprudence. Let us remind ourselves of the fact that an act of worldy imprudence may be an act of spiritual prudence and visa versa.

As for example, was it not just a tad over the top -- a real bit of worldly imprudence for Jesus Christ to tear through the Temple with a knotted chord? (Could you just imagine the world's even more hysterical reaction, if that were possible, had Bp. Williamson slapped a knotted chord against the chair in front of his interviewer, raised his voice powerfully and openly denounced in no uncertain terms the Shoah Theolgy!) Yet, this example of righteous anger has down through the ages afflicted the comfortable and comforted the afflicted has it not -- and all for the spiritual good of both. Hence, the act was of great spiritual prudence -- and significance. At the time it certainly upset the apple cart of lies and hypocrisy which the Talmudic power/control freak Pharisees wished to maintain. The reaction against it, of course, was demonically fierce.

This spiritual prudence as seen in the above Temple incident may be, and quite often is, very different from the worldly prudence that H.E. admitted blame for. Since Bp. Williamson, as far as I know, has not recanted one iota of what he said on Swedish TV, I assume he has not apologized for what I consider to have been his spiritual prudence in saying what he did.

Now if only Bp. Fellay would take back his very slanderous and totally uncalled for words and actions against his fellow SSPX bishop. It is these which truly stand out as an open and festering wound in the side of the SSPX, not the select few minutes of Bp. Williamson on Swedish TV or of his non variance in what he stated during that time.

James B. Phillips

Anonymous said...

The SSPX has lost me. For almost twenty years I attended one of their chapels. Furthermore, I find the recent letter (June) from the District Superior, as well as Bishop Fellay's last letter, to be manipulative. I lived through the sixties debacle and was manipulated the same way then. I fell for it once, you won't find me falling for it again.

bernadette said...

"The SSPX has lost me. For almost twenty years I attended one of their chapels. Furthermore, I find the recent letter (June) from the District Superior, as well as Bishop Fellay's last letter, to be manipulative. I lived through the sixties debacle and was manipulated the same way then. I fell for it once, you won't find me falling for it again."

To anonymous: I am interested to know in what way was the June letter from the District Superior is manipulative? I am not disagreeing, as I am bothered by it also, yet I cannot pinpoint why.
I find that it may be defensive of the position now in the SSPX, and almost apologetic (?).

Anonymous said...

The "official position" of the SSPX, you mean. I know there are SSPX priests who are disturbed by this because it is contrary to everything they learned from Archbishop Lefebvre, to speak out against errors which would trump Catholic theology, such as accepting "Holocaust theology", i. e., anyone questioning the extent of the Holocaust is an "anti-Semite." The real anti-Semites are those attacking Our Blessed Lord and Our Lady by blaming the Catholic Church for Auschwitz, Dachau, etc., among other things.

It is still very irksome that Bishop Fellay hasn't apologized about that disastrous interview in Der Spiegel, in which he dismissed Bishop Williamson's words as "nonsense" and also saying that the note from the Secretary of State should not have been sent if Bishop Williamson apologized properly. In the end, the Immaculate Heart will triumph, but I can't help wondering "At what cost?" Our Lord's words are very sobering, mentioning that near the end of the world, "The charity of many will grow cold."

Anonymous said...

Bernadette:

We useful idiots in the pews are being taken to task for having no confidence "in the Church and in the clergy." As if we have no good reason not to have confidence? Don't think for yourselves; blindly follow us! We know what's best. The emperor really does have clothes! Remember what Groucho Marx said? "Who are you going to trust? Your eyes or me?"

It has been my experience with them that they treat the laity like mindless children. "Pray, pay and obey!" I could understand if this was 1925, but it's not. The Church is in the state it's in because the wool was successfully pulled over our eyes due to the ignorance of most Catholics and it's the very attitude that the SSPX would like all their "faithful" to still have.

Those days are over...for now.

God bless you my sister in Christ.

bernadette said...

Thank you for your answer.

Prodinoscopus said...

I think that the District Superior is referring by implication to the crisis of confidence that is currently dividing the SSPX, a crisis of confidence that has been brought to a head by the apparent abandonment of Bishop Williamson by Bishop Fellay. Personally, I'm not persuaded by Bishop Fellay's explanation in the recent interview at STAS, and his unwillingness to address the grave doctrinal implications of Holocaustolatry is troubling.

bernadette said...

I'd like to add that I feel very bothered by the shame and anger that is heaped on anyone daring to question the SSPX hierarchy. Not only by the hierarchy itself, but noticeably by other traditionalist SSPX Catholics. As though one is a traitor to the faith for asking about or doubting what is currently happening. That simply cannot be right. I don't like having to come across as defiant, and it shouldn't be so. If everything is so right then why must they use a will-breaking tactic?
Thank you for your answers everyone.

HallnOates said...

So when mentioning the Protocols 9 years ago, was Bishop Williamson exercising the cardinal virtue of prudence? I'm not saying that to diss or attack Bishop Williamson as I've always defended him when he is attacked especially when his past comments are exploited by the enemies of Christ to attack him, the SSPX, and the Church; but that doesn't mean he can't make mistakes despite his great talent and courage to stand with the truth. And the thing is Bishop Williamson is a man who just about never makes any mistakes and gets it right every time. Those who accuse others of some sort of blind devotion to a man or group should maybe take a look at what sort of blind devotion they themselves possess. If I had to guess, Bishop Williamson wishes he isn't in the position he is in now; however, I bet he has confidence in Bishop Fellay, which is more than I can say of some others. Would Bishop Williamson who has already handled heads-exploding-spazmatrons(the Nine in 1983) imitate those wretches vis a vis certain decisions and actions made by Bishop Fellay during the recent months?

N.B. This isn't really directed towards any individual but towards a sort of rash despair that people express towards the SSPX that is not at all warranted. I'd hate to see how you guys react when something worse happens.

Anonymous said...

Thou shall not create hoxes.
Why ?
Because :

God does not like b.s.
If it is b.s. , then , God wants you to call it b.s.

You can be wearing a thousand crucifixes and kneeling piously
before the highest altar in Rome with a bible in each hand and balancing one on your head , then ,
still , if you do not call b.s. for what it is ,then , God does not like it.
Even the slightest accomadation of b.s. > God no likey .

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear HallnOates, just as your comments vis a vis Bp. Fellay being engaged in "activism against the Shoah dogma" don't correspond with observable facts, neither do your criticisms of the discussion here. There are no Bp. Williamson cultists here. Neither do the comments on Bp. Fellay's handling (or mishandling) of recent events qualify as rash despair. These events are just cause for concern and people can feel free to express their concerns here.

I wonder if you might consider lobbying Bp. Fellay to actually defend the Gospel from Shoah dogma with at least the same energy as you expend lobbying here to shield Bp. Fellay from concerns his actions have raised.

HallnOates said...

MauricePinay eloquently and quite correctly stated earlier:To simply say that as terrible as the persecutions that Judaic people underwent during WWII, whatever the true extent may be, it can never be accepted as a theological event by true Catholics. The supreme Holocaust is the crucifixion of God incarnate at Calvary which surpasses all human so-called holocausts by an infinite degree.

The first sentence of this well stated comment can most definetely be implied and more so at the 41:40 minute mark of the interview where Bishop Fellay states that this is a "new requirement of the Shoah which is also new". He further relegates this "new reqirement" to a historical event thereby not being theological and he states that such a thing is not part of the faith("the requirement to be part of the Church is the faith" 42:19 minute mark). He also states this is "strange".(42:08)

I think the second sentence of your above well stated comment is something that I think people who are critical of Bishop Fellay are looking more for from Bishop Fellay. It is more offensive at least.(offensive in terms of going on offense in a sport or game not offensive in terms of offending/hurting feelings.) Despite not expressing himself with more offensive words, Bishop Fellay hasn't given up his stance of defending the Faith as the above cited comments from the interview show.

I think what is getting confused as "abandoning" Bishop Williamson is being confused for a tactic that can best be described in the following response:


MauricePinay:I wonder if you might consider lobbying Bp. Fellay to actually defend the Gospel from Shoah dogma with at least the same energy as you expend lobbying here to shield Bp. Fellay from concerns his actions have raised.

If Bishop Fellay does take a stand that is merely perceived as more directly activist against the Shoah dogma as a result of my lobbying, should I further advise him that the movement to obliterate this disgusting contradiction to Calvary will grow stronger in numbers and grace(as well as not be sidetracked with distractions and sideshows) if he uses the Protocols to back up his activism as well as throw in some ideas of what happend on 9-11(is this even related to the Shoah dogma?), oh and also talk about HAARP(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8IRrHHqliE&feature=PlayList&p=F86D6E29FB6A3674&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4)(Start listening at 2:20 minute mark)?

Nah. No big deal. It's not like we're in a war against supernatural evil that will stop at nothing and use any little thing as a weapon against Christ and his Church. Nothing to be concerned about at all in something so result-driven as victory against the enemies of Christ with the death of the Shoah dogma being assured with such a victory.

There is no abandoning going on. Bishop Fellay ain't throwing Calvary or Bishop Williamson under the bus. It's good to keep everyone honest and keep your eyes open especially as we're dealing with human beings who being human and weak can fall(Bishop Fellay is a human being), but let's not rashly state that Bishop Fellay is somehow losing his grip on the situation.

Anonymous said...

Bernadette, I have noticed the same thing. If it's one thing I have grown to dislike intensely it is cheerleaders for the "cause" - it matters not whether they are JPII the Greaters, SSPXers, whatever - head in the sanders one and all.

The only thing any of us should be concerned about is TRUTH. Unfortunately, most people don't want to be disturbed with facts.

By the way, Bernadette, it's called "intimidation." You have a "sensus catholic." Use it! And don't let anyone bully you.

May Our Lord have mercy on us all!

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear HallnOates, Bp. Williamson was not silenced because of his opinions on HAARP, 9-11, The Protocols, or any other such thing. Bp. Williamson was silenced because he dishonored the "Holocaust" idol. Let's not raise red herrings.

This is what Bp. Fellay said:

"You have the new requirement too which is linked to this story of the Shoah which is also new, you don't see that at any time in the Church that the Church would request, for the exercise of ministry in the Church, to accept a historical fact. It's very strange, it sounds very strange. I don't even say here it's good or bad. Look at that. The requirement of the Church 'till now was always the requirement of the faith. It required that you have the Catholic faith. Period. END QUOTE (41:50-42:39 in the video)

***

Our Lord said,"Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no." Bp. Fellay has given us ambiguous language in the face of a clear, grave threat. If his words are taken at face value, Bp. Fellay would seem to not know what's really going on. If it's the case that the leader of the SSPX doesn't recognize a grave threat to the faith, that is cause for concern. If on the other hand, Bp. Fellay does recognize what's happening but only tells his flock that these "Shoah" developments are neither good nor bad, merely "strange," that is also cause for concern.

It has been crystal clear ever since Jules Isaac (who was heartily welcomed by the Vatican) published his thesis that the Church's "teachings of contempt" "paved the road to Auschwitz" in 1948, that "The Holocaust" idol would be used to smash the Gospel, the Church Fathers, the liturgy, and our perennial Church teachings. Can Bp. Fellay not be aware of this? Or is he aware of it but will only say this is neither good or bad, only "strange"?

When you have Vatican demands for obedience to the idol; when Cardinals loudly proclaim that one cannot be Catholic who denies the idol; when the liturgy and Church teaching have been rewritten to accommodate the idol; when a bishop can be silenced for speaking irreverently of the idol, these are signs that we're reaching the terminal phase of a vicious attack on the faith that began more than 60 years ago, even before Vatican II. If not now, when will Bp. Fellay (or anyone, for that matter) give a defense proportionate to the attack? The hour is very late.

HallnOates said...

Well I think the "good or bad" comment is being made in relation to whether the idol is a requirement for being a member of the Church as the note from the Secretary of State said. Obviously if something is "bad", which the idol certainly is, then obviously it should not be a requirement just as anything that is bad and repugnant to Christ should be. When it comes to the "good" part, I think what can be said is that even if accepting the idol(or rather the "official" version of what occurred to Judaics during WWII at the hands of Nazis) was a good thing(which it certainly isn't) but even if was, it still is no requirement to be a member of the Church. So I think really the point to be made is that even if the idol could possibly be looked at in the most positive light, it still has no basis in being a member of the Church or Divine Revelation. The Shoah dogma has no place in the Church.

While I am confident that Bishop Fellay won't sell out to the idol and find that a baseless fear, I do understand that something along the lines of "well it's just a historical event but I certainly don't appreciate it when these Judaic groups use this historical event as a weapon to attack and slander the Church and undermine Christ and his mission." I think that is a good offensive statement and gets to the heart of the matter and addresses your well stated comment:

that "The Holocaust" idol would be used to smash the Gospel, the Church Fathers, the liturgy, and our perennial Church teachings.

But the thing is that Bishop Williamson has not even said something as good as that! Bishop Fellay has had to react to statements that didn't properly attack the idol(even if what Bp. Williamson said was historically right)-in other words be on the defensive. So yeah I think what could be a problem is that we spend too much time being defensive against these enemies of Christ or making missteps that possibly arm the enemy. We should be offensive and attack where we see it and yes-that they use the idol to slander the Church and undermine Christ is actually a weakness the enemy has that can be turned on them and really do them damage-which is a good thing.

bernadette said...

Anonymous, I will use my "sensus Catholicus". It is TRUTH, TRUTH, TRUTH, that matters.
Had I been Bishop Fellay, I would of stood by Bishop Williamson...and if it meant loss, persecution, martyrdom, diminishment of numbers, a direct hatred from the secular world...so be it...instead what I saw (and maybe only I....) was a determined and unbending direction of a plan, even after the twists and turns of events signaled warning.

Anonymous said...

While I am confident that Bishop Fellay won't sell out to the idol and find that a baseless fear, I do understand that something along the lines of "well it's just a historical event but I certainly don't appreciate it when these Judaic groups use this historical event as a weapon to attack and slander the Church and undermine Christ and his mission." I think that is a good offensive statement and gets to the heart of the matter and addresses your well stated comment:

that "The Holocaust" idol would be used to smash the Gospel, the Church Fathers, the liturgy, and our perennial Church teachings.

But the thing is that Bishop Williamson has not even said something as good as that! Bishop Fellay has had to react to statements that didn't properly attack the idol(even if what Bp. Williamson said was historically right)-in other words be on the defensive.


No, Bp. Williamson didn't state anything like that (even Maurice Pinay admitted that), but nonetheless, he made an opening for other people to question the significance of the "Holocaust" theologically. As Maurice Pinay himself stated, he can now talk to other clergy about this and be taken seriously, unlike inside the SSPX right now IMHO (except privately). And still even now, Bp. Fellay could have had the chance to state that elevating the Holocaust to a dogma is quite wrong when it dethrones the Crucifixion. But he didn't do so! And he still has to answer for that nonsense remark in that interview with Der Spiegel (unless Der Spiegel quoted him incorrectly)!!

Anonymous said...

Bernadette: I would have stood by him too, no matter the consequences. I am one of the few women I know that always agreed with him (or, at least, if I didn't totally agree, understood what he was saying and why he said it).

Anonymous said...

As a sidebar to this extremely
important debate: whenever Israel
elects a prime minister their first official duty is to visit
the Pope. Since Golda Meir it has
been well documented that Israel
has asked that papal documents
covering the period 1939-1945 remain under embargo. These papers
include reports by Catholic priests, who were permitted by the Germans to minister within the camps. They were delivered to Rome by the Red Cross. D. Edmund Brady

The Dead Bishop said...

While the "Jewish " question is foremost in the important concepts of modern Catholicism, I find myself asking the question what is a " Jew " ?

The Dead Bishop said...

Dear Maurice Pinay:
You and Mr. Michael Hoffman have contributed a great amount of truth in the acts of exposing the Antichrist and his deceitful, vile, and erroneous lies. Thank you for your stalwart and firm stand in the truth and Catholicism ..may our Lady of Fatima bless you and keep you safe under Her protective mantle...in the Love of our Lord. Peace to you

The Dead Bishop said...

I must say, I am in total agreement with your vision of the dangers which the "holocaust" portray , not only to the Catholic world, but the non Catholic world as well. It is dangerous doctrine if not true, and may be the fall of the Catholic Church, or it's morphing into a church alien to Christ our Lord, making it the church of Antichrist!