Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 24, 2013, 07:01:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28
 
Author Topic: Pope Benedict gets it wrong on Bishop Williamson in new book  (Read 13021 times)
Binx
Member

Posts: 17


« Reply #250 on: December 01, 2010, 01:59:PM »


Seriously, what is Bp. Williamson thinking even voicing an opinion about the Holocaust anyway?  I don't see how voicing an opinion on a historical event that he knew would be highly controversial could possibly be helpful to SSPX or to the Church as a whole at all.

As Bishop Sheen pointed out in another scenario, It is the disproportionate reaction that says that this is an important issue for the Church.  Bishop Williamson is,  I suspect, attacking a root of the weed that is strangling the Church.   Oftentimes, the Devil doesn't want the attack in a certain place, so there is plenty of obvious targets meant to distract from the fundamental sources of the problem. 

Bishop Williamson would not be under the same pressure if he denied the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Dresden, or even Pearl Harbor,  the reaction would be completely different and he certainly would not be on trial. 

Hmm... I'm not sure I can buy into that.  I agree that modern Jews have a tendency to use the Holocaust as a firebrand to throw in the face of anyone that disagrees with their agenda, but I don't think that attempting historical revisionism on the Holocaust itself is the answer.  Holocaust denial was started by Hermann Goring and other high-ranking Nazis at Nuremburg in an effort to rehabilitate Hitler and ensure some survival of Nazism in Germany after the war.  I've always been something of a history buff, and I have watched many documentaries and read many studies dealing with WWII and the Holocaust, including many primary sources.  Many mid- and low-level SS officers were quite frank in their writings and testimonies after the war dealing with what went on at the death camps.  Furthermore, the Nazis kept meticulous deportation records of the number of Jews and others that were "evacuated" to the east, never to return.  When all the evidence is examined and weighed, in my mind there is little to no doubt that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust (1.5 million by death squads in Russia and another 4.5 million in the camps), and that Hitler and Himmler were conspiring to completely eliminate the Jewish race from the face of the earth.  If Rommel had won the Battle of El Amin, the Nazis would have invaded Palestine and started "evacuating" the Jews there as well.  Furthermore, once the Jews were gone, Hitler planned to turn his sights on other "undesirable" groups such as Slavs and Poles so that all of Eastern Europe could be populated by the Aryan super-race.

Regardless of the historical facts, though, the truth is that anyone who attempts to deny the Holocaust today is viewed by most as something of a kook at best and a neo-Nazi at worst.  Since the Holocast has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic dogma, I don't see how it benefits Bp. Williamson, SSPX, or the Catholic Church for a Catholic bishop to make public statements concerning it.  It would appear that Bp., Fellay agrees with this assessment since he has since forbidden Bp. Williamson from speaking or writing publicly on the matter.

This is indeed a good part of the whole picture, something some people are apparently too far out of the mainstream* or have such a lacking of the basics of politics and human interaction that they don't understand it.

As I said earlier, the people who *meaningfully* deny the Holocaust - not just a dispute of numbers on a relatively minor scale, but belief the event has been grossly inflated - are out of touch with reality in a serious way. Unlike, say, the Inquisition, the Holocaust is a recent event: recent enough that a large number of people who were witness to it are still alive (when denial first came out of the woodwork there were many thousands of witnesses alive indeed).  The fact that it is on the scale of millions of deaths is apparent to anyone who has studied the issue honestly at all.

You mean like Fritjof Meyer (Editor-in-Chief of Der Spiegel)? Would he be seriously out of touch? If so, how come German authorities didn't prosecute him for arriving at (and publishing in Osteuropa) numbers not all that far from Bp. Williamson's? http://www.vho.org/GB/c/Meyer.html
Logged
Nathan Socci
Member

Posts: 78


« Reply #251 on: December 01, 2010, 11:19:PM »

You cannot make a man recant on something he truly believes. Nobody dies for an opinion. If Williamson has been foolish then the Pope has been equally foolish in his reaction. "Holocaust denial" is not a crime everywhere, but it's an ill wind that blows no good. I pray that in future the HF will see better sense and stay silent on this issue. Williamson I hope will be able to prove that he was tricked and misled into saying such things publicly in Germany.
Logged
devotedknuckles
the causes go, true rebels remain
Member

Personality type: incorrigible buffalo
Posts: 20,680



« Reply #252 on: December 01, 2010, 11:30:PM »

Amen
Logged

This is the journey
from which, for me there shall be no return
wholly drenched
is the pine tree of  tears
-Yoshida Shoin
Bakuryokuso
Eh
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 5,935


The gentleman in question


« Reply #253 on: December 02, 2010, 08:31:AM »

Catholic Thinker - good points, all.

Gerard - you still aren't comprehending the point.  The point is that everyone who has eyes, ears, and a brain knows that the Holocaust is a touchy subject.  Bishop Williamson is not an unintelligent man, so we can assume he knows this as well.  Since it is a subject that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the Catholic faith, it doesn't make any sense for a Catholic bishop to discuss controversial (and flatly incorrect) views on the topic.  It doesn't matter whether he has the moral or legal "right" to do so.  That isn't the point.  The point is whether it is wise for him to do so.  Does it help SSPX?  No.  Does it help the Church?  No.  Does it contribute to the salvation of souls in any way?  No.  All he has done by discussing the matter publicly is make himself look like a moonbat who denies obvious historical facts (and by proxy he has tainted SSPX with this image as well).  He has made the Pope look clueless for lifting the excommunications when he did.  He has given liberals in the church ammunition to use against SSPX and has probably set back the cause of tradition considerably.  He has caused all this damage just so he can speculate about a historical event that has no impact on the Church whatsoever.  That is the point I have been trying to make.  This is not an attack against Bishop Williamson.  If we believe that we can and should call out the Pope when he says stupid things in public, shouldn't we hold SSPX bishops to the same standard?

There was an excellent (French) documentary on the SSPX several months back and an SSPX priest makes essentially the same arguments you're making about +W... that political history isn't in his sphere of competency (he's a bishop, not a historian), so he shouldn't've delved into those matters publicly, because it does more harm than good... but he probably shouldn't be publicly lynched either...

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/08/to-right-of-vatican.html
Logged

"I suppose the greatest reform of our time was that carried out by St Pius X: surpassing anything, however needed, that the Council will achieve." -- JRR Tolkien, letter to his son Michael, 1 November 1963
devotedknuckles
the causes go, true rebels remain
Member

Personality type: incorrigible buffalo
Posts: 20,680



« Reply #254 on: December 02, 2010, 09:08:AM »

Is it I. Your area of competency? U seem to be blathering on about it where is your creds? sure u will claim ur no bishop (thank God) but who says  bishop can't hav an opinion and en voice it when asked? Further do u know how Bishop williamson was trapped here who asked the question? Do u know prior to the I terview it was agreed questions regarding the holohoax wouldn't be asked yet were?
Let me get this  straight bishops shouldn't speak about politics  or history? How so very Masonic and secular of you
this is not bishop williamson going on and on and on and on about it actually he went put of his way to try to not speak about it
why the need to gag him? What's it matter to you? Maybe your rght
bishops and priests should o my speak about religion odd cuz that's exactly what the secular and unrepentant sodomite agenda argues
mmmmm

Logged

This is the journey
from which, for me there shall be no return
wholly drenched
is the pine tree of  tears
-Yoshida Shoin


Scipio_a
No, you're not a trad...you're a BITTER zealot.
Member

Gender: Male
Location: TX
Personality type: balanced
Posts: 9,502



« Reply #255 on: December 02, 2010, 11:58:AM »

It's the Pope that causes harm to the mission when he prances through Auschwitz  in melodramatic fashion and scandalizes the Church with his kowtowing.  He wastes a bunch of time and releases a blasphemous prayer.   It seems the Pope is mad at both God and Bishop Williamson for not buying into his conception of Auschwitz. 

It's Bishop Fellay that causes harm to the mission when he suddenly makes a political football out of one particular episode in history.   Are all priests of the SSPX forbidden to speak on controversial topics or any topic at all that is supposedly not directly related to "the salvation of souls?"   Years ago and SSPX priest when explaining the purpose of a procession said, "It's Masonry that wants to keep the priests an the faithful practicing their faith only in the Church.  They don't want us involved in the society at large. "  Ironically that's what Bishop Fellay is doing.




The Pope and the harm he causes...yes (except he really has nothing to do with the SSPX in the way +W and +F do so not really part of it if you know what I mean)...but +F has never harmed the mission...glgerard...planing the day when +W starts up the SSPW.


Sorry gl...+W is a better man than you give him credit for.


« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 12:33:PM by Scipio_a » Logged

"Scipio Bull Biscuits, a flawlessly indoctrinated feminist male." - paraphrased from voxpop in one of his shining moments!!

"You've become a full adept to your kabbalistic philosemetism ...why not get it over with and fully convert to Judaism. At lest that would be respectable." - Popscile



"[Scipio's] high on mouth and low on brains"  - a brainiac

"...all I can guess is that maybe you're gay and haven't figured it out yet."   Huh?....LOL

"a malicious twerp" - A candylander

"I ain't no freakin' monument to justice!" -Moonstruck

"Check out the big brain on Brad" - Jules
Bakuryokuso
Eh
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 5,935


The gentleman in question


« Reply #256 on: December 02, 2010, 12:49:PM »

Is it I. Your area of competency? U seem to be blathering on about it where is your creds? sure u will claim ur no bishop (thank God) but who says  bishop can't hav an opinion and en voice it when asked? Further do u know how Bishop williamson was trapped here who asked the question? Do u know prior to the I terview it was agreed questions regarding the holohoax wouldn't be asked yet were?
Let me get this  straight bishops shouldn't speak about politics  or history? How so very Masonic and secular of you
this is not bishop williamson going on and on and on and on about it actually he went put of his way to try to not speak about it
why the need to gag him? What's it matter to you? Maybe your rght
bishops and priests should o my speak about religion odd cuz that's exactly what the secular and unrepentant sodomite agenda argues
mmmmm



DK - not sure if you're referring to me, you use "you" without saying whom you're referring to.

I'm quoting an SSPX priest in a documentary about the SSPX who was discussing +W and his Holocaust comments, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up Masons and sodomites.
Logged

"I suppose the greatest reform of our time was that carried out by St Pius X: surpassing anything, however needed, that the Council will achieve." -- JRR Tolkien, letter to his son Michael, 1 November 1963
A Catholic Thinker
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 1,094



WWW
« Reply #257 on: December 02, 2010, 05:08:PM »

You mean like Fritjof Meyer (Editor-in-Chief of Der Spiegel)? Would he be seriously out of touch? If so, how come German authorities didn't prosecute him for arriving at (and publishing in Osteuropa) numbers not all that far from Bp. Williamson's? http://www.vho.org/GB/c/Meyer.html

What on earth are you talking about???  I just read this entire article.  It makes the claim that about half a million died at Auschwitz.  Williamson, on the other hand, has been quoted as stating that "a few THOUSAND" Jews died in the ENTIRE HOLOCAUST.

And then he hired a neo-Nazi lawyer.

Are you completely confused, or do I have the facts wrong?
Logged

Gerard
Banned for disrespecting the Holy Father, snarkiness, and rad-traddy negativism
Member

Posts: 4,699



« Reply #258 on: December 02, 2010, 06:31:PM »


I think the second paragraph above illustrates your obvious misunderstanding of at least part of the situation.  If Bishop Williamson, or anybody else, said that the Pearl Harbor attack never occurred (or, say, claimed that only one battleship was sunk), he would look like a nu
Logged
Gerard
Banned for disrespecting the Holy Father, snarkiness, and rad-traddy negativism
Member

Posts: 4,699



« Reply #259 on: December 02, 2010, 06:47:PM »


This is indeed a good part of the whole picture, something some people are apparently too far out of the mainstream* or have such a lacking of the basics of politics and human interaction that they don't understand it. 

The "mainstream" is then the arbiter of truth and falsehood?  I know you don't mean that, but that is what you are saying. 

Quote
As I said earlier, the people who *meaningfully* deny the Holocaust - not just a dispute of numbers on a relatively minor scale, but belief the event has been grossly inflated - are out of touch with reality in a serious way.

That's nothing more than polite "trash talk"  It is used for no purpose other than to avoid debate.  Al Gore uses it on Global Warming, Dawkins uses it on Evolution, Lutherans especially use it when the topic is the Inquisition. 

Quote
 Unlike, say, the Inquisition, the Holocaust is a recent event: recent enough that a large number of people who were witness to it are still alive (when denial first came out of the woodwork there were many thousands of witnesses alive indeed).  

Yeah. Strangely some of them were "witnesses" themselves that said, "It didn't happen that way."   For that matter we have multiple conflicting witnesses to 9/11 and the Kennedy Assassination.  Maybe laws should be passed to inhibit questioning of those events. 

Quote
  The fact that it is on the scale of millions of deaths is apparent to anyone who has studied the issue honestly at all.

That's just a prejudice on your part.  You've set arbitrary boundaries on what you're comfortable with, not with what the evidence shows. 

Quote
Like you, I am, or more properly way, a World War II buff.  (Frankly, learning the facts behind the scenes regarding the financing and other things kind of soured me on the idea that there were really any "good guys" at all and made me largely lose interest.)  The fact that there were many death camps that were, in the later years of the war at least, processing hundreds or thousands per day is beyond dispute.  I could go on very easily.

You could very easily be refuted, but you seem determined to get yourself banned for discussing numbers.  If you think that's unfair, then you will concede my point in the larger context. 

Quote
As already acknowledged, Germany's collective guilt as well as the real danger of neo-Nazi whack jobs are clearly enough to explain the stifling of debate the issue.

Or like in the global warming scam, there's money to be had. in the "green industry" and "holocaust industry." 

Quote
 But it is indeed deeper than that: we don't have debates on *anything* that is simply well-established.

Because something is entrenched it must be true in other words. 

Quote
 We don't debate whether or not the civil war occurred, or whether, perhaps, it was actually simply a minor skirmish with a few hundreds deaths.

But we do debate the causes and motivations for the Civil War and people are free to speculate about whether or not Lincoln was just or the South should have been allowed to secede. 

Quote
 To openly a debate a question that really is a plain fact of history is to behave like morons.  

To call something a plain fact of history when it's clearly debatable is the behavior of morons.

Quote
Or like people with a clear agenda that would prefer that the Holocaust had *not* occurred (or, even better, that it had but that we can pretend it didn't).

As opposed to those making money off the consensus that it did happen, or those who gain political power or power over the Church based on the most outlandish stories and exaggerations they can get away with.  And if legislation is passed, they have the good that laid the golden egg.  (That's a fairy tale by the way.)

Quote
* Of course there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with being out of the mainstream.  

No. You're argument is there is something that is intrinsically wrong with being out of the mainstream.  You can't contradicts yourself on this. 

Quote
The Church has been out of the mainstream since the beginning and always will be.  But, actually, there are a few things that even non-Catholics can understand easily. 

Notice how the Church falters and stumbles when the Churchmen try to be mainstream.  Even non-Catholics see that.  Unfortunately they don't understand why. 



Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC