The Traditional Catholicism that ain't

Along with us, our colleague who blogs under the nom de plume, “Maurice Pinay” has offered ample documentation of the anti-Catholic weirdness, perversity and occultism that travels under the moniker, “traditional Catholicism.” Or, as our north Idaho cowboy pal Caleb would say, “Traditional Catholicism ain’t.”

While one of those who Maurice targets as being among the ain’t Catholics is Bp. Richard N. Williamson, nonetheless we do not shy away from employing the following research from Williamson to demonstrate how “sedevacantist Catholicism” ain’t Catholic.

Sedevacantism, for those who don’t know the term, is a “traditional Catholic” faction that declares on its own non-existent authority, that certain “heretical” popes are not popes, and therefore are not owed the obedience due the pontiff.  Sedevacantist priests and alleged bishops depose these popes by stating, “They are formal heretics, therefore they are not popes.” Luther said something like that, so here we have the bipolar manifestation of Lutheran-“traditional Catholicism.” It just gets crazier and goofier as these folks descend further down the ladder of their home-made religion which is situated somewhere between Catholicism, Protestantism and the Twilight Zone.

We don't accept that parish priests or questionably-consecrated “traditional Catholic bishops" have any power or authority whatsoever to declare —  other than to their own conscience —  that a pope is not a pope and can be disobeyed. The very notion smacks more of a proclamation by a backwoods assembly of the Four Square church, than by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The actual Catholic Church has a theology that teaches that no one can depose a pope  —  that the pope has no peer on earth. According to Catholic theology he is sovereign. Williamson describes the complex Catholic process for removing a heretical pope. Patently, until the process Williamson outlines takes place, the pope elected by the College of Cardinals, whether Paul VI or Francis the one and only, is the pope of the Church of Rome until a Church Council removes him. Bishop Williamson makes the following report, after which we will add one further point.

Church Councils can heretical Popes untie,
For Christ to depose, lest the whole Church die.

The Dominican priests of Avrillé, France, have done us all a great favour by republishing the considerations on the vacant See of Rome written some 400 years ago by a famous thomist theologian from Spain, John of St Thomas (1589–1644). Being a faithful successor of St Thomas

Aquinas, he benefits from that higher wisdom of the Middle Ages when theologians could still measure men by God instead of having to measure God by men, a tendency which began as a necessity (if souls could no longer take medieval penicillin, they had to take a lesser medicine), but which culminated in Vatican II. Here, much abbreviated, are the main ideas of John of St Thomas on the deposition of a Pope:—

I Can a Pope be deposed?

Answer, yes, because Catholics are obliged to separate themselves from heretics, after the heretics have been warned (Titus III, 10). Also, a heretical Pope puts the whole Church in a state of legitimate self-defence. But the Pope must be warned first, as officially as possible, in case he would retract. Also his heresy must be public, and declared as officially as possible, to prevent wholesale confusion among Catholics, by their being bound to follow.

II By whom must he be officially declared a heretic?

Answer, not by the Cardinals because although they may elect a Pope, they cannot depose one, because it is the Universal Church that is threatened by a heretical Pope, and so the most universal possible authority of the Church can alone depose him, namely a Church Council composed of a quorum of all the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops. These would be convoked not authoritatively (which the Pope alone can do) but among themselves.

III By what authority would a Church Council depose the Pope?

(Here is the main difficulty because Christ gives to the Pope supreme power over the entire Church, with no exception, as Vatican I defined in 1870. Already John of St Thomas gave arguments of authority, reason and Canon Law to prove this supreme power of the Pope. Then how can a Council, being beneath the Pope, yet depose him? John of St Thomas adopts the solution laid out by another famous Dominican theologian, Thomas Cajetan (1469–1534). The Church’s deposition of the Pope would fall not upon the Pope as Pope, but upon the bond between the man and his Papacy. That may seem hair-splitting, but it is logical.)

On the one hand not even a Church Council has authority over the Pope. On the other hand the Church is obliged to avoid heretics and to protect the sheep. Therefore, just as in a Conclave the Cardinals are the ministers of Christ to bind this man to the Papacy, but Christ alone gives him his papal authority, so the Church Council would be the ministers of Christ to unbind this heretic from the Papacy by their solemn declaration, but Christ alone, by his divine authority over the Pope, would authoritatively depose him. In other words, the Church Council would be deposing the Pope not authoritatively from above, but only ministerially from below. John of St Thomas confirms this conclusion from the Church’s Canon Law, which states in several places that God alone can depose the Pope, but the Church can pass judgment on his heresy.

Alas, as the Dominicans of Avrillé point out, nearly all Cardinals and Bishops of the Church today are so largely infected with modernism that there is no human hope of a Church Council seeing clear to condemn the modernism of the Conciliar Popes. We can only pray and wait for the divine solution, which will come in God’s good time. To follow, is a Pope not automatically deposed by his mere heresy?

Kyrie eleison. Source: http://stmarcelinitiative.com/eleison-comments/?lang=en

Additional point by Michael Hoffman: In reading St. Thomas More’s letter  to England’s Lord Chancellor Thomas Cromwell, which More penned in Chelsea on March 5, 1534, we encountered this sentence: “…in the next general council it may well happen that this Pope may be deposed and another substituted in his room with whom the King’s Highness may be very well content.” (Alvaro De Silva [ed.] The Last Letters of Thomas More [Eerdman’s Publishing, 2000], p. 54).

***

The Stone in the Synagogue's Shoe

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org
(French translation follows below)

 Bishop Williamson

Below we reprint a report detailing the pleasure the World Jewish Congress has derived from news of the dismissal of Bishop Richard Williamson from the SSPX priest's fraternity.

Pope Benedict XVI does not dare to intervene in Talmudic affairs, such as, for example, to publicly chastize Shas "spiritual leader" Rabbi Ovadia Yosef for calling for the extermination of the Palestinians. The Vatican has surrendered to Orthodox Judaism and only maintains sufficient disagreement to bolster the facade that it represents the Church of Jesus Christ on earth.

Meanwhile, the Zionists have no compunction against shaping and influencing the Catholic Church through their power over the western media, and the chutzpah which fuels their conviction that they have the right to sanctimoniously lecture the gentiles.

As the following declaration makes clear, Bishop Fellay has done the will of the Talmudists in expelling Bishop Williamson.

True, Mr. Ronald Lauder, the billionaire scion of the Estee Lauder cosmetics firm, and Ronald Reagan's former US Ambassador to Austria, is not yet satisfied. It seems that the SSPX has not done enough. This is consonant with the rabbinic ideology concerning the goyim -- the incomplete nature of the soul of the gentile renders the actions of the gentile incomplete even when, with the best of intentions, they bow to the synagogue in abject submission.

The goyim, the pope and Bishop Fellay included, lack that special soul with which morally and racially superior Judaic persons are endowed. If you don't believe it, observe the fate of the thousands of sub-Saharan African immigrants in the Israeli state who are bound for indefinite detention in concentration camps in the Negev, precisely due to their alleged inferiority to the Holy People. No western nation on earth could get away with such draconian barbarity without earning international opprobrium and sanctions, yet the concentration camps for Blacks in "Israel" is not an issue in America, for Obama or Romney, or the media. This is in keeping with the Talmudic dictum: one law for the "Holy People" and another for everyone else.

Bishop Fellay may speak of Bishop Williamson's "disobedience" to Fellay, but philosophically that claim is bankrupt, since Fellay himself continues to defy the pope by refusing to submit to the jurisdiction of the local ordinaries in the dioceses where SSPX churches, schools and seminaries are located. Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, taught that the salvation of souls, and not obedience to wayward authority, was the highest priority. Salvation of souls is Bishop Williamson's mandate. How then can Fellay, who is disobedient to the pope,  accuse Williamson of disobedience? The obedience issue is a smokescren which conceals a larger truth. This truth is most transparent in the German precincts of the SSPX.

Bishop Fellay is mirroring the idolatry and despotism of the German SSPX, which labors under Germany's  Muslim-like blasphemy laws, which protect the sacred relics of Holocaustianity from forensic examination, skepticism and ridicule. The means of this protection are Germany's dungeons, where heretics such as publisher Ernst Zundel, and erstwhile Max Planck chemist Germar Rudolf, have rotted for years. Consequently, the SSPX conforms to the demands of the false religion of Holocaustianity, and does not contest the holocaustolatry of its relics, id est, the “gas chambers." Consequently, Bishop Williamson, who blasphemed those relics, represented what Mafiosi term, "pietra di la scarpa," the stone in the shoe. The stone had to be removed from the synagogue's shoe.

Lauder: Williamson dismissal from Pius Brotherhood "too little too late" and not credible

24 October 2012

The head of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), Ronald S. Lauder, has welcomed the expulsion of Bishop Richard Williamson from the Catholic breakaway group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) but said it should have been done years ago and “it does nothing to restore the credibility of this organization”.

Lauder declared: “It’s good that the hatemonger and Holocaust denier Williamson has finally been sent into the wilderness, but this is a decision the SSPX leadership should have taken years ago, when the cleric openly denied the existence of gas chambers. It is too little too late. The reasons now given for Williamson’s dismissal do not mention the damage this man has caused by spreading invective against Jews and others, be it from the pulpit, via his weekly newsletter and in his statements to the media.”

In a 1989 speech at Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada, Williamson had claimed that “There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies”. In an interview with Swedish television conducted in Germany in late 2008, he reaffirmed his view.

The WJC president said that although not all members of the SSPX were anti-Semites like Williamson, the group had yet to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism in its ranks and part ways with those “who continue to regard the Jews as the embodiment of the anti-Christ.” Lauder thanked Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Kurt Koch, the Vatican official in charge of relations with the Jews, for their unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitic tendencies in the church. “We know where the Vatican stands on this. What we don’t know is whether the SSPX leadership agrees with it. Until the Pius Brotherhood takes a clear stand they should not be readmitted into the fold of the Catholic Church,” Ronald Lauder pointed out.

The SSPX said in a statement issued on Wednesday: "Monseigneur Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the leadership and the government of the Saint Pius X Society over a period of several years and refusing to show respect and obedience deserved by his legitimate superiors, has been declared excluded."

The fraternity of traditionalists who broke away from the Vatican more than two decades ago over its reforms said the decision had been reached on 4 October 2013. Williamson was one of four bishops who were consecrated by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre in Econe, Switzerland, in 1988 against the orders of Pope John Paul II, who later excommunicated them. In January 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four.

“Thank Goodness the Williamson saga will soon be behind us, once the Regensburg court has decided on his conviction for Holocaust denial,” said Lauder.

For Further Research:

Oct. 23 column on the Expulsion of Bishop Williamson

Lu sur le site du révisionniste américain Michael Hoffman
(traduction TRES rapide):

La pierre dans la chaussure de la Synagogue

Ci-après on trouvera un article faisant état du plaisir éprouvé par le

Congrès juif mondial à l'annonce du renvoi de l'évêque Richard Williamson de

la Fraternité St Pie X [nous ne traduisons pas l'article en question: on le

trouvera sur le site indiqué ci-dessus]. 

   Le pape Benoît XVI n'ose pas intervenir dans les affaires talmudiques

comme, par exemple, réprimander publiquement le "chef spirituel" du Shass,

le rabbin Ovadia Yosef, quand ce dernier a appelé à l'extermination des

Palestiniens. Le Vatican a capitulé devant le judaïsme orthodoxe et

entretient juste ce qu'il faut de désaccord pour maintenir son apparence de

représentant de l'Eglise de Jésus-Christ sur la terre. 

   En revanche, les sionistes n'ont aucun scrupule à façonner et à

influencer l'Eglise catholique grâce au pouvoir qu'ils ont sur les médias

occidentaux et grâce à leur chutzpah [leur culot] qui fait d'eux des gens

persuadés d'avoir le droit de donner, mine de rien, des leçons aux gentils.

   Comme il appert dans les déclarations ci-dessous [voir le site], Mgr

Fellay a accompli la volonté des Talmudistes en excluant Mgr Williamson. 

   C'est vrai, Mr Ronald Lauder, rejeton milliardaire de la firme de

cosmétiques Estée Lauder et ancien ambassadeur américain de Ronald Reagan en Autriche, n'est pas encore satisfait. Il semble que la Fraternité n'en ait pas fait assez. C'est ce qui correspond à l'idéologie rabbinique relative

aux goyim : la nature incomplète de l'âme des gentils rend les actes de ces

gentils incomplets même si, avec les meilleures intentions du monde, ils

s'inclinent, dans une soumission abjecte, devant la synagogue. 

   Les goyim, le Pape et y compris Mgr Fellay sont dépourvus de cette âme

spéciale dont sont dotées les personnes juives moralement et racialement

supérieures. Si vous ne le croyez pas, voyez le sort des milliers d'immigrés

africains sub-sahariens qui, en Israël, sont condamnés à une détention sans

fin dans les camps de concentration du Negev, précisément du fait de leur

infériorité présumée par rapport au Peuple Saint. Face à une barbarie aussi

cruelle pas une nation occidentale sur terre ne pourrait s'en tirer sans

recueillir l'opprobre de toutes les nations et sans être l'objet de

sanctions, et pourtant ces camps de concentration pour Noirs en "Israël" ne

sont pas un problème en Amérique pour Obama ou pour Romney, ou pour les

médias, ce qui est en conformité avec le dicton talmudique: une loi pour le

"Peuple Saint" et une autre pour tous les autres. 

   Mgr Fellay peut bien parler de la "désobéissance" de Mgr Williamson,

mais philosophiquement cette allégation est nulle, puisque Fellay lui-même

continue à défier le Pape en refusant de se soumettre à la juridiction des

ordinaires locaux dans les diocèses où sont situés des églises, des écoles

et des séminaires de la Fraternité. Mgr Lefebvre, fondateur de la

Fraternité, a enseigné que la première des priorités était le salut des

âmes, et non pas l'obéissance à une autorité rebelle. Le salut des âmes, tel

est le mandat qu'a reçu Mgr Williamson. Mais alors comment Mgr Fellay, qui

désobéit au Pape, peut-il accuser Mgr Williamson de désobéissance? La

question de la désobéissance est un écran de fumée qui cache une vérité plus

grande. Cette vérité-là est plus que transparente dans les circonscriptions

allemandes de la Fraternité. 

   Mgr Fellay reflète l'idolâtrie et le despotisme de la Fraternité

allemande, qui oeuvre péniblement sous la férule des lois allemandes sur le

blasphème analogues aux lois musulmanes, qui protègent les reliques sacrées

de l'Holocaustianisme contre tout examen médico-légal, tout scepticisme et

toute dérision. Les moyens d'une telle protection, ce sont les cachots

allemands, où des hérétiques comme l'éditeur Ernst Zündel et le chimiste,

ancien du Max Planck Institute, Germar Rudolf ont moisi pendant des années. 

En conséquence, la Fraternité se conforme aux exigences de la fausse

religion de l'Holocaustianisme et ne conteste pas l'idolâtrie de ses

reliques, c'est-à-dire les "chambres à gaz". En conséquence encore, Mgr

Williamson, qui avait blasphémé ces reliques, représentait ce que les gens

de la Mafia appellent "la pietra della scarpa", la pierre de la chaussure.

Cette pierre, il fallait l'enlever de la chaussure de la synagogue.

+ + +

Pope puts Talmudic agent in charge of SSPX reconciliation

By Michael Hoffman • www.revisionisthistory.org

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the 1970s as an international priestly fraternity dedicated to preserving the Catholic Church as it existed prior to the Second Vatican Council, including the official teaching on Judaism. Lefebvre was suspended by Pope Paul VI and later excommunicated, along with four of his bishops, by John Paul II. Lefebvre is deceased. Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four bishops but suspended one of them, Richard N. Williamson, until such time as he recants his publicly expressed doubts concerning the new Catholic "Shoah" theology of the the religion-of-Judaism-for-gentiles, i.e. Holocaustianity; Bishop Williamson has refused to recant. The prospect of the SSPX receiving canonical status within the post-Vatican II Church has led to a pressure campaign on the part of influential rabbis and Zionists (and their media toadies), to cause the pope to either cease and desist in the reconciliation, or to somehow neuter the SSPX witness concerning Judaism before the reconciliation occurs. 

Lately, the pope has enlisted a key ally, the SSPX Superior General, Bernard Fellay, in his crusade to end the independence of the SSPX (which some view as schismatic), and integrate them back into the Vatican sheepfold, supposedly with the right to fully engage in their traditional beliefs and practices without interference from the Vatican. For several years the SSPX under Fellay, despite obtuse media generalizations to the contrary, has softened the SSPX stand against Judaism. Rumors flew in the late spring to the effect that the pope and the SSPX under Fellay were about to forge a historic unity agreement. One suspects that the Israeli lobby ("Jewish circles internationally") went into overdrive at the prospect. The proposed unification is now in limbo. As a result, the thoroughly Talmudic, Bronx, NY-born Archbishop Di Noia has been assigned the job of shaping SSPX theology into one that will not too greatly offend the Holy People, so that the SSPX will agree to submit to the pope, and his continuation of Pope John Paul II's revolutionary doctrine on Judaism (and for that matter, on Islam, Voodoo and Hinduism, all of which the late pope radically altered in the name of ecumenism).

From the website of the Italian newspaper La Stampa:

A new chapter in the Society of St. Pius X saga

Archbishop Di Noia entrusted with role in forging path to reconciliation with Lefebvrians and warding off Catholic-Jewish misunderstandings

By Lisa Palmieri-Billig 

ROME • July 2, 2012 (Excerpt)

...The Archbishop is visibly pleased at the prospect of moving back to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as Vice Director of the Ecclesiae Dei Commission that handles relations Catholic traditionalist groups, including the controversial Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). "I am happy to have been shown this level of trust by the Holy Father and to have this opportunity to offer some help in solving these concerns" he says. "My job will be a challenge. I am moved by the flurry of encouraging messages I have received from Vatican, Catholic, and Jewish circles internationally" he says.

What do you see as the major hurdle to overcome in the Church’s dialogue with the SSPX?

Di Noia: “Our difficulty with the SSPX is that they isolate passages of Vatican II documents from the context and main message of the Council.  In Jewish terms, the error is similar to trying to interpret a Biblical passage without referring to the centuries of oral and written rabbinical commentaries on its meaning.  The message becomes distorted and problematic.”

(Archbishop Di Noia is making the outrageous assertion that if one doesn't employ the Talmudic and post-Talmudic traditions to analyze Biblical passages, God's Word becomes "distorted and problematic." Jesus Christ and the Church Fathers taught precisely the opposite. -- Hoffman).

The SSPX is reported to have accused Jews of “deicide” and used anti-Semitic stereotypes such as the infamous canard of an international “Jewish conspiracy” on its multilingual sites and in statements by its leaders.  Such concepts are contrary to “Nostra Aetate” and all post-Vatican II Papal positions. The Holocaust-denying Bishop, Richard Williamson, may be the most flagrant example, but apparently he is not alone in espousing retrograde theology and ideology….How will you handle this?

Di Noia: “Regarding Williamson, Pope Benedicts XVIth took decisive actions against him because of his refusal to retract.  He was also disciplined by Bishop Fellay (leader of the SSPX), who dismissed him as Director of their Argentinian Seminary.

 “Anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism form no part of the official position of the SSPX. Clearly, if they manifest themselves in any Catholic Church, anywhere, this must be addressed. They were wrong a  thousand years ago and they are still wrong today.  If I discover such manifestations in the SSPX I will address them as being incompatible with Catholicism. After 3 years of dialogue we still need to understand what the SSPX position is on the Jewish Community and Judaism. 

“The Church’s deep commitment to reconciliation with the Jewish People is personified today by Benedict XVI. The Ecumenical Council wrought a fundamental change. Then John Paul II, above all others, brought home Paul’s message that Judaism and Jews have a unique place in salvation history. Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s Pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church. Vatican II repudiated anti-Semitism and presented a positive picture of Judaism. John Paul II took us further in recognizing the significance of the Jewish People for Christianity itself. This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient."

Your Excellence, The last sentence in the Note issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announcing your appointment as Vice President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” states, “…the broad respect that Archbishop Di Noia enjoys in the Jewish community will help in addressing some issues that have arisen in the area of Catholic-Jewish relations as the journey towards the reconciliation of traditionalist communities has progressed.” I believe this denotes both Benedict XVIth’s sensitivity to the importance to both religions of our brotherly dialogue as well as his high consideration for your commitment to this area.  Can you tell us more about your background?

Di Noia: “Well, you know, I was brought up in the Bronx, in a neighborhood with many Jewish people. My older sister Rachel (note the Biblical name!) was actually the person who first inspired me to become familiar with Jewish religious customs, culture,  – and food!  I attended a private Catholic school whereas she went to a public high school and had many Jewish friends to whom she introduced me."

I am sure they appreciate the significance of your nomination.

Di Noia: "I believe so.”

If you would like to see the On the Contrary blog continue, please send a donation, or purchase an item from our revisionist history bookstore. Thank you.

_______________

Rabbis Order the Pope to Condemn Bishop Williamson's Biblical Preaching

Editor's note: Bishop Richard Williamson's "Eleison Comments" column, grounded in Scripture and the position of the Catholic Church for one thousand nine hundred sixty-five years (until the Second Vatican Council), was published in On the Contrary on Oct. 14 ("How Can Pope Benedict Let Go of Ancient Truths?"). With the usual chutzpah, the Conference of European Rabbis is demanding today that the Catholic pope condemn a Catholic bishop for preaching Catholic truth.

When is the pope going to call on Judaics to condemn murderous, racist rabbis for preaching Talmudic lies?

 We support Bishop Williamson's right to publicly preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

_______________________

Pope called on to condemn bishop’s new anti-Semitic slur
October 19, 2011
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/10/19/3089896/controversial-catholic-bishop-makes-new-anti-semitic-remarks

Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt

BERLIN (Jewish Telegraph Agency) -- A group of European rabbis has called on the pope to condemn the latest anti-Semitic remarks by a Holocaust-denying Catholic bishop.

The Brussels-based Conference of European Rabbis slammed comments by Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson in which he allegedly blamed Jews for deicide. Williamson, a member of the radical Catholic Pius Brotherhood sect, reportedly made the comments in the latest issue of his newsletter, “The Eleison Comments." He has  been living in London.

“Comments like these take us back decades to the dark days before there was a meaningful and mutually respectful dialogue between Jews and Roman Catholics,” conference President Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt of Moscow said in a statement issued Wednesday.

Goldschmidt called for the Church to "suspend negotiations with extremist Catholic tendencies until it is clear that these groups show a clear commitment to tackling anti-Semitism within their ranks."

In his newsletter, Williamson wrote that “only the Jews were the primary agents of the deicide because Pontius Pilate would never have condemned Jesus if the Jews had not asked for blood.”

Williamson was found guilty of Holocaust denial in Germany in 2010 and fined about $14,000. He has previously denied the existence of gas chambers and the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication against Williamson, but the Vatican also reportedly declared that "in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the Church, (he) 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."

During meetings with Pope Benedict in Berlin last month, German Jewish leader Dieter Graumann said that one of the issues that troubled Jewish-Catholic relations was the Church's refusal to condemn Williamson.

In his statement Wednesday, Goldschmidt said the pope "has shown a commitment to fostering a spirit of positive dialogue with Jews both before and during his papacy. But he must clearly show that there is no room in the Catholic Church for purveyors of hate."

________

Bishop Williamson's website:
http://www.dinoscopus.org
 ________

***

How can Pope Benedict let go of ancient truths?

ANCESTRAL PRIDE

By Bishop Richard Williamson, SSPX

Eleison Comments • CCXXII (222)
http://www.dinoscopus.org

London, England -- In his second volume on the life of Jesus published several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide, i.e. the killing of  God. Worse, on May 17 the executive director of the US Bishops’ Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs said that one cannot charge the Jewish people with deicide at any time in history without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. Against what many people today want to believe, it is time to recall, however briefly, what the true Church always used to teach on the judicial murder of Jesus.

Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide”, i.e. the killing of God, because Jesus was the one of the three divine Persons who in addition to his divine nature had taken a human nature. What was killed on the Cross? Only the human nature. But who was killed on the Cross in his human nature? None other than the second divine Person, i.e. God. So God was killed, deicide was committed.

Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the  Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).

Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life”?

But Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages?

Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively to recognize him. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the Talmud. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26-27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.

How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths?

Kyrie eleison.

____________________

Emphasis and link in the preceding issue of "Eleison Comments" supplied by On the Contrary.
____________________

Listen to me, you who know what integrity means,

people who take my laws to heart: do not fear the taunts of men, 

nor be dismayed by their insults,

for the moth shall eat them like garments,

the grub devour them like wool,

but my integrity will remain forever.

Isaiah 51: 7-8 

***

Now Comes the Great Divide

1. Traditional Catholic SSPX Bishop Fellay Declares “Jews are our elder brothers in the old Covenant”

2. Michael Hoffman’s reply:
Now Comes the Great Divide
__________________________

Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay Proclaims "The Jews are 'our elder brothers' in the old Covenant"
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html

Fellay: "The Jews are 'our elder brothers'."
"Antisemitism has no place in our ranks."

Strong words of the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, against any suspicion of Antisemitism.

1. First, in a declaration made yesterday to Famille Chrétienne, the French Catholic weekly, as reported by La Croix this Sunday:

Bishop Bernard Fellay welcomed Famille Chrétienne [French Catholic weekly] on January 31, in his General House of Menzingen, Switzerland. He responded in particular to the accusations of Antisemitism cast at the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

"We evidently condemn every act of murder of the innocent. It is a crime that cries to heaven! Even more so when it is related to a people. We reject every accusation of Antisemitism. Completely and absolutely. We reject every form of approval of what happened under Hitler. This is something abominable. Christianity places Charity at a supreme level. Saint Paul, speaking of the Jews, proclaims, 'I wished myself to be an anathema [from Christ], for my brethren!" (Rom. 9, 3). The Jews are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.

"It is very interesting to notice that the Church did not await for the Council to prescribe courses of action regarding the Jews. Since the 30s, even during the war, several texts of Rome provide a very just position: the abominations of the Hitlerist regime must be condemned! 'Spiritually, we are all Semites', Pope Pius XI had said. It is a truth which comes from Sacred Scripture itself, 'we are sons of Abraham,' Saint Paul also affirms."

2. Also by an e-mail message sent this Sunday to the Rev. Dr. Alcuin Reid (forwarded to several blogs):

Statement by Dr Alcuin Reid:

On Friday BBC Radio asked me to discuss recent events concerning the SSPX on 'The Sunday Program' this morning. Following that request I asked the SSPX for comment on the issues to be discussed. Unfortunately Bishop Fellay's reply reached me only after the program aired. His reply, written for publication, states:

"The position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our Society. Antisemitism has no place in our ranks. We follow fully God's commandments on justice and charity and the constant teaching of the Church. Antisemitism has been condemned by the Church. So do we condemn it. I fully agree with Fr Schmidberger's statement about Bishop Williamson's words. (www.fsspx.info)"

God bless you
+Bernard Fellay

Now Comes the Great Divide

By Michael Hoffman | Aug. 30, 2011
www.revisionisthistory.org

Now comes the Great Divide in the Roman Catholic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), not between Bishop Richard Williamson and Bishop Bernard Fellay, but between the SSPX founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fellay.

This “antisemitism” canard is used as a Pavlovian instrument of auto-suppression ­ to taint any critical study of Judaism. The SSPX rejects antisemitism, Bishop Fellay says. Fine! But what does that have to do with the issues at hand? Is it “antisemitic” to ask if Judaic persons were gassed to death in Auschwitz? Are these gassing allegations now holy Catholic writ, a new gospel? Where is the forensic documentation that St. Edith Stein was “gassed” in Auschwitz-Birkenau? How is it that one hates “semites,” if one dares to ask questions about secular history?

To what extent has the religion of Judaism for gentiles, that some of us refer to as Holocaustianity, supplanted the religion of Jews and gentiles known as Christianity? To what extent is Holocaustianity used to occlude the history of Judeo-Bolshevism’s mass murder of millions of Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe? These distinctions do not concern Bishop Fellay. He defends against the charge of “antisemitism” with the broadest strokes of crude generalities, as if the Patriarch Abraham and the Apostle Paul were all partisans of Zionism, liberalism and the Allied history of World War II.

Why is the statement from Pope Pius XI, “Spiritually we are all semites,” supposed to be some ultimate means for shaming into silence critics of the Talmud, and persons who question Judaic tales of homicidal gassings in Auschwitz? When we dare to ask such questions in the face of rabbinic and Vatican outrage, we are fulfilling our rights as Christians and the imperative bequeathed to us by St. Paul himself: “Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth" (Titus 1:14).

“Spiritually we are all semites.” Indeed!  And when objective and unbiased genetic testing at a high level of scientific verification is performed in the future, we will find many Arabs who are semites and many so-called Jews who are not (Rev. 2:9 and 3:9).

Bishop Fellay seems to endorse Pope John Paul II’s perverse declaration that, “the Jews are our elder brothers in the faith,” although Fellay uses the term “Old Covenant.” Which “Jews” ­ -- ancient or modern? Does Fellay mean to say, the “Jews” of the Israeli state? The “Jews” of Chabad-Lubavitch? Does he refer to “Jews” like Maimonides, the Alter Rebbe, the Chafetz Chaim, Joseph Karo as our “elder brothers” in the “Covenant”?

The religion of Orthodox Judaism is a complete betrayal of the Old Testament. Those who follow it are not our elder brothers in the Old Covenant of the Bible. Their faith consists of the Talmud and worship of themselves, not worship of God (Babylonian Talmud: Bava Metzia 59b and Mo’ed Kattan 16b). Contemporary Orthodox Judaism is a blasphemy, many hundreds of times more corrupt that it was at the time the Pharisees persecuted Jesus Christ.

What then does Bishop Fellay’s phrase actually denote, “our elder brothers in the Old Covenant”? Does it denote that because today’s Israelis and Zionists allege that they are physically descended of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we Christians have a solidarity with them based on their race? If that is the case, what then does the bishop make of the words of St. John the Baptist, when he said, in response to the racial brag of the Pharisees: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Matthew 3: 9-10.

The ancient Pharisees had the same prestigious idea about their racial heritage as does Bishop Fellay. But what did Christ say to them in response? “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:39-40).

“Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father...

“If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did...”

This is a radically different doctrine from the one put forth by the recent popes and the SSPX Superior General. Both St. John and Our Lord Jesus Christ defined the Jews’ connection to Abraham on the basis of their “fruits” and their “works.”

What are the fruits and works of the Christ-hating rabbis?

On what basis, other than racial prestige, can they be termed “elder brothers in the covenant”? Such a statement is liberal nonsense, concocted to curry favor with counterfeit-Israel and the Vatican that has become its most pernicious servant.

Is it “antisemitism” to reject this modernist palaver about Christianity’s supposed “elder brothers”? We adhere instead to the traditional Biblical and Catholic standard ­that the members of the synagogue of Judaism constitute the Antichrist.

We hear a great deal of thunder from Bishop Fellay about “Antisemitism,” and not a whisper about the Judaic Antichrist. What does Scripture say? “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father.” 1 John 2:22-23.

To deny this fact, by spreading confusion concerning what is the “covenant” of “the Jews,” and claiming that the covenant of “Jews” in general, without qualification, precedes and is the elder brother of Christianity, is a scandal, a source of grave confusion, and an abdication of the prophetic voice of warning which Marcel Lefebvre desired that his successors would embody.

While Bishop Richard Williamson’s remarks in the past have sometimes been intemperate and poorly timed, his views on Judaism do not differ from those of Archbishop Lefebvre. Therefore, is Bishop Fellay suggesting indirectly that Archbishop Lefebvre was “antisemitic?” Is this why some of Lefebvre’s speeches have been suppressed by Fellay?

Another of the four SSPX bishops, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, is well aware of the truth about Judaism. It is unfortunate that out of a mistaken sense of diplomacy he remains silent while Bishop Fellay continues to publicly batter a mostly defenseless brother bishop (Williamson) for supposed “sins” of Hitlerism and antisemitism of which he is not guilty.

Bishop Fellay states concerning Judaic persons: “Christianity places Charity at a supreme level.” Yet he has no charity toward Bishop Williamson. He repeatedly drags his name and reputation through the mud and uses him as a scapegoat.

In fact, Bishop Fellay has managed to sufficiently bully Bishop Williamson into avoidance of the truth. Williamson has in recent weeks more fervently denounced the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, than any rabbi. In his last column he attacked “Protestantism and liberalism” as the great evils of history. He omitted Judaism. His self-censorship is patently in deference to the lynch mob atmosphere Bishop Fellay has stirred against him. The silence of the other two SSPX bishops in the face of Fellay’s scurrilous campaign of calumny has no doubt emboldened Fellay.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is presiding over a two-day “Kingship of Christ” symposium in Kansas City in October that studiously avoids any serious or sustained study of Judaism or its disastrous infiltration of the modern Church. Of course, he is “just being diplomatic.” In this emergency, at five minutes to midnight on the clock of destiny, such avoidance is a dereliction of the duty incumbent upon the office of bishop.

How is it that clerical Catholic fellow-travelers with Judaism are so bold as to proclaim their liberalism from the housetops, while those who know the truth dare not? How does God work His will on earth if not through his human instruments on earth? And if those instruments are too enamored of timidity in the name of diplomacy, then what?

The Catholic Church has witnessed the current and past pope visit synagogues several times ­-- not to admonish the sinners and instruct the ignorant in those places ­ -- which would be a salutary missionary activity to undertake, in the spirit of the apostles and St. Vincent Ferrer ­-- but rather, the two popes encouraged the enthralled in those synagogues to remain in their sins!

Bishop Fellay has cut his suit to fit the pattern of the modern Vatican, wherein the ancient weed of Neo-Platonic Kabbalism and Talmudism has emerged in full bloom in two pontificates, to the ruination of countless souls. If the salvation of souls is not our highest objective, then what is? If souls are being lost to eternal damnation because Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor believes he must play the part of the consummate politician in order to save the SSPX from the wrath of the Roman curia and the Zionist government of Germany (where the SSPX has schools and a seminary), what then?

To Bishop Fellay, we say, if your Excellency truly loves the “Jews,” then you will tell them the truth which the Church of Jesus Christ has always proclaimed to them: they have no faith and no covenant without Christ. They abandoned the Old Testament religion of Israel when they abandoned Jesus. They are not custodians of the Bible; neither do they honor it, or the Patriarchs. In their texts, they denigrate Noah, Isaiah and even Abraham. They use a Pharisaic and Kabbalistic exegesis of Scripture with multiple levels of alleged meaning, which degrades the Word of God into a mere totem, whereupon man’s fantasies are projected and institutionalized.

This fantastic Talmudic and midrashic exegesis has been taken up by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI and incorporated into the Catholic hermeneutic. We will give but one example. On Holy Name Sunday in both Novus Ordo (diocese of Spokane) and even traditional pulpits (Fraternity of St. Peter), which we have heard with our own ears, in 2010 and 2011 respectively, it is taught that the Name of God (YHVH) was so holy it was to be pronounced only once a year by the high priest. This teaching is put forth with the strong implication that we are to imitate this “Biblical” example concerning the Name of God.

This is not Biblical, however. It is false doctrine -- a counterfeit human tradition about the Name of God nowhere to be found in the Word of God. The God of Israel repeatedly demanded that His people be known by His Name and that His Name be invoked by them (Exodus 3:15). The superstitious proscription against pronouncing God’s name, except once a year, is from the written record of the once oral law of the Pharisees -- the Mishnah -- which, with the Gemara, forms the Talmud.

On June, 29, 2008 the "Letter to the Bishops' Conferences on the Name of God," a document promulgated by the "Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments," ordered, at the direction of Pope Benedict XVI, God's name is "neither to be used or pronounced" in Catholic liturgy, hymns or prayers. Pope Benedict is promulgating the word of the Pharisees in Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1, in preference to the Word of God in Exodus 3:15 and Psalm 145:21 (Jerusalem Bible translation). This is how serious are the inroads of Talmudism into Catholicism.

Will Bishop Fellay resort to invoking the tiresome device of crying “antisemitism” as a way to silence vigilance and protest over the fact that Pope Benedict prefers to obey the Talmud rather than the Old Testament? Christians are indeed children of Abraham. How then can they be children of a Talmud in which Abraham and the God of Abraham have no part?

Where God is, there is the Truth. The truth about Pharisaic Judaism, of which today’s Orthodox Judaism is the direct descendant, was declared by Jesus Christ, recorded in the New Testament, taught by the early Church, the Fathers of the Church and all the saints canonized before 1970. Yet, suddenly the modern zeitgeist has determined that Truth is “antisemitic”!

And you, Bishop Fellay, do you still claim to be the guardian of the traditional Catholic Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, or have you become the paladin of the politically correct lucubrations of the modernist heresy?

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered (Independent History and Research, 2008) and Judaism’s Strange Gods (forthcoming in 2011).

To receive these columns by e-mail send an e-mail to hoffman[at]revisionisthistory.org with the subject header: Subscribe me. You will receive an invitation to "The Hoffman Wire" by e-mail. You must reply to the invitation in order to subscribe.

For further research:

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 58: "Tracking The Occult Infiltration Of The Roman Catholic Church From The Renaissance To The Present"
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 52: "Judaizing Protestantism’ and Neo-Platonic Catholicism in Legend and Reality”
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 50: “They Who Say They are Jews and Are Not”
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter no. 47: “The New Catholic ‘Shoah"’Theology: Alibi for the Revolutionary Overthrow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

Revisionist History Newsletter No. 41: “A Christian Theology of World War II History”
http://tinyurl.com/3mc8wk2

"The Catholic Church and the Talmud in the Renaissance" (Audio CD)
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/hoffmans-revisionist-history-store.html

"World War Revisionism: Frequently Asked Questions"
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist4.html

***

Bishop Richard Williamson goes on trial in Germany July 4

Michael Hoffman’s Note: Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who resides in London, England, is scheduled, on July 4, to have his appeal heard in Germany concerning his heresy trial. He is appealing the charge that he cast doubt on the modern West's most sacred relic, the alleged engine of destruction in Auschwitz. The following is from his weekly e-mail column. It appears below in English and in German and French translation.

Bishop Richard Williamson's Dinoscopus Column

ELEISON  COMMENTS  CCVI  (June 25, 2011):  CHOOSING  LAWYERS

These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.

In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.

So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.

As for my changing lawyers four times, the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.

However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.

Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.                                                  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

Dinoscopus is always sent free of charge, courtesy of True Restoration Press:
truerestoration@gmail.com

*******************************************************

ELEISON  KOMMENTARE  CCVI. (25. Juni 2011): ANWALTSWAHL    

Die Eleison Kommentare" berichten normalerweise nicht von persönlichen Dingen. Doch kurz vor dem Berufungsverfahren ihres Autors in Deutschland (am 4. Juli 2011) zirkuliert eine Unwahrheit, welche korrigiert werden muß, auch, um ungerechtfertigte Ängste zu zerstreuen. Diese Unwahrheit lautet, daß ich meine Verteidigung gegen den vom deutschen Staat erhobenen Vorwurf der ,,Volksverhetzung" darauf aufbauen möchte, was in der umstrittensten Zeit der jüngeren deutschen Geschichte tatsächlich oder nicht passiert ist.    

Von dem Moment an, da ich wußte, daß ich für meine englischsprachigen Bemerkungen gegenüber den schwedischen Journalisten im November 2008 vom deutschen Staat wegen ,,Volksverhetzung" angeklagt werden könnte, wußte ich tatsächlich auch, daß ich bei einer Wiederholung meiner Aussagen vor einem deutschen Gericht riskieren würde, sofort ins Gefängnis geworfen zu werden. Das ist der gegenwärtige Zustand des deutschen Rechts. Doch wenn ich es vermeiden kann, würde ich natürlich lieber nicht mit Leibketten geschmückt werden.     Deswegen wurde mir von Anfang an geraten, mich auf der Grundlage zu verteidigen, daß meine Aussagen selbstverständlich nicht für ein deutsches Publikum bestimmt waren und damit auch nicht vom deutschen Recht berührt werden. Soviel ist schon anhand der letzten Minute des bekannten Youtube-Videos offenkundig, welches die letzten paar Minuten meines einstündigen Interviews mit den Schweden zeigt. Darüber hinaus bat ich nach diesen Bemerkungen und bei abgeschalteter Kamera die Schweden ernstlich, diesen letzten Teil des Interviews nur auf, "diskrete" Weise zu verwenden.

Wenigstens das müßten sie zugeben, wenn sie aussagen würden - doch können sie nicht gezwungen werden, nach Deutschland zu kommen, und daher lehnen sie ein Erscheinen ab.

Über meine wechselnden Anwälte: Ursprünglich vertraute der Bruderschafts-Generalobere meine Verteidigung dem Bruderschafts-Anwalt Maximilian Krah an, welcher sich entschied, Matthias Loßmann zu engagieren. Dieser ist Mitglied der ( leider ) antikatholischen Partei,Die Grünen" und verrichtete die Arbeit zwar gewissenhaft, war aber vom Fall vielleicht nicht allzu sehr begeistert. Über Freunde entdeckte ich den Anwalt Wolfram Nahrath, welcher die Verteidigung solch heikler Fälle begeistert und sehr erfolgreich vornimmt. Doch Loßmann wollte mit Nahrath nicht zusammenarbeiten, und weil ich in meinem Dilemma nur die beste Rechtsverteidigung suchte, wechselte ich von Loßmann zu Nahrath.    

Als jedoch der Generalobere von seinen Beratern über Nahraths politische Stellung informiert wurde, befahl er mir, wieder jemand anderen zu finden - sicherlich im guten Glauben daran, daß jede öffentliche Verbindung zwischen der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. und einem ,,extrem Rechten" abträglich wäre. Also billigte der Generalobere den älteren und ehrenvollen Dr. Norbert Wingerter, welcher ein konservativer ,,Novus Ordo"-Katholik ist. Doch anscheinend ist Wingerter unwissentlich die Quelle für die eingangs erwähnte, zirkulierende Unwahrheit. Ich weiß nicht warum, aber er scheint unter dem falschen Eindruck zu stehen, daß ich vor Gericht auf dem Wahrheits- oder Unwahrheitsgehalt der erwähnten Episode in der deutschen Geschichte beharren wollte. Gluecklicherweise hatte der Generalobere bereits einen weiteren Anwalt erlaubt, welcher nunmehr gut versteht, wie ich vor Gericht verteidigt werden will.

Liebe Leser, wenn Sie denken, daß bei dem Ganzen die Interessen Gottes in irgendeiner Weise auf dem Spiel stehen (nicht jeder denkt dies), so bitte ich für meinen neuen Anwalt um ein Gebet zwischen jetzt und den 4. Juli 2011. Dieser Anwalt hat seit vielen Monaten hart an diesem Fall gearbeitet, aber riskiert dabei, unter heftigen Druck zu geraten durch antikatholische Beteiligte und ihre mächtigen Knechte.                               

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson          
************************************************************

COMMENTAIRE  ELEISON  (25 juin, 2011):  UN  CHOIX  D'AVOCATS  

Ce « Commentaire » ne s'occupe pas normalement de questions propres à son auteur, mais à la veille de son Appel qui doit s'entendre en Allemagne le 4 juillet, une contre-vérité circule qui a besoin d'être corrigée pour entre autres choses apaiser des anxiétés sans fondement. La contre-vérité, c'est que pour me défendre contre l'accusation d' « incitation raciale » que me porte l'Etat allemand, je veux que le tribunal examine la vérité ou fausseté historique de ce qui s'est passé dans cet épisode le plus controversé de toute l'histoire récente de l'Allemagne.  

De fait, dès le moment où j'ai su que l'on pourrait m'accuser en Allemagne d'avoir commis, par certains propos que j'avais tenus aux journalistes suédois en novembre de 2008, cette  « incitation raciale », je me suis rendu compte aussi que si je tenais devant un tribunal allemand des propos pareils, je courrais le risque de me faire jeter séance tenante en prison. Tel est l'état actuel des lois allemandes et des tribunaux allemands. Or, je ne tiens pas spécialement à me faire orner de chaines, si je peux l'éviter.  

Alors dès le début de l'« affaire Williamson » j'ai suivi le conseil de me faire défendre en faisant valoir que ces propos ne visaient aucun auditoire allemand, et donc la loi en question ne s'appliquait pas à mon cas. Ceci est évident si l'on regarde la dernière minute de l'extrait du film de l'interview faite par les Suédois qui est devenu célèbre sur YouTube. De plus, tout de suite après que la caméra eut cessé de tourner, je les ai abordés directement pour leur demander très sérieusement d'être « discrets » dans l'usage qu'ils feraient de cette dernière partie de l'interview. S'ils venaient à témoigner en Allemagne ils devraient admettre tout cela. Dans la mesure où on ne peut pas les y forcer, ils refusent de se rendre en Allemagne.  

Et pourquoi ai-je changé si souvent d'avocat?  A l'origine le Supérieur Général de la Fraternité St Pie X a confié ma défense à l'avocat de la Maison Généralice, Me Maximilian Krah, qui a choisi à son tour un membre du parti anticatholique - hélas -- des « Verts » pour le remplacer, Me Lossmann. Celui-ci s'est acquitté de sa tâche consciencieusement mais peut-etre sans trop d'enthousiasme. Grâce à des amis, j'ai repéré un avocat enthousiaste et habitué à gagner des cas si délicats, Me Nahrath, mais Me Lossmann n'a pas voulu collaborer avec lui. Dans le besoin pressant d'un bon avocat, j'ai donné mandat à Me Nahrath. Mais dès que le Supérieur Général eut été renseigné par ses adjoints de la position politique de Me Nahrath, il m'a ordonné de trouver encore quelqu'un d'autre. Sans doute croyait-il de bonne foi que toute association publique avec un «extrémiste de droite» ferait du tort à la Fraternité. Il a approuvé l'avocat suivant, l'honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, catholique conservateur de l'Eglise officielle. Etant sous la fausse impression, je ne sais comment, que je voulais engager le tribunal dans la question de la vérité ou fausseté de ces événements controversés de l'histoire allemande, c'est le Dr. Wingerter qui serait à la source, sans s'en rendre compte, de la contre-vérité qui circule. Heureusement le Supérieur Général avait déjà approuvé un cinquième avocat qui comprenait bien comment je voulais me faire defendre.  

Chers lecteurs, si vous pensez que dans cet Appel il y va de quelque façon que ce soit des intérêts de Dieu - pas tous ne le pensent - dites d'ici le 4 juillet une prière pour mon avocat actuel qui travaille dur sur le cas depuis plusieurs mois, mais qui risque d'avoir à affronter une pression forte de la part de puissants eennemis de la Foi, et de leurs serviteurs.  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

*********************************************************