St Isaac the Syrian:
Do not discuss contradictorily about the Truth with him who does not wish to know it, and do not conceal the Word from him who wishes to know it.
Press, Liberals, Jews honor Holocaust-denier
Something especially annoying about the ecclesiastically illiterate press is that they persist in honoring Richard Williamson by referring to him as “Bishop Williamson”, when he was excommunicated by the Roman schismatics precisely for falsely claiming to be a Roman Catholic bishop. The critics falsely claim that the Bishop of Rome, “The Pope”, formerly primus inter pares, has honored Mr Williamson, when in fact he hasn’t and they do.
Schismatics vs Schismatics
I write the following based on the limited facts available from the illiterate press coverage:
As far as I can tell, according to Rome, Williamson was never ordained. Therefore according to Rome he’s not a bishop. Therefore it’s pretty bloody stupid of the MSM et al to honour Williamson’s allegedly non-canonical ordination [by constantly referring to him as "Bishop Williamson] in order to attack the pope, who doesn’t so honour him. It’s absurd to demand that the Bishop of Rome apologize for “honoring” a bishop when he did no such thing. Is it not the case that Williamson is not a Roman Catholic bishop, and never was a Roman Catholic bishop?
Williamson and his fellow Lefebvrest schismatics were excommunicated from Rome because, according to the Roman schismatics, they falsely claimed to be ordained Roman Catholic bishops.
The Vatican has now determined that they should never have been excommunicated. Therefore they have not been “rehabilitated” or “reinstated” or any other such nonsensical terms. They are not returning to communion with Rome, since they were never truly separate from Rome, since Rome has determined that it acted incorrectly. Nevertheless, these LeFebvre-ordained schismatics are still not, nor ever were, Roman Catholic bishops.
Communion
Being in communion with Rome means nothing more nor less than that they are Roman Catholics, and are therefore blessed with the ability to avail themselves of the Sacraments of that Church, including the saving grace of Confession and the Eucharist.
The issue of whether one is in communion with the Church or not should not be determined by politics or the sinful nature of the communicant. All of us are sinners, so that is no criterion. Even the most unrepentant killer is offered the sacrament of confession prior to an execution.
In this era, and correctly speaking, a person is in or out of communion based on whether they are in accord with the teachings of the Church. In other words, being in communion does not confer “respectability” or forgiveness, or indicate “social acceptance”. Generally speaking, it is simply confirming that the communicant is not teaching anything contrary to Christian belief. Mr Williamson expressing his bizarre views on television does not constitute Christian Teachings since he is not a bishop and therefore has no role in establishing dogma. And the Vatican has correctly remarked, “To deny the Holocaust is not a heresy even though it is a lie.”
The Holocaust is already covered in the parts about not killing people and generally being good.
Dogma
Should the dogma of the Church also cover the correct interpretation of the Stalin-Mao split, Paris ’68, “was 9-11 an inside job?”, “was Jenin a war crime?, IRA vs INLA, Salem, Hiroshima, affirmative action laws in Michigan, the morality of sales taxes, the sinfulness of American aggression against Serbia, etc.?
Dogma is established belief or doctrine; authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. Unlike American presidents, or politicians in general, or the UN’s “Big Secretary”, or PR hacks, or pedophiles’ lwawyers, the Pope sees himself is bound by divine law, and denies himself the power to arbitrarily deny the saving grace of the Sacraments to any believer just because they happen to have weird and offensive ideas about history.
A person is or should be out of communion if, for example, he or she is teaching that Jesus is not Christ, that Jesus is not God, that Jesus was never truly human, that Jesus was not resurrected, that Jesus did not establish the Church, that the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was never crucified, that not all humans have souls, that the soul is not eternal, that God is not in Trinity, that not everyone can be saved, that the Church has no sacramental power, etc. etc.
If a person denied that Hitler ever even existed, or said that Genghis Khan was a good ruler, or defended the Russian revolution, or championed Napoleon — none of things alone would have any bearing on the question of excommunication. They would matter if the person making these arguments invoked some point or philosophy that contradicted Biblical teachings or the nature of the Church.
A Jew who denied the Holocaust would still be a Jew. After criticizing the Pope for being concerned about Mr Williamson’s soul, will Israel now allow the Vatican to detremine which Jews can benefit from Israel’s Law of Return? Will Jewish congregations turn to Rome to figure out if such and such a person is Jewish?
Not like joining a Country Club
Granting that Mr Williamson is a communicant in no way indicates approval of his actions or of his non-theological beliefs. He was not excommunicated for his political beliefs or historical theories. He was excommunicated for the “unauthorized consecration by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, deemed by the Holy See to be “unlawful” and “a schismatic act”.” I would guess the fact that he has been accepted again as a communicant indicates that he must have repented of his earlier action and stated that in fact the Church is correct and that he was formerly a schismatic (that would be a schism from schismatics of course). Either way he remains a heretic.
Being in communion means that the communicant has accepted the Church’s teachings. (In this case, the Roman Church’s heretical teachings. Thank God for Free Will.) Whether he’s still a priest, or again a priest, is not indicated, but I doubt he would be without first being repentant and proving that he understood and agreed with the Church’s teachings. This is a matter that Rome’s critics ought to be asking about. Not obsessing about his status as a communicant. His bizarre [perhaps he's insane?] and offensive opinions about the Holocaust, and his behaviour, would have a direct bearing on his status as a priest, since then he would be expected to uphold a higher standard of behaviour and education than if he was a non-cleric or non-anchorite.
Lefebvre
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre‘s father died in 1944 in the Nazi concentration camp at Sonnenburg (East Brandenburg, Germany), where he had been imprisoned by the Gestapo because of his work for the French Resistance and British Intelligence.
Archbishop Lefebvre was convicted of a hate crime against Muslims in a French court in 1990 and sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 francs when he warned that “it is your wives, your daughters, your children who will be kidnapped and dragged off to a certain kind of places as they exist in Casablanca”.
He founded The Society of St Pius X [SSPX].
It seems his “opposition to change” (as the bright sparks in the press put it) concerned much more than liturgical matters (which, no doubt, the press think are dumb things to be concerned about).
Essentially, he argued that Pope John Paul II had made too many concessions to Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others in his pursuit of improved ecumenical and inter-religious relations. Archbishop Lefebvre was not much impressed by showcase occasions such as John Paul II’s widely acclaimed Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in October 1986, attended by 150 different religious leaders including the Dalai Lama, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Buddhist monks, Lutheran ministers, Japanese Shintoists, Jewish Rabbis, Muslim Imams, Sikhs, African animists, North American Indians and many others.
On these points at least, Lefevbre has my sympathy. On the other hand, his argument with Rome is just yet another argument between schismatics.
Instant Christians!
One thing about this media story is that we have learned that all sorts of people seem to feel they have the right to tell the Roman Catholic Church [and Christians in general] what they should or not believe, and who they should or should administer the Sacraments to. Heretics, “lapsed Catholics”, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Communists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Mormons, they all want a vote in determining who is in communion with Rome.
The creepy and seemingly atheistic Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, the daughter of a Lutheran pastor, took time out from her busy schedule of destroying Europe, promoting Islam, attacking Jews and promoting infanticide, to condemn the Pope for not refusing Mr Williamson the Sacraments of the Roman Church. Bizarre.
Hartwig Möller, the head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution of North Rhine-Westphalia, in an interview with Ruhr Nachrichten, described the presentation of an Israeli flag as a “targeted provocation” of Muslims by Anti-Germans (“Antideutschen“). Muslims and their fellow-travelers, on the other hand, feel quite free to roam the streets chanting “Death to the Jews!” The flag was removed by the police.
In an open letter to Barack Obama published in Der Spiegel, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier endorsed the idea that Germany ought to accept jihadi “refugees” from Club Gitmo.
In fact, Germany has gone quite far in reinstating Hitler’s foreign policy. The destruction of Yugoslavia, war on the Serbs, establishing client-state relations with Bosnia, Croatia and Greater Albania, and of course supporting Jew-haters in Muslim-occupied lands.
Trinitarian Jews
While looking into this case of Mr Williamson, I noticed that many Jewish individuals and groups are presuming to determine who is in communion with Rome. This is truly bizarre.
Of course many Roman Catholics bring this on themselves by getting involved in politics; for example, saying that US immigration policy is un-Christian, and other such nonsense.
But why is it that people who don’t know, or frankly don’t even care, what communion means, feel that they have the right or ability to judge who should be in communion?
For example, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, writes that he objects to, “the re-admittance to full communion of a bishop who appears to publicly reject key teachings of the Second Vatican Council.”
This is absurd. (Even beyond the use of “re-admittance” and “bishop”.) Does Foxman understand or even care about Vatican II? Does he accept the “key teachings of the Second Vatican Council”? Somehow I doubt it. What is he, a Trinitarian Jew?
I don’t accept Vatican II, but then I don’t also accept the declarations of Vatican I or the Council of Trent or any other such schismatic gathering. In fact, I’m particularly annoyed by the 1438-39 Council of Ferrara-Florence! But for some strange reason it never occurred to me to write to the Pope about it.
Now, if Foxman limited his complaints to Williamson’s status as a bishop, he’d have something to debate, since the bishops represent the Church in every way. But instead, because he doesn’t even know what communion really means, he presumes to dictate that Williamson should be denied the blood and the body of Christ, when he doesn’t even accept that it is the body and blood of Christ. Talk about chutzpah!
If I were Benedict, I’d write back to Foxman (c/o the New York Times), saying, “My son, I am pleased that you recognize the power of the holy sacraments! I look forward to baptizing you.”
Baby Holocaust
On the subject of excommunication. The Roman Church teaches that those who promote abortion have effectively ex-communicated themselves. This is not directly related to the question of crime or politics however. It’s related to the contradiction of the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception. However, it is clearly stated in the Roman Catholic Catechism that politicians play a special role in society, and that therefore Roman Catholic politicians are to be held responsible to their bishops for any actions they take that would be gravely contrary to Church teachings.
Therefore, I don’t know why an extremely large number of abortion-promoting or abortion-defending infanticidal Roman Catholic politicians have not been denied communion.
+ + +
Some Jews are get very passionate about crazy Holocaust-deniers, while making excuses for people who actually played a key role in the Holocaust.
The US Holocaust Museum is, naturally, upset about Williamson, but defends real Jew-killers:
US Holocaust Museum denies Nazi-Palestinian-Bosnian-Albanian History
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), the nation’s leading educational institution on the Holocaust, has posted on its website a biography of the Holocaust-era Mufti of Jerusalem that distorts the historical record of the Holocaust.
The father of Palestinian nationalism, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Hussayni, [also spelled "al-Husany", "el-Husseini", and "al-Husseini"] was a terrorist and a Nazi collaborator, and was indicted at the Eichmann Trial. The Museum wrote a web biography which presents al-Hussayni as a moderate supporter of non-violence. Falsifying and omitting key facts from the historical record, including photographs of Hussayni conferring with Hitler, the Holocaust Museum attempts to exonerate him from well documented charges of Nazi collaboration. The Museum’s website states that his “controversial…relationship with Hitler’s government…has led some to label him a Nazi collaborator and war criminal….”
The Holocaust Museum’s standard for historical truth cannot be what “some” say, since some say there was no Holocaust. The Museum’s entire mission depends on disseminating the facts of the Holocaust. They have now joined deniers in attempting to whitewash parts of the historical record that they seem to find politically difficult. Changing history throws the Museum’s credibility into question.
The Jewicidal Mufti’s Lasting Legacy Ignored by Holocaust Museum
There are direct historical links between the Nazis, the Final Solution, Hussayni, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. The Museum’s policy is silence about current Muslim antisemitism. Now it has chosen to falsify these historical roots in the Mufti’s biography. Accordingly, it chose an academic well known for denying any link between Nazism and the current Islamic terror organizations to misrepresent the genocidal activities of the Mufti.
The Museum website calls the Mufti a “moderate voice for peace” and states that his collaboration with Hitler was “inconclusive” and his work for the Nazis was “ineffective.”
* A British inquiry found Hussayni responsible for the 1936-39 reign of terror against Jews and Arab moderates in Palestine. The violence led the British to close Palestine to Jews fleeing the Final Solution. The Mufti spent the war in Nazi Berlin working for Hitler.
* The Jerusalem court that tried Eichmann found in its Judgments, Part 50: “It has been proved to us that the Mufti, too, aimed at the implementation of the final solution, viz. the extermination of European Jewry.”
* The Mufti recruited 20,000 Muslims for the Handschar divisions of the Waffen SS that annihilated 90% of Bosnia’s Jews. Yugoslavia convicted him of war crimes. He fled to Egypt where he recruited fleeing Nazis and helped found modern Islamic terrorism through the Muslim Brotherhood and the PLO.
In an 85,000 image library, the U.S. Holocaust Museum does not include this famous photograph of Hussayni and Hitler, obtained from Yad Vashem. At this meeting, Hitler agreed to the Mufti’s request to extend the Final Solution to the Jews of the Middle East.
The USHMM biography of Amin al-Hussayni falsely states that he “discouraged violence and encouraged cooperation with the British authorities.” It gives equal weight to facts, and their denial: “conflicting interpretations have portrayed him as an instigator against the Jews and British or an opponent of violence as a means of achieving Arab aims.”
The Facts:
* In 1920 he was convicted by a British court and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for his part in a murderous rampage resulting in 216 Jewish casualties.
* In 1922, he precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot with the translation of an Arabic edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
* In 1929, he accused Jews of endangering mosques, including al-Aqksa. The call went out ” Slaughter the Jews!”, while Hussayni disseminated pictures of the Jewish victims, falsely claiming that they were Arabs murdered by Jews. Over 100 Jews were murdered in Hebron and Safed.
* In 1936-39, the Mufti organized riots, using funds and munitions supplied by the Nazis. He led a campaign of terror against Jews and moderate Arabs. (Kuntzel, Jihad and Jew-hatred, p.21,31)
* In 1937, Eichmann personally came to Palestine to deliver funds to the Mufti. By 1938, he was on the payroll of Abwehr II, the German counterintelligence and sabotage division.
* Following an assassination attempt on the British Inspector-General of the Palestine Police Force, the Grand Mufti was forced into exile in Syria in 1937.
* In 1941, the Mufti played a key role in orchestrating a Nazi-backed coup in Iraq. He blamed the Iraqi Jews when the British crushed the coup, instigating the Farhud, a pogrom against Baghdad’s Jews in which 180 Jews were killed, and thousands injured. (Hayyim J. Cohen, “the Anti-Jewish Farhud in Baghdad, 1941,” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 3, Oct. 1966 p.2-17) The USHMM’s article on the Farhud mentions Hussayni’s role, but the article on Hussayni does not. (Farhud article, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007277)
* On November 28, 1941, in a face to face meeting with Hitler, Hussayni obtained Hitler’s pledge to extend the Final Solution to the Jews of the Middle East. (Reference: notes of the meeting are in Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Series D, Vol. XIII, p. 881. available at the USHMM library)
The USHMM web biography of al-Hussayni states:
“At his first meeting with Hitler on November 28, the Mufti tried unsuccessfully to secure a public Axis declaration favoring Arab independence….He helped recruit the 13th Waffen SS Division “Handschar”…it is possible that “Hanschar” personnel were involved in the capture and murder of Jews found in hiding or captured as partisans…At war’s end, with evidence that was inconclusive, calls for a war crimes trial of Amin al-Hussayni were unsuccessful. Arguments that he had been a proponent of the “Final Solution” in Europe and its extension to the Middle East have not been universally accepted.”
The Facts:
* According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, Nazi Germany SS helped finance al-Hussayni’s efforts in the 1936-39 revolt in Palestine. (Kuntzel, Matthias. Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11. p. 21) “The Mufti himself acknowledged that at that time it was only due to the German funds he received that it had been possible to carry through the uprising in Palestine.” Admiral Canarsis, head of German military intelligence, later revealed he personally met with the Mufti’s secretary “to discuss the issue of transporting weapons to the Arab insurgents.” (Klaus Gensicke, Der Mufti von Jerusalem Amin el Husseini und die Nationalsozialisten, p. 94, 234; also Encyclopedia of the Holocaust)
* The 1936-39 ‘Arab Revolt’, paid for and armed by Hitler and organized by the Mufti, resulted in the British closing Palestine to Jewish immigration, thereby trapping Europe’s Jews in Europe. It was a key to the success of the Final Solution. (Ben-Sasson, H.H., editor. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press, 1976, pp1112-12, 1022)
* Haj Amin al-Hussayni was recruited as a Nazi agent by Adolph Eichmann in Palestine in 1937. By 1938, the Mufti was on the payroll of Abwehr II, the German counterintelligence and sabotage division. (Kuntzel; Encyclopedia of the Holocaust)
* “At an early stage the mufti was aware of the extermination of the Jews and he tried to persuade the Axis to extend the extermination to North Africa and Palestine….” (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Yad Vashem)
* At the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem the court found in its Judgements, Part 50, ” It has been proved to us that the Mufti, too, aimed at the implementation of the final solution, viz. the extermination of European Jewry.”
* Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, Dieter Wisliceny’s Nurenburg testimony: “…the Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry… and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.” (Eichmann trial, doc. 281)
* The Mufti’s conversation with Hitler on November 28, 1941 was documented by the Germans. Hussayni asked for and obtained the statement from Hitler that “Germany’s objective “is…solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere.’(Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Series D, Vol. XIII, p. 881)
* “The phrase used by Hitler in this conversation, ‘Vernichtung des…Judentums’, is one that was used in connection with the Holocaust.” (Walter Reich, former director of the US Holocaust Museum, interview in Haaretz, January 17, 2006)
* The Mufti recruited 20,000 Muslims for the Waffen SS. The Handschar were responsible for the murder of 90% of Bosnia’s Jews, and served as the auxiliary police in rounding up Hungarian Jewry. (Jennie Lebel, “The Mufti of Jerusalem: Haj Amin el Husseini and National Socialism”, 2007; Georger Lepre, Himmler’s Bosnian Division, The Waffen-SS Handschar Division 1943-1945; David Dalin and John Rothman, Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam, 2008 )
* The Mufti wrote letters to the leaders of Hungary and Romania and succeeding in blocking the transport of 10,000 Jewish children to safety in Palestine. “It would be appropriate and more expedient,” he wrote “to prevent the Jews from emigrating from your country and send them somewhere they will be under strict control, for example to Poland.” The children were sent to the death camps. (The Arab Higher Committee. Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes, Documentary Record Submitted to the United Nations, May 1947; letters also reproduced in Lebel (op.cit.)
* “Although there was ample proof to arrest him as a war criminal after the war, the Allies made not effort to do so. They were deterred by Husseini’s prestige in the Arab world. In 1946, Yugoslavia, indicted him for war crimes and asked for his extradition, but the Allies were afraid of the storm in the Arab world if the hero of Arab nationalism was treated as a war criminal.” The French allowed him to escape to Egypt. (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust)
* The Mufti was “by far the most committed supporter of national Socialism in the Arab and Islamic world.” (Kuentzel, op. cit. p.34)
The USHMM biography of Amin al-Hussayni falsely states that “he rejected the 1947 U.N. partition plan …and the establishment of Israel in 78 percent of Mandatory Palestine. Thereafter, he gradually lost his political clout, settled in Beirut, and restricted his activities to those of a religious leader…”
The Facts:
* The Holocaust Museum has reversed the truth. 77% of Mandatory Palestine was given to create TransJordan in 1922. The 1947 U.N. plan partitioned the remaining 23% of the original Mandate between the Arabs and the Jews of Palestine. (Eli Hertz, Mandate for Palestine, p.12)
* The Mufti never abandoned politics, terrorism or Nazi-influenced antisemitism. He is considered, along with al-Banna, of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the founding father of Islamic terrorism and Islamofacism. “…the Muslim Brothers cleared the way for the second career of the Mufti, whose pro-Nazi past they considered a source of pride.” (Matthias Kuntzel, Jihad and Jew Hatred. Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, 2007. p. 46.)
* “Between 1945 and 1948, Islamism received its ‘most important boost’ when the Allied victors …’considered their good relations with the Arab world more important than countering the ideological concoctions of antisemitism, Hitler worship, Holocaust denial and the unbridled desire to destroy Israel, of which the Mufti was the supreme component…the Islamism of the …21st century remains marked …by the connections with Nazism…” (Kuntzel, 2007. forward by Jeffrey Herf, p.XI, XII)
* Starting in 1946, Mufti helped bring “several thousand” Nazi war criminals to Egypt to “‘continue their war against the Jews’.” (Kuntzel, p. 47)
* In 1945, the Muslim Brotherhood opened their first branch in Jerusalem, with al-Hussayni as President. By 1947 they had 25 branches and 20,000 members, ‘follower(s) of the Mufti.” (Kuntzel, p.48 )
* In 1946, he “continued to direct Palestinian Arab political affairs from Cairo,” and blocked the resettlement of 100,000 Holocaust survivors in Palestine. (Howard Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, 1996, p. 271-2)
* In 1947, King Abdullah of Jordan warned that the Mufti wished to set up an Arab state in Palestine with himself as the head. In 1948, the Egyptians did set him up as the president of a puppet government of Palestine, based in Gaza (Sachar, pp. 321, 342)
Actually he did “restrict his activities to those of a religious leader”.
The activities of a Muslim religious leader.
