Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Bishop Who Denied Holocaust Ousted


kenrockthefirst

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1777220' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:05 PM']he was clearly talking about those of the religion of Rabbinic Judaism, as later in the interview he made clear anti-semitism as "the rejection of Jews because of their Jewish roots" is rightly condemned by the Church. He was using St. Paul's own words; where, may I ask you, do the gospels or epistles tell us "not to provoke"?!! the gospels and epistles tell us just the opposite of that, in fact.[/quote]

I believe I heard it a couple of Sundays ago at Mass. I am fairly certain it was from Paul. I will try to find the exact verse later, when I have more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1777221' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:06 PM']NOT AT ALL!!! loving your enemy does not mean lying to them or being subversive. You must be clear and honest about who your enemies are... part of loving your enemies in the Christian context is HAVING enemies. if you don't have enemies, you're not being a good Christian, as Christ told us that the world would hate us.[/quote]

One can have enemies and completely honest Christians without rubbing that word in someone's face. Other words can be used that may be much more effective. Of course I have enemies. Usually it's the minute they learn I'm a devout Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so was St. Paul wrong to call the Jews (of the religion of Judaism which rejects Christ) "enemies for the sake of the gospel" in Romans 11:28, or was it just +Williamson who was wrong to do so? to me, these are two bishops, two apostles, sperated by 2000 years but saying the same poignent thing which is perfectly acceptable; as a people they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (the Spiegel artical says 'the Father', i assume there was somethin misspoken or mistranslated by the Germans somewhere along the line, but in any event that also would make sense given the western tradition of viewing Old Testament acts of God as acts of the Father) but enemies to the Gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1777234' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:23 PM']so was St. Paul wrong to call the Jews (of the religion of Judaism which rejects Christ) "enemies for the sake of the gospel" in Romans 11:28, or was it just +Williamson who was wrong to do so? to me, these are two bishops, two apostles, sperated by 2000 years but saying the same poignent thing which is perfectly acceptable; as a people they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (the Spiegel artical says 'the Father', i assume there was somethin misspoken or mistranslated by the Germans somewhere along the line, but in any event that also would make sense given the western tradition of viewing Old Testament acts of God as acts of the Father) but enemies to the Gospel.[/quote]

Not only St. Paul but God, because He is the ultimate author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1777239' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:25 PM']Not only St. Paul but God, because He is the ultimate author.[/quote]

I didn't find the provoke quote yet, but this recent reading from St. Paul says something to me:

"Although I am free in regard to all,
[b]I have made myself a slave to all
so as to win over as many as possible.[/b]
[b]To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak.[/b]
[b]I have become all things to all, to save at least some.[/b]
All this I do for the sake of the gospel,
so that I too may have a share in it."

Does that mention using the word "enemy" to win souls? To me, it almost sounds "politically correct," even though liberals annoy the croutons out of me.

If we are to become all things to all, shouldn't we consider being a friend to all as well? Paul even goes so far as to say slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but St. Paul himself uses the word "enemy" so your interpretation is irrelevant! in fact, it's not so much +Williamson here using the word enemy, but +Williamson quoting St. Paul using the word enemy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1777052' date='Feb 9 2009, 05:22 PM']Evidently for some people the holocaust is a new article of the Catholic faith. Truly sad.[/quote]

Sad? It's almost weird coming from such an educated man.

I could take liberal bishops in stride but this one is about history; it just boggles my mind.
Denying history within the last 60 years? That just seems odd to me.

Is this to be an article of the Catholic faith due to the Bishop or the fact that this is a widely accepted thought: the denial of the Holocaust? :wacko:

prayers for him.

Edited by jmjtina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1777246' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:39 PM']but St. Paul himself uses the word "enemy" so your interpretation is irrelevant! in fact, it's not so much +Williamson here using the word enemy, but +Williamson quoting St. Paul using the word enemy![/quote]

Um... no, it's not irrelevant. How does St. Paul's use of the word "enemy" trump the other things he said? Was St. Paul directly addressing Jews in that Epistle? Or was it a letter to the Romans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's pretty much like saying was +Williamson adressing the Jews in that artical, or was it just the Germans? St. Paul's encyclicals were read aloud in the Christian assemblies and people went out from there and lived according to what he told them; so they lived considering the Jews of Rabinnic Judaism 'beloved for the sake of the fathers' but 'enemies for the sake of the gospel'... why? because they went around proposing a continuation of the Old Testament which was not in Christ, so they were THE ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL, and they remain the enemies of the Gospel.

becoming like all so that some might be saved does not mean what you claim it means; it's a huge stretch to say that it does; it means meeting people at their level.

your interpretation of that passage has no place in the history of the Church, it's an anachronistic reading which doesn't take into account St. Paul's intent. how on earth you can take that verse to mean "don't call people your enemies" is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1777254' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:49 PM']that's pretty much like saying was +Williamson adressing the Jews in that artical, or was it just the Germans? St. Paul's encyclicals were read aloud in the Christian assemblies and people went out from there and lived according to what he told them; so they lived considering the Jews of Rabinnic Judaism 'beloved for the sake of the fathers' but 'enemies for the sake of the gospel'... why? because they went around proposing a continuation of the Old Testament which was not in Christ, so they were THE ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL, and they remain the enemies of the Gospel.[/quote]

The Internet and mass media didn't exist back then. Williamson spoke to a great part of the world in the interview. Also, I never said that the Jews at that time were not enemies of the Gospel. Yikes.

Did Paul ask the Christians specifically to call the Jews their enemies to their faces? That's on you to prove.

[quote]becoming like all so that some might be saved does not mean what you claim it means; it's a huge stretch to say that it does; it means meeting people at their level.

your interpretation of that passage has no place in the history of the Church, it's an anachronistic reading which doesn't take into account St. Paul's intent. how on earth you can take that verse to mean "don't call people your enemies" is beyond me.[/quote]

Your taking another verse to infer that God loves when we use hatefully connoted words to those who we minister has as much place in the history of the Church as my "interpretation."

By the way, I didn't use that verse to mean "don't call people your enemies." But it seems that we have other options as Christians, as well. I only mentioned the verse as an afterthought, and it's pretty clearly said. Not a lot of interpretation needs to be done; it's pretty cut and dry.

"I formed you, and set you
as a covenant of the people,
a light for the nations,
to open the eyes of the blind,
to bring out prisoners from confinement,
and from the dungeon, those who live in darkness."

--Isaiah

Opening people's eyes can be done in more ways than one.

Now let's hope I don't get accused of being a Protestant for quoting the Bible so much.

Edited by lilac_angel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1777051' date='Feb 9 2009, 06:22 PM']I'm not sure; I'll have to read more about it. But he didn't recant any of his opinions.. though it is good that he claimed he will be doing more research.

Maybe he will eventually be reinstated, God willing.[/quote]

Yes, I think being willing to consider that he is wrong and trying to find the truth is what's needed with respect to his misinformation on the Holocaust. Like you said,maybe he'll be able to be reinstated someday. -Katie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the religion of Rabinnic Judaism is, by definition, an enemy of the gospel.

honestly, that +Williamson's quote of St. Paul is so scandalous to you really shows you to be at odds with Paul's spirit of evangelization. He himself referred to the Jews as enemies; in the context of history (and the history of Christian teaching) this means that rabbinic judaism is the enemy of the gospel; but that the Jewish people are beloved of God for the sake of the fathers. Have you missed that part of +Williamson's quote? He called them beloved for the sake of the Father[s], enemies for the sake of the gospel...

lilac, you won't get accused of being a protestant for quoting the Bible; but +Williamson's being accused of being an anti-semite for QUOTING THE BIBLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1777277' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:04 PM']the religion of Rabinnic Judaism is, by definition, an enemy of the gospel.

honestly, that +Williamson's quote of St. Paul is so scandalous to you really shows you to be at odds with Paul's spirit of evangelization. He himself referred to the Jews as enemies; in the context of history (and the history of Christian teaching) this means that rabbinic judaism is the enemy of the gospel; but that the Jewish people are beloved of God for the sake of the fathers. Have you missed that part of +Williamson's quote? He called them beloved for the sake of the Father[s], enemies for the sake of the gospel...[/quote]

I never said it was scandalous. :unsure:

Maybe I didn't word things well enough?

Did Paul ask the Christians specifically to call the Jews their enemies [u]to their faces[/u]? That's on you to prove.

There is more than one way to evangelize. I don't think this is at odds with Church teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1777283' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:08 PM']There is more than one way to evangelize. I don't think this is at odds with Church teaching.[/quote]

I have to agree with you-I think St. Paul's time was very different than our own-"Jews" of that day were actively persecuting Christians for their beliefs. I don't think shouting "convert, enemies of the gosepl" is really going to make anyone consider the Church...-Katie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...