Replies

Really?
They’re as pure as that are they?

I am not saying that anybody is pure, but only that dogma is not the same as personal motivation. You started by seemingly suggesting that members or adherents of the SSPX are motivated by hatred of Jews, and I think this is unreasonable. Even if a percentage of people associated with the fraternity have a particular idea about Judaism it does not prove anti-semitism in regard to them or the SSPX itself. It certainly doesn't make their ideas dogma, even SSPX dogma.

Really? You are aware they did remove some materials last year right? And that is an excellent start. Why do you limit yourself to Fellay? Are you uncomfortable with discussing Williamson? or Lefebvre himself?

Limit myself? Why do you say that? I said "Fellay et al" demonstrating I did not limit myself. And I am perfectly willing to discuss Williamson but I don't see it proving anything. People on this forum won't accept the authority of a Cardinal who is a competent authority in a field appointed directly by the Pope, and yet I am supposed to take Williamson as some sort of super SSPX example? He is a bishop, and he has opinions. So what? Mahoney is a Cardinal and has opinions too. Does that prove something about the Church? I don't think so.

And is there any real, and I mean real, evidence that Williamson is actually motivated by hatred of Jews? Is that the only reason people could have for doubting the holocaust numbers? That argument just sounds a little too much like the argument that not supporting Obama can only be because he is black.

Have you read articles written for The Angelus by SSPX priest Frs. Crowdy and Novak? Are they still priests in good standing?

I haven't read the articles, and do not know them. Send me links and I will read them. And what do you mean by "priest's in good standing"? Do you mean in good standing with the SSPX, or the Church? If they are SSPX priests then clearly they wouldn't be the latter, and as for the former I obviously wouldn't know.

I did catch Fellays response to the Williamson question, and that is an excellent start. But I tend to want too much too quickly I guess...I would “like” to hear Fellay specifically correct Williamson on the issue of holocaust denial. Instead he says - well - we’re not in the history business - we just concern ourselves with faith. Nice dodge.

You should know that the Church has no revealed deposit of faith regarding the number of victims in the holocaust. Williamson is historically wrong, but why he is wrong is hardly self evident. As for Fellay, he could have said more, but why should he? How is this a dodge? Is the Church in the history business? Have the Popes been forced to take an oath regarding how many died in the Holocaust, and how many Africans died during the slave trade in America? I am not personally offended by what I read of Fellay's reaction.

And what about all the influence Williamson had in the Society for YEARS? And the priests & laypeople who received their formation from him.

What about it? What about all the influence Weakland had for years? Mahoney? The list goes on and on. What of it? Williamson is a bishop who is dead wrong on a matter of history. How many bishops do you know who are dead wrong on matters of faith? Which would you prefer?