SSPX leadership and Bp. Williamson having a hard time of it

Via CathCon, on top of things lately, we learn of a story in the Mittelbayerische Zeitung, namely, that the SSPX leadership is not satisfied with the apology made by SSPX Bp. Williamson.

Frankly, I thought Williamson’s apology to be pretty good.  Sure, it didn’t got into lots of details.  He didn’t exactly rub gravel in his hair. 

The translation is pretty rough.

Holocaust denier Williamson threatened with consequences

Bishop Fellay is to announce possible sanctions against Richard Williamson in the coming days.  [Let us be clear about this.  This would be entirely internal to how they get along.  The SSPX does not have authority to impose sanctions on anyone.] "Yes. I’m already in the course of action,"he said on Sunday outside of Mass in Zaitzkofen (Regensburg area), where the Society of St Pius maintains a seminar [sic] for priests. There the Lefebvre Bishop Richard Williamson apparently also gave the controversial television interview in which he denied the Holocaust of six million Jews. The Regensburg prosecutor is investigating a case of race hatred.

Fellay on Sunday gave no concrete indications of the implications of the Holocaust denial will have for Williamson in the Society of St Pius. A possible resignation or an official withdrawal [From WHAT?  The SSPX?  I doubt it.] Fellay would not confirm. "This is perhaps too much to say, but I do not see how Bishop Williamson now can exercise his office of bishop in many countries." [That leaves a lot of other countries.] Apparently, however, in any case a strong reduction of the work of Williamson is being considered.

Lefebvre Bishop Fellay was disappointed that Williamson last Friday, in the midst of worldwide uproar, had regrets over his interview, but had withdrawn nothing substantive. [In other words, Fellay was sorry that Williamson wasn’t more specific and clear.] "You see the situation in which we are. From this you can see that we are disappointed, "he said. Before the interview, he had known nothing of the anti-Semitic attitude of the British bishop. "As he did now, he has never spoken." He had not been aware that Williamson had "extravagant thought" on various topics. "I have, so to speak, to attribute that “to the Briton."  [AH YES!  the pesky "Briton"… painted blue, with a club, screaming as they come over the walls….]

Anti-Semitism was in the Society of St Pius an isolated case. "In each group there are always people on the edges." By Williamson word, wounds had been newly torn open. "I apologise to those who have been hurt by this and especially the Jewish people."


Even with this rough translation, you can see that things are heating up.  The SSPX is reacting with warmth, which indicates to me that even they have some sense of urgency in this matter.  I don’t think this is simple damage control, though clearly it is that too.  After all, they have a base and funding to think about if they are going to survive in a climate that will see less and less discretionary income amongst their followers.

So… what’ll it be?  Will it come to the point that Bp. Williamson will have to function ut sacerdosut laicus?

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Could it be the society fears the legal consequenses of the interview and how it will effect their work in countries that like Germany have laws concerning denial of the holocaust?

  2. Thom says:

    It seems that they’re posturing for the spotlight, because Williamson (and others) have been saying these things for years, with NO official condemnation from the SSPX leadership, such as it is.

    If the posturing is for the purpose of reunion, yay for it. If it is only PR damage control, it’s too little too late. These sorts of ideas of Williamson’ and others in the SSPX have been widely available for years. None of this should come as a shock to anyone. And if one were to dig a little deeper, there would be found much worse than anythin Williamson ever said on TV.

  3. Jesse says:


    It is not because you are not able to understand the theology so clearly explained there that it makes it _vile_.

  4. Nicholas says:

    I’m not sure about the first link provided by BillyHW, but the second one contains this quite reasonable passage:

    “However, in what does that curse [of deicide] consist? Surely it cannot be that there is a collective guilt of the Jewish race for the sin of deicide. For only those individuals are responsible for the sin who knowingly and willingly brought it about. Jews of today are manifestly not responsible for that sin.”

  5. BillyHW says:

    It is not because you are not able to understand the theology so clearly explained there that it makes it vile.

    You know, I’ve just recently discovered your blog Father Z…are these your regulars here?

  6. Bonifacius says:

    Hmmm, is Bishop Fellay going to be criticized for anti-Britonism? When a man is being disciplined for insensitivity to one ethnic group, it seems odd to imply that this insensitivity is characteristic of the perpetrator’s own ethnicity.

    On the substantive point, may it all come out good in the end!

  7. Anthony says:

    The man apologized for what he said… why is this still going on?

  8. Brian Mershon says:

    Quick. We had better excise the entire Gospel of St. John, unless of course there is no spiritual meaning for his words in our time. Oops! We’d better also censor all the Fathers of the Church because their words certainly wouldn’t be used as “hate speech” to persecute Christians in today’s PC world.

    When are we going to talk about anti-Catholic or anti-Christ hate speech?

    Just wondering?

    Has anyone here actually watched the entirety of the Bishop Williamson interview. When, exactly did he deny a dogma of the Faith? I’m still wondering…

  9. Curtis says:

    About 3/4 of material on those pages is more or less orthodox, although more blunt than we mainstream Catholics are used to hearing.

    However, about 1/4 is anti-Semitic garbage beyond a doubt. It states with no hesitation that the Jews are conspiring to overtake Christian states and that they use Protestants as their lackeys. Of course, they also “win control through usury”, taking advantage of sensual gentiles. If this is sober and factual, I’m King Solomon. For pity’s sake, there’s a section listing the Christians that Jews have killed throughout the ages, including little William of Norwich. If this is not anti-Semitism, I ask you what the devil is?

    If the article were about the Church and 1/4 of it was devoted to Jesuitical plots and Maria Monk, which of us would not raise our voice in disapproval?

  10. schoolman says:

    The unfortunate reality is that +Williamson has damaged his credibility to the point that his ministry and spiritual authority as a Bishop becomes questionable.

    As one British Bishop used to say…”ideas have consequences.”

  11. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    Didn’t that one British Bishop say that repeatedly in Acts of the Magisterium class and at evening spiritual conferences…not to mention Sunday sermons.

  12. Baron Korf says:

    Well if the comments about his health are true, would it not be reasonable for him to just retire and take a silent back seat to most of this?

  13. I didn’t realize Bishop Williamson committed the sin against the Holy Ghost.

  14. Andrew, UK and sometimes Canada says:

    It could very well be that there are other issues within the SSPX that make Williamson unpopular among his confreres, and the current situation has brought things to a head.

  15. don says:

    The first link IS full of ridiculous and anti-semitic statements. And this is from the “official” SSPX site? Lord, help us. Or, rather, Lord help our pope – he’s gonna need all the help he can get to wade through this PR nightmare.

    I mean really, does no one in the Vatican check up on these things?!? Don’t get me wrong – I am very pleased the pope is working to reconcile these Catholics who, for the most part, are good and holy people. But junk like that on their “official” webiste? I mean, come on!!! Somebody’s asleep at the wheel in the Vatican PR dept. Remember – we ALL have access to the internet and there are those who will use whatever they can find to cast a disparaging light on the efforts towards reconciliation between the SSPX and the Church.

  16. ED says:

    Hey BillyHW what is on their website was Catholic Theology on the Jews for 2,000 years. If you want proof do some research and see what the CANONIZED SAINTS have said about the Jews over the centuries. Your politically correct eyes may not like what you read. By the way have you noticed all the outrage is what he said about the Holocaust hardly nothing about his also foolish 9-11 remarks. Of course the liberals like those because it indicts President Bush. The outrage by Bishops and their modernist laity co-horts is more directed against their being strong no-nonsense bishops in the hierarchy,they like the soft effeminate ones who say or do nothing (The Overwhelming Majority) Its like the abortion issue ,its not that liberals dont like killing (Iraq, Vietnam, etc etc..) they like clean non-messy murders like in the back room of a Planned Parenthood clinic not those messy battlefield kinds.

  17. Isn’t laicization the penalty for priests arrogating to themselves episcopal duties? I thought it was, but maybe I’m remembering wrong.

  18. Charles G says:


    What some saints and theologians may have postulated over the millenia about collective guilt of the Jews was never something that the Magisterium defined as part of the deposit of faith, although unfortunately some may have seen it as such. And regardless of some potentially anti-Semitic teaching by members of the Church in the past, no Catholic today can ignore the authoritative Magisterial document “Nostra Aetate”, a document passed by an Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) and approved by the Pope, which denounces collective guilt and anti-Semitism:

    True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

    Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

    Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

  19. Andy Brandt says:

    I don’t get it either – he didn’t say anything as outrageous as the hysterical reaction in liberal media would indicate. And he apologized. And SSPX apologized. And Pope apologized and expressed concern. Come one! Isn’t that enough? IMHO this is now the only stick liberals have to attack the Holy Father, attack the Church when it becomes more united, attack the Tradition when it comes back big time making Church more fit to fight evil. Come one, Catholics, wake up! Problem of today is the genocide of the unborn, the spiraling immorality, this whole deluge of sin our societies drown in, not that a bishop said something politically incorrect off-the-record (he was told this won’t be broadcast) about history!

  20. Thom says:

    Everyone keeps throwing apology around…. He didn\’t apologize for espousing those vile viewpoints; he apologized because the media made an issue out of it!

    It\’s kind of like the little kid who steals cookies from the kitchen and his mom catches him. He says, \”I\’m sorry,\” but it\’s not for stealing the cookies– it\’s because he got caught stealing them!

    Intention matters.

  21. John Enright says:

    I don’t think that the “apology” of Bp. Williamson was sincere. He only said that he was sorry for his “imprudent” remarks, but didn’t retract them. think he tried to throw a monkey wrench into the Holy Father’s remarkable lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. How loyal to Rome is that?

  22. IvoDeNorthfield says:

    Rabbi Irwin Kula, in the Huffington Post:

    “///this official Jewish response seems outrageously over the top. Do millions of American Jews sufficiently care that the Pope revoked the excommunication of this unheard of bishop such that major Jewish organizations should devote so much energy and attention to this and turn it into a cause célèbre worthy of front page attention? And is this the way we speak to each other after decades of successful inter-faith work on improving our relationship?

    ….Something is off kilter here. Is it possible that the leadership of Jewish defense agencies, people with the best of motivation who have historically done critical work in fighting anti-Semitism, have become so possessed by their roles as monitors of anti-Semitism, so haunted by unresolved fears, guilt, and even shame regarding the Holocaust, and perhaps so unconsciously driven by how these issues literally keep their institutions afloat, that they have become incapable of distinguishing between a bishop’s ridiculous, loopy, discredited views about the Holocaust and a Church from the Pope down which has clearly and repeatedly recognized the evil done to Jews in the Holocaust and called for that evil to never be forgotten.

    …How about cutting a Pope — who we know along with the previous Pope is probably amongst the most historically sensitive Popes to the issues of anti-Semitism, Holocaust, and the relationship to Judaism and Jews — a little slack given how he is trying to heal his own community. And is it possible that the Pope’s desire/hope/need to reintegrate the Church — (he has also reached out to Liberal theologian Hans Kung) — may be of more importance both to the Church and actually to religion on this planet than whether we Jews are upset about the lifting of excommunication of one irrelevant bishop.

    Would we Jews like to be judged by the crankiest, most outlandish, hurtful, and stupid thing any rabbi in the world said about Catholics or Christians? We Jews are no longer organized to excommunicate and a rabbi can’t be defrocked the way the Church does with its clergy but surely there are individual rabbi’s who say things so abhorrent about the “other” that though we still call the person rabbi we would not want to be taken to task for doing so. And isn’t it possible that bringing Richard Williamson back inside the Church may actually influence him to see how wrong he is on this issue given how clear the Church is regarding the Holocaust and its commitment to Catholic -Jewish relations?”

  23. Maureen says:

    What nobody has mentioned is that all this is happening at a time when European anti-Semitism is open and rising, but also when it is mostly coming from people who call themselves liberal and tolerant. Anti-Israel feeling crosses the line routinely at demonstrations in the last few weeks, even in Canada and the US, to comments that what’s needed is ovens and gas chambers. Muslim anti-Semitism has also been front and center.

    So how can these liberal people prove to themselves that they are not anti-Semitic, even if they’ve been saying things that are? How can they feel good about tolerating anti-Semitism by Muslim minorities? And what if you’re a liberal, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian Jew fighting this cognitive dissonance even more?

    Why, attack Pope Benedict XVI, of course! If he’s the person tolerating an anti-Semite, then they must still be gentle, tolerant, liberal people of goodwill who just have edgy friends. And if Catholics are Holocaust-denying anti-Semites, then Muslims must not be all that bad, so they’re not obliged to say nasty things against a minority like Muslims. (Especially the scary ones who might beat them up.)

  24. Thom says:

    Maureen, there’s a difference between being against the actions of the STATE of Israel and being anti-semitic.

  25. Jerry says:

    Williamson’s comments about the holocaust are not what offends liberal groups both jewish and gentile. This is the comment they fear: “There have always been jews that have converted (to the Catholic faith) and if they have really converted, they make magnificent Catholics. Because as St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, the religion of God is in their bloodstreams. And when a jew truly rediscovers the Catholic Faith, He’s coming home in a way that no gentile is coming home. He’s coming back to Our Lord, and the Apostles and Our Lady who were all Jewish. The Catholic faith was founded by Jews. And when jews come back to it, their coming home…a gentile can never be at home in the Catholic faith in the same way that a real Jewish convert can be.” –Bishop Williamson 2003 interview

  26. Jesse,
    Accusing the Jews of deicide is by its very nature antisemitic. The Jews are not guilty of deicide, humanity is. That is something that Vatican II has made clear, and is not debatable. We are all guilty for Christ’s death, the Jews no more so than anyone else.

  27. Anthony,
    He didn’t apologize for what he said. He apologized for the trouble it caused. He has not retracted his statements, he has not stood down from them. He simply has said that he is sorry he has caused the Pope some trouble. His apology is worthless.

  28. Ed,
    Being a canonized saint does not make one’s teachings infallible. There has never been a doctrinal assertion by the Church that the Jews are responsible for deicide. Please get your facts straight before spewing such hateful bile.

  29. Jordanes says:

    Kevin asked: Isn’t laicization the penalty for priests arrogating to themselves episcopal duties? I thought it was, but maybe I’m remembering wrong.

    Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that Bishop Williamson’s episcopal ordination was not merely illicit but also invalid? Because there is no doubt that Bishop Williamson was validly consecrated a bishop.

  30. ED says:

    Hey Halliman you hater of the Saints leave the church and go Synagogue this Saturday, you two-faced phony

  31. Margaret C. says:

    I suspect that Andrew (UK and sometimes Canada) may be on to something. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few days. Will the SSPX decide that Williamson is such a liability that they need to force him to stand down? Would they be able to force him to retire? I don’t know how the SSPX governs itself, or how seniority is determined among their bishops. But this is becoming awfully interesting.

    Oh, and somebody get a screen shot of the SPXX web site. My intuition, fueled by the recent elections in the USA, is that embarrassing web content will disappear without warning.

  32. ED says:

    The Saints may not be infallible but being Saints they are in Heaven which is more than Halliman the Saint hater and his ilk can say. Nobody ever said it was the OFFICIAL teaching of the Church but the church didn\’t silence the saints through the centuries when they stated their opinions on the Jews, These Novus Ordo bishops would never dare tell the Jewish leadership a Catholic teaching that is INFALLIBLE (OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION) SHALOM!!!!! ABRAHAM HALLIMAN FOXMAN

  33. ED says:

    I have more respect for these JEWS than for guys who never stick up for JESUS and his CHURCH. At least the Jews know what the DON’T believe in and are united against it . The Catholic Church is stuck with SMUCKS like you!!!! Pardon my Yiddish!!!

  34. Thom says:

    Wow… I’ve been deleted for a lot less that that. I’m going to assume that the webmaster is cooking or something, and not letting that diatribe stand.

  35. wsxyz says:

    He didn’t apologize for what he said. He apologized for the trouble it caused. His apology is worthless.

    Everyone keeps throwing apology around…. He didn’t apologize for espousing those vile viewpoints; he apologized because the media made an issue out of it!

    So you demand that Bishop Williamson not only apologize for what he said, but also admit that his opinions were false?

    What if he doesn’t believe that his statements are false? Should he then lie to gain your approval?

    I think Bishop Williamson’s apology is as complete as he can make it. He is sorry that he caused the trouble. He admits he shouldn’t have been spouting off about the Holocaust. But guys, he can’t say that he was all wrong and that 6 million Jews were gassed if he doesn’t believe that to be the case.

    Thom, your analogy is false. If Mama says to stay out of the cookies, and Junior is caught grabbing some, then Junior’s actions are objectively immoral. Not believing in the gas chambers is not objectively immoral. It might well be ignorant, uninformed, and just plain incorrect — but it is not immoral.

    Think for a second about what is commonly called “historical fact”. It has been asserted that there was a war in the U.S.A. and that the U.S. Army burned down my hometown of Atlanta. I have been taught that this event actually happened. I have been assured that the evidence for this “historical fact” is convincingly complete. I read some books that stated that Atlanta was burned. I was told by teachers that Atlanta burned. I assume it to be true, but I don’t know it to be true. I was not there to see it happen and I have not personally examined the evidence.

    However, if someone else chooses to engage themselves more than I do and, after having become familiar with other sources of information and weighing all claims, chooses to believe that Atlanta was not burned to the ground, then they may well be wrong — but their belief is not immoral.

    Bishop Williamson seems to be the type of person who instinctively distrusts “accepted” history. Although he probably goes too far in that distrust, his instinct is not all bad. Most of us swallow all too easily and too uncritically what we hear from mainstream, accepted sources. Sources which are for the most part anti-Christian and whose highest ideals are license and barbarism.

  36. Mark says:

    The SSPX website needs a thorough revamping, especially when it comes to the Jewish people. Let’s not pretent that their private obsessions obligate any one of us to defend them, as if they were representative of the Catholic Faith. These people have already caused enough damage to our Church. I wish they would withdraw to a quiet place for a time, and sort things out amongst themselves. Then we’ll talk.

  37. isabella says:

    Anthony at 3:30pm–Because there is a certain group of people in the world whose motto is”Never forgive,never forget!”

  38. Thom says:

    wsxyz, there is more to Williamson’s vile worldview than simply what he said in the infamous video.

    I invite you to make yourself familiar with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and how a Bishop of the Church can support something like that.

  39. dcs says:

    think he tried to throw a monkey wrench into the Holy Father’s remarkable lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops.

    He gave the interview in November before anyone knew that the Holy Father was going to lift the excommunications. If anyone was trying to scotch the lifting of the excommunications it was the media, not Bp. Williamson. If Williamson wanted to throw a spanner in the works he could break off on his own (he does have something of a following). Give the man some credit.

  40. Michael says:

    +Williamson’s “apology” is low key, and the word “unnecessary” makes it even ambiguous. A sincere apology is clear and without reservations. Here, however, only one of the four paragraphs constitutes a sort of apology – and you, Father Z., find it “pretty good” – the second and the third are an attempted self-justification, and the last is irrelevant.

    Look at this: “For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God.” It sounds like doctrinal lesson to the Pope, to which the scriptural “proof-text” is supplied.

  41. Jordanes, yes. He was properly ordained a priest, yes? Though his episcopal ordination is invalid and illicit, his sacerdotal ordination was valid and licit. Yet he has been acting as a bishop, above his station, as it were. Isn’t the canonical punishment for that situation laicization, not excommunication?

  42. Adeodatus says:

    It seems that there is more Anti-Semitism in the SSPX than just crackpot Williamson. A guy associated with this that I knew sometimes spouted anti-Jewish bilge… but that one link above is sobering.

    The “material mastery” of Jews that is Luciferian and opposed to all nations, eh? I guess these guys won’t want to show up at the Second Nuremberg Council either.

    Any enemy of the Jews is an enemy of our Lord. It doesn’t surprise me that these guys are such disobedient slanderers.

  43. Mark Polo says:

    The German word “Seminar” is the current word for “seminary” (and “Knabenseminar” is “minor seminary”), so that, presuming the original had “Seminar”, you can take the [sic] out of the article and change “seminar” to “seminary”.

  44. Silver lining says:

    One of the consequences of the SSPX’s years of isolation is that some pretty weird and downright obnoxious views on any number of non-religious subjects (not specifically the Holocaust -in my hearing) occasionally form part of sermons or conferences of certain priests and bishops. The kind of thing that would get the average Catholic priest reported to his bishop or be printed in the local papers (and then reach his bishop’s ears) would just go unchecked.

    So last week the SSPX got a big dose of reality. The Holy Father has elevated them (at least for a time) to a global stage. People who would have never gone to a website of theirs or purchased a book will do so. Some of those people might very well be prosecutors for the German Federal Republic. They will very quickly have to learn that prudence is the watchword. As Fr. Z mentioned in another context its “big boy pants and wheaties for breakfast” time.

    The SSPX has no juridical authority to punish anyone. I suppose the best they could do is remove you from the SSPX but unless you agree that would have zero practical effect. In order to do anything to you the SSPX has to rely on secular authorties. For example charge you with trespassing. Also as a priestly fraternity they do not take a vow of strict obedience. The most a superior can do is firmly suggest.

    On the other hand the Holy Father has given immense moral coersive power to Bishop Fellay. That has clearly strenghtend his hand vis-a-vis Bishop Williamson. That shift is so evident that even Fr. Schmidtberger, who doesn’t even have theoretical authority over Bishop Williamson feels that he can get an oar in. No doubt with one eye on those pesky German prosecutors.

    For twenty years the motto was internal unity at all costs. With full unity with the Church looming the tune seems to be changing and some long overdue housecleaning is taking place.

    It is likely that if a “Williamson” break-away faction ever existed it has more of less disappered. The US and France are the two powerhouses of the SSPX. It is unlikley that Bishop Williamson would have ever got any ‘traction’ in France. That he has been placed on the backfoot would now also appear to make chances in the US nil.

    In any event any breakaway would have to overcome the substantial hurdle that about 15 years ago the SSPX made sure that all property was transferred out of the hands of laity and into the hands of clubs, associations, corporations etc. that are controlled by SSPX priests. I would be surprised to find anything but the most loyalist Society priests members of those bodies.

    Considering the immense pressure that he is enduring on behalf of the SSPX the Holy Father (or his delegates) will be coming to the negotiating table with a deck of aces.

    All of this is a very substantial silver lining to the current cloud.

    Viva Il Papa

  45. Corleone says:

    BILLYHW – as you are new here, first I will bid you welcome. But unfortunately, I have to echo Jesse’s post as you either did not read the articles in their entirety or you are simply unfamiliar with Catholic theology on the subject of Judaism. In the article regarding Deicide, if you read it clearly, it states specifically that the Jews of today do NOT bear the sin/guilt of what the Jews of Jerusalem did 200 years ago. But yes, make no mistake, the Jews AND Romans were responsible for the death of Our Lord. That’s all you had at that place and time; Jews and Gentiles (no Mongols, Mayans or Eskimos around). Theologically, we, all of humanity, is an extension of this legacy (both the secular/Roman and religious/Jewish powers conspiring to kill Jesus). So, we are ALL responsible. But to deny the part of the Jews of Jerusalem in the death of Our Lord is to disregard the gospels.

  46. Maureen says:

    Re: anti-Israel vs anti-Semitic

    Please read my comment (and the news reports) more carefully. What I said what that, at anti-Israel demonstrations in the last few weeks, there was a large amount of openly anti-Semitic demonstrating going on. Saying “You should have all died in the ovens” is certainly not something that can be construed as all about the geopolitics; and that is the sort of thing that has openly been said.

    There have always been a lot of anti-Semites who were anti-Israel just because Israel included Jews, and a lot of anti-Israel folks who did not seem to have a clear conception of just what would happen to most Israelis if Israel fell. And of course a lot of Muslims have always hated Jews.

    What is different is that open anti-Semitism is becoming common and acceptable for public expression again in a lot of places in Europe, and by a lot of people everywhere who should know better. Some of it seems to be overzealous politics; some of it seems to be the traditional “let’s hate somebody all together to paper over our differences”. (Probably modified to be more inclusive of those Muslims with a real hate on against Jews.)

    But of course, lots of people do know better, and they know in their heart that they’ve crossed a line they never thought they would. So, as I pointed out above, pointing out an outsider as an anti-Semitic bigot makes it feel less like they themselves (and their friends) have become anti-Semitic bigots.

  47. Maureen says:

    A case in point of what I’m talking about:
    Report by a lady on what she saw at the Toronto anti-Israel rallies.
    Read the whole thing.
    What another lady saw.

    When responsible people run political demonstrations, they eject anyone who is hateful or off-message. But these days either it’s out of fashion to do that sort of thing or the organizers don’t really mind. Either way, the hateful folks run rampant and silence equals consent.

  48. Brian Mershon says:

    Thom, You can read Bishop Williamson’s intentions. Wow! We have a lot of profound spiritual directors of high calibre on this forum.

    Lots of bishops have worldviews on issues or opinions on matter of history or philosophy that do not match up with the PC media worldview.

    What in the world does that have to do with their Catholic Faith? Because he thinks fewer Jews were killed than the official PC version advocates?

    Yep. The Gospel of St. John is next. Who do you people think St. John is referring to in his Gospels? How about the Fathers of the Church?

  49. Jordanes says:

    Kevin said: Jordanes, yes. He was properly ordained a priest, yes? Though his episcopal ordination is invalid and illicit,

    Wrong. The Catholic Church says his episcopal ordination is valid but illicit.

    his sacerdotal ordination was valid and licit. Yet he has been acting as a bishop, above his station, as it were. Isn’t the canonical punishment for that situation laicization, not excommunication?

    I don’t know what the punishment is for a priest who pretends to be a bishop, but Bishop Williamson is not just a priest — he is an illicitly consecrated bishop.

  50. Jordanes says:

    Brian Mershon said: Lots of bishops have worldviews on issues or opinions on matter of history or philosophy that do not match up with the PC media worldview. What in the world does that have to do with their Catholic Faith? Because he thinks fewer Jews were killed than the official PC version advocates?

    As Christopher Ferrara explains in The Remnant, this isn’t a matter of not being “politically correct.” Traditionalist Catholics who are inclined to Holocaust denial or reductionism really need to take Ferrara’s words to heart.

  51. anon says:

    There are plenty of episcopi vagantes in existence, many of them using the Tridentine Mass. Some of them are very odd people as that sort of religion appears to attract peculiars of all sorts. Williamson would fit in very well among them and be forgotten. He has very little to distinguish him. His views arising from a peculiar view of history, not pc but downright erroneous, are contradicted by a vast mass of evidence, from the Commandant of Auschwitz, from concentration camp survivors, from the meticulous documents compiled by the SS. The are held by no respectable historian; the only person with historical pretensions who agrees with him has addressed Neo-nazi meetings, and was subject to considerable criticism at the Old Bailey. Williamson is not a historian, but a graduate in English literature.

  52. LeonG says:

    SSPX have always had a hard time of it. They were born out of sheer necessity. They stand for traditional Roman Catholicism and are willing to defend this until the end. They frighten liberal modernists and all beffudled phenomenological relativists inside and outside The Church. Those who hate them will always hate them because they hate The Church itself. Without SSPX, the traditional renaissance would have been made even more problematic than it is. Thankfully, they continue the tradition of real missionary activity which has stalled for decades in the mainstream church. Those who continue to persecute need no excuses. They ignore apologies; charitable actions and the divine mandate to spread The Gospel. This has always been so since The Christ was crucified on the cross. Are we prepared to suffer and even die for The Faith? Most members of SSPX I have known do not care what the public thinks about them as they are more concerned about what Almighty God thinks. They love The Holy Mass in its authentic Catholic form and they endeavour to teach The Faith of Our Fathers, Holy Faith. They will be true to Thee till death. They will be true to Thee till death.

    As for their detractors – well, it is never too late to repent and be saved while there is still life.

  53. Thom says:

    Brian, “What in the world [do those views] have to do with his Catholic faith?”


    Faith is more than smoke and maniples!

    I don’t need to read intentions to know what he has written not only about the Holocaust but about the “book” that I mentioned previously, nor do I need any psychic ability to understand what is and has been going on in their groups since the SSPX hit my radar a few years back. From some of the things I’ve read, you would think it’s a neo-Nazi group, or some sort of paranoid anti-government cult.

    What do those views have to do with his Catholic faith? Everything. Because if the love of God is really in us, it will color all of our thoughts and actions, and not just our liturgy and pious rhetoric.

  54. Breier says:


    Calm down! You obviously know very little about the SSPX, or the the Catholics who worship at their chapels. Your posts are a good example of the harm scandal can do. Bishop Williamson’s crackpot theories have scandalized many people against the SSPX, creating a grotesque caricature that has no existence in reality.

    The people who worship at SSPX are devout orthodox Catholics, nothing more, nothing less. Would you judge the United States congress by a statement from one member of the House of Representatives?

  55. Brian Mershon says:

    Thom, OK. So those with worldviews different than yours, or the media’s predetermined worldview (which is not Christian, by the way)are not of the Catholic Faith, whole and entire? I get it now. In case you or Jordanes might not understand what is happening, Rorate has a very good summary today. This is about attacking the Pope–not about Williamson. By attacking the Pope, they attack the Faith. And guess who is behind that?

    But don’t let that change your overreaction to the overreactive media coverage of the SSPX reconciliation. There are forces being aligned here, and I certainly hope the Catholics of good will on this forum clearly recognize which side they are on. This is not about “holocaust denial,” since no one denied the holocaust. This is about PC history and the media using it as an opportunity to attack the Catholic Church and the Pope.

    I certainly hope our sins are not as open to the world for EVERYONE to comment upon for two full weeks as Bishop Williamson’s have been.

    Enough is enough already. I’m more concerned about the subsitute priest at our pairsh this mroning who thought it was OK to crack off-color jokes during his “homily” with children present and then order everyone to sing “Happy Birthday” to one of the altar boys as the recessional song. Talk about spiritual abuse.

  56. Thom says:

    Breier, this is what I know. I know that most who pray and worship at their chapels don\’t hold these views. I know that most who are attracted to the SSPX do not, either. However, I do know that many in their leadership do hold these views, and it helps to shape the climate. And some faithful, when exposed to these things for long enough, began to be worn down by it all. They might say, \”Maybe that\’s not so outlandish, after all.\” (I worry most about the kids raised in that sort of small, closed group with such high walls.)

    What really sets me off are Catholics, in full communion with Rome, who attempt to justify this filth because they\’re so \”wet my pants\” excited about getting the SSPX back.

  57. Brian Mershon says:

    By the way, Jordanes, for the record, you posted some words that I wrote and then proceeded to post an article by Christopher Ferrara.

    I’m not certain what the point you intended to make was, but you did nothing to address the substance of the words you lifted and reposted. I am not defending Bishop Williamson. I am trying to act Catholic–which means when someone apologizes, we accept their apology–not burn his effigy on Catholic blogs.

    That is called forgiveness and is Catholic.Others come up with responses that say “Apology is not enough.” That is the work of the evil One.

  58. Thom says:

    Yes, Brian, damn the Jews and damn me, too, because you had to hear “Happy Birthday” during an extra-liturgical procession.

    Ugh. I’m done.

  59. Henry says:

    Brian: This is not about “holocaust denial,” since no one denied the holocaust. This is about PC history and the media using it as an opportunity to attack the Catholic Church and the Pope.

    To me, this seems to be the case. Though I’ve had the general impression that Bishop Williamson is some kind of loose cannon (or worse), I’d never read or seen anything by him until the last couple of days when I succumbed to curiosity as to what all this is about and looked up the infamous 5 min 47 sec Swedish TV clip.

    I was surprised to not hear Bp. Williamson state any views either pro or con about Jews as such, nor any claim or suggestion that the Holocaust had ever happened — as I’d assumed (from all this discussion) he had alleged.

    Perhaps the alleged remarks — for which so many say he owes an apology or denial — are from some other or longer video clip. Did I view the wrong one? In so, can anyone provide a link to the “right” one? (No links to any of his turgid writings, please: I’m just not that interested in him or his views.)

  60. Brian Mershon says:

    Henry, a lot easier to read news snippets and headlines about “Holocaust Denying-” etc. etc. for days on end than it is to actually watch the clip prior to ranting and raving it for weeks.

    Thom said: “What really sets me off are Catholics, in full communion with Rome, who attempt to justify this filth because they’re so ‘wet my pants’ excited about getting the SSPX back.

    So let’s see what the Pope’s own spokesman, Fr. Lombardi said:

    “great news that we expect to be a source of joy for the whole Church … It is a beautiful thing that the lifting of the excommunication occurred on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the Second Vatican Council, in such a way that this fundamental event now cannot any longer be considered an occasion of tension but of communion.”


    It has been a source of great joy for me since the SSPX is the only chapel within 2 hours that has the TLM regularly (every Sunday). Some of us have not the fortune of being surrounded by TLM churches all around us so we can cast stones upon those who do not.

    Henry, your analysis, as is usual and customary, is spot on.

  61. RBrown says:


    Your reference to Aldi on your site is inaccurate.

    1. It is not a local chain. ALDI is a German company started by the ALbrecht Brothers (AL-brecht DI-scount). They are, I am told by a German friend who is an SSPX sympathizer, not only the richest men in Germany but also very Catholic.

    2. Although they have many discounted items (milk, eggs, cereal, etc), they also carry certain foods (some imported) that I can’t find anywhere else. Some are imported, e.g., German Strudel or Belgian chocolate bars. And some are made in the US, tiramisu (which they have occasionally), frozen lasagna with Italian sausage, and cannoli.

  62. RBrown says:

    Breier, this is what I know. I know that most who pray and worship at their chapels don’t hold these views. I know that most who are attracted to the SSPX do not, either. However, I do know that many in their leadership do hold these views, and it helps to shape the climate. And some faithful, when exposed to these things for long enough, began to be worn down by it all. They might say, “Maybe that’s not so outlandish, after all.” (I worry most about the kids raised in that sort of small, closed group with such high walls.)

    Do you worry about all the children raised in liberal Catholic homes by people who thumb their noses at Catholic doctrine? Do you also worry about the Protestantization of the Church that took place 35 years ago?

    And, speaking of “small, closed groups with high walls”, Dante places heretics (those who thumb their noses at Catholic doctrine) in the most enclosed structures possible–tombs.

    What really sets me off are Catholics, in full communion with Rome, who attempt to justify this filth because they’re so “wet my pants” excited about getting the SSPX back.
    Comment by Thom

    OK, now tell us about the Catholics at your parish who are in favor of women priests, pro abortion, or practicing contraception.

  63. Thom says:

    RBrown, thank you for clarifying the Aldi enigma, and for completely glossing over the point of my post. :-p (For what it’s worth, I shop there, frequently.)

    As far as my parish goes, I don’t happen to know of anyone who is in favor of female priests, abortion, or contraception.

    Thanks for the tip about tiramisu. I’ve never seen that there!

  64. RBrown says:

    One of the current deceptions is that heresy is an indication that someone is open minded. In fact, the heretic prefers his own particular opinions to the universal doctrine of the Church. He has enclosed himself in the narrowness of his own opinions.

    And we can understand Dante’s image of the heretics being in tombs.

  65. Charlotte says:

    Wow – all these “commercials” for traditional Catholicism are getting better and better. I’m just chomping at the bit to want to start going to Latin masses and hang out with all of you.

    I know many of you are very passionate about what you’re writing and debating. That’s great. But on the otherhand, does anyone here ever wonder what the effect is upon those of us who lurk here, trying to learn about trads, SSPX or not?

  66. Michael J says:


    You wrote “However, about 1/4 is anti-Semitic garbage beyond a doubt” and then proceeded to cite several examples. Unfortunately, I could fine none of what you quoted on those pages.

    For example, you said that “there’s a section listing the Christians that Jews have killed throughout the ages, including little William of Norwich” and yet google reports:

    “Your search – Norwich – did not match any documents.”

    What gives? I assume that you were looking at the wrong site or repeated information without confirming it yourself. Another possibility, of course, is that I missed seeing what you reported. If so, could you please post the specific url that shows what you say?

  67. Adeodatus says:

    I love how the SSPX claim to be “faithful Catholics”. They’re not faithful Catholics. They’re protestants, traitors and villains.

    Based on the above link about the “mystery of the Jews”, which states taht Jews employ “material mastery” and are the enemies of all nations, the SSPX is also an Anti-Semitic organization. So you can add “criminals” to the list.

    If there were a just nation on this Earth, its law would be to cut out the tongues of Anti-Semites. You are enemies of God and traitors against the Church.

  68. Charlotte: I’m just chomping at the bit to want to start going to Latin masses and hang out with all of you.

    I should warn you that the traditionalists most in evidence here at WDTPRS are decidedly more exotic than those I see at most TLM’s. So don’t let your expectations soar too high.

    Actually, having perused your blog, I’d think you’d fit right well with a Latin Mass community like mine — probably not unlike one there in southern Wisconsin (of which I myself am a survivor). Just typical orthodox believing Catholics who — since we have here only a Sunday TLM and a single midweek EF Mass — typically attend daily OF Mass in their home parishes and are active in the usual parish affairs.

    Though your family profile suggests you’re not likely to catch up with the two moms in our community who have 8 kids each, nor even with the several others who have 4 or more. But clearly you’re plenty young enough to contribute to the demographic solution to Church problems that’s well underway.

  69. Brian Mershon says:

    Charlotte, You should embrace traditional Catholicism because it will most effectively help you to glorify God and save your soul.

    End of story. Nearly every canonized saint (in fact, maybe all of them)were traditional CAtholics. I’m a traditional Catholic because the popular Novus Ordo variety is not strong enought potion to save my very stubborn soul.

    We are not here debating to give you/others a “commercial” for traditional Catholicism.

  70. Breier says:

    Michael J,

    The controversial article in question is found here:

    The article is an from the 1997 edition of the SSPX USA Angelus magazine, authored by two priests, and posted among hunderds of other articles on the American district SSPX website.

    Scroll down and you’ll find it, or word search the document.

  71. Breier says:


    It’s absurd to take a 1997 magazine article as the official position of an organization of over 400 priests and hundreds of thousands of faithful. Rash judgment is not an attractive attribute.


  72. Adeodatus says:


    It’s on their website. If they didn’t agree with what it said, they wouldn’t have it posted.

    Look, I’m a conservative. Dippy quasi-protestant music, Pelagian hymns, female altar servers, applause, liberal ‘Catholic’ politicians who undermine the Church and the cause of life… all of that offends me deeply. I don’t even believe in democracy… sign me up for a good Catholic monarchy. So I *get it*. I do.

    But just because a bunch of people are kissing the Devil’s left hoof doesn’t mean I’m gonna kiss his right hoof just to balance it out. The SSPX is an evil organization. Period full stop.

  73. Jordanes says:

    Brian Mershon said: In case you or Jordanes might not understand what is happening, Rorate has a very good summary today. This is about attacking the Pope—not about Williamson.

    Rorate, you say? Yes, I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding about what is happening, and about what Rorate has today. ;-)

    I’ve previously commented that the timing of the airing of Bishop Williamson’s interview is mighty suspicious, and I’m inclined to see it as coordinated in some way by somebody who is not friendly to the Pope and/or the SSPX catching wind of what the Pope was about to do and tipping off the folks in Sweden so the interview could be aired at just the right (wrong) time. Of course it could all be coincidental, but this smells to me like a hit.

    By the way, Jordanes, for the record, you posted some words that I wrote and then proceeded to post an article by Christopher Ferrara. I’m not certain what the point you intended to make was, but you did nothing to address the substance of the words you lifted and reposted.

    My point is that it is, shall we say “unhelpful,” to dismiss or seem to dismiss the enormity of the Holocaust as a “PC version” as some traditionalists have done in the past few days. Yes, it’s “politically correct” to talk of about 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust, etc., much as it is politically correct to talk of dawn appearing in the eastern sky. Bishop Williamson’s apology was most welcome and desperately needed.

    My point was also to take an opportunity to draw greater attention to Ferrara’s piece, because I think a lot of Catholics of every persuasion need to read it.

  74. JayneK says:

    “The SSPX is an evil organization. Period full stop.”

    You do not seem to trust the judgment of the Pope. It is rather obvious that he values SSPX and wants them reintegrated. Does it seem likely he would want to do this with an evil organization? Consider his remarks written while still cardinal soon after the schismatic ordinations.

    “One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.”

    The url is:

    I recommend you read the entire text of his remarks. (Father Z, you might find it worth posting this with your comments as a main entry.)

  75. boredoftheworld says:

    “If there were a just nation on this Earth, its law would be to cut out the tongues of Anti-Semites. You are enemies of God and traitors against the Church.”

    How about people who despise the French, should we cut out their tongues as well?

  76. Mary says:

    Charlotte, though Father Zuhlsdorf’s posts are useful, reading comment boxes is a bit of a mixed bag, and could be a confusing and piecemeal way to learn about traditionalism, as you point out. I recommend for that particular purpose instead.

  77. Charlotte says:

    What on earth are you suggesting? That because I don’t have a large family that I’m not a good Catholic? For your information, I’m 40 years old this year, married to a man who’s 52 years old – and we’ve only been married for 3.5 years. So I don’t know how many more Catholic kids I’m going to be able to manufacture for the cause. Argh!!!

    Anyway, yes, I agree I might fit right in with the Latin mass crowd. Except I’m worried that people like Brian (who I’ll get to next) would be sitting in the pews with me.

    Brian – I’ve asked on my blog, and I’ll ask here – WHERE would you like me to get my info/commercial on Traditional Catholicism? I suppose you’ll say Fisheaters, with all their “introductory” documents straight from the SSPX website, right? Well, I peruse there too, but it seems that forum is quite the cesspool of bashing – including, I might add – QUITE a bit of Father Z bashing. Or wait – I know – I’m supposed to read that book by Chris Ferrara, right?

    I maintain that the passionate commbox discussions going on right now, concerning the SSPX, are a PERFECT education on Traditional Catholicism. I might as well find out good and early the hidden viewpoints that many harbor. Including the many who are SSPX-sympathetic.

    At least Father Z, even if I sometimes disagree with his tone, is taking a “brick-by-brick” approach. I think “brick-by-brick” is a way to get an education.

  78. Breier says:


    If you want to know about traditional Catholicism, simply read a classic Catholic book. This isn’t some kind of movement, it’s just the faith of our grandmothers and grandfathers.

    Why not start here:

    Baltimore Catechism

    My Catholic Faith

    Buy or loan a traditional Missal and read through it.

    Older reprints from Tan Books are also great.

    If you want to read about so called “traditionalist” controversies, I’d recommend Michael Davies, who was an exceedingly lucid and sedate author.

  79. Charlotte says:

    Thank you for being charitable to a “newbie.”

    I am currently reading through a copy of the kid’s Baltimore Catechism, a reprint I bought at a Catholic homeschool conference. It’s fascinating to me, I definitely got cheated in the 70’s and 80’s with my touchy-feely CCD classes.

    I am tempted to read through a Roman Missal, but I have so many other books on my plate, and many that have to do with basic Catholic faith and the saints, that I don’t know when I’ll get to that.

    Thank you for your recommendations.

  80. Patrick says:

    I think Williamson is about to be hung out to dry. Watch for it. He’ll be removed from his SSPX post and reprimanded, perhaps sent off to a life of prayer. Will he go quietly? Who knows.

    It’s very interesting that, now with the heat on, Bp. Fellay is really backing off defending him. With the Holy Father and Fellay moving toward a reconciliation, Williamson will probably go under the wheels of the bus. And with good reason. His statements through the years have been decidedly unbecoming for a bishop (cue – poster responding, “Well, lost of bishops have done REALLY bad things – NOTE: I don’t care. That doesn’t work from my kids, and it shouldn’t work here. Just because someone does something bad and gets away with it, doesn’t excuse someone else from doing something bad).

    The play to watch will be if Fellay can convince Williamson into some quiet retirement.

    On another note, does anyone know where Williamson actually studied, and what degrees he has?

  81. Jordanes, thanks for the correction. I haven’t followed the SSPX episcopal ordination controversy at all. I had thought the ordinations were both invalid and illicit. So, my question is mooted.

  82. Charlotte: What on earth are you suggesting? That because I don’t have a large family that I’m not a good Catholic?

    Nope. What could be more absurd? (Did I sound like one of these crazy trads?)

    For your information, I’m 40 years old this year

    From which information on your web site I so shrewdly deduced that you’re most unlikely catch up with our 8-child moms. So what? (I and my wife don’t have 8 either, and are glad of it. Speaking for myself, at least. And surely more so for my wife.)

    But, seriously, I know of no blog where you can get a really accurate sense of traditional Catholicism as I see it on the ground.

    Actually, I don’t like the term “traditional Catholicism”. We’re just talking about the Catholicism of the past millenium or so, before the visible profile of the Church was distorted by so many Catholics loosing all or most of their faith but (unlike in former times) not leaving the Church itself.

    So just read any solid book about the Church written back when it still was Catholic through and through. Maybe even a golden oldie like Cardinal Gibbons’ “The Faith of Our Fathers”, which played a role in my own conversion a half-century ago. As did (at a higher level) a couple of Cardinal Newman’s books.

    For a faster start, though, just go to a TLM and hang around afterwards. If the community’s like mine, I’ll bet you’ll be convinced these are the liveliest, most congenial, and just the best darn Catholics you’ve ever been around. If so, you’ve found some really traditional Catholics (or whatever they ought to be called).

  83. JayneK says:

    This past week or so, has been for me a crash course in understanding the traditional movement. Before this the SSPX was on the edge of my awareness. I have been following comments here, joined a discussion forum for traditionalists and reading SSPX materials. At first I was taken aback by the harshness of some of the comments, but I became more sympathetic over time.

    I have been trying to read primary sources when I can – the actual interviews and statements. When I compare these to accounts in the media, I am struck by how biased and distorted most of the reporting is. I’m starting to get angry and frustrated by it. It’s getting to me after a week and some of these people have been dealing with this for years. I am far more able to excuse some crankiness than I was a month ago.

    A movement like SSPX is likely to attract some malcontents along with those who are attached to the traditional Mass. Almost all groups have their “lunatic fringe” and it is usually necessary to overlook more extreme comments to get a sense of what is truly representative of a group. As far as I can tell, there are many fine people involved with SSPX.

    If you are looking for a forum to discuss this sort of thing, I suggest Catholic Online Forum:
    I can guarantee you won’t find Fr. Z bashing there. It is a moderated group (founded by Fr. Z) and has many posters with traditionalist leanings. It’s statement of purpose is:

    [b]The Forum has a particularly Catholic Christian character and openly proclaims its faithfulness to Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ and Successor of Peter, in union with the Catholic Bishops throughout the world.

    Our goal in participating should not be always to be “right” at any cost, but rather humbly and honestly to seek the truth.

    In this, we will be guided by common sense, intellectual honesty, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, her Tradition, her laws, and her duly appointed pastors.

    Since our common goal is to get to heaven, when disagreements result from our discussions
    our guide will be charity and our motto will be…


  84. A Roman Resident says:

    You can see that Bishop Williamson is imprudent and lacking in class, but his statement and reaction demonstrates again the dictatorship the Jews have in this world.
    Only the Jews are capable of breaking relations just like that.
    Say something agaisnt them and it is automatic anti-Semetism.

    I for one am being convinced everytime that they started the Holocaust themselves to punish the bourgeois jews who were all happy with their money and had no interest in the radical zionist ideals.

    Today I think it is happening again, but where it hurts most.

    In Wall Street.

  85. Curtis says:

    Michael J:
    Funny you mention the Norwich bit. The page mentions a 12-year-old “William of York”. St. William of York was a medieval bishop who had nothing to do with Jews. William of Norwich, on the other hand, was (supposedly) ritualistically murdered by Jews at the age of 12, setting off a chain of pogroms throughout England. Clearly, they have the name wrong.

  86. Yes, Ed, clearly I’m a hater of the saints when all I do is write about them and the beauty and truth of the Catholic faith, when all I do is defend true Catholic teaching, and when I rely on their intercession constantly. That was some beautiful Catholic charity you exhibited there. For my part, I will pray for you. Anyone reading this will please pray for me, too.

    By the way, Ed, someday I’m going to be the priest offering the Traditional Latin Mass and praying both rites with authentic devotion and fidelity, and I will be the priest defending the true Catholic faith. Are you sure you want to accuse me of hating the saints and asking me to join a synagogue? Or in this time of crisis would you rather have someone like me willing to make the sacrifice the Church needs right now? The anti-spam word I had to type here was “think then post.” It’s a shame that wasn’t yours. Don’t let hate grip your soul. Let the love of Christ pierce it instead.

  87. Bill says:


    RE: “… what is on their website was Catholic Theology on the Jews for 2,000 years”. For hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years, people thought tomatoes were poisonous. Turns out those people were wrong, and the fact that many people believed wrongly for so many years doesn’t make their belief about tomatoes less wrong. I am not trivializing church dogma by bringing up the tomato analogy. Perhaps many Catholics and even some saints (who after all are still sinners) held anti-semitic views, but these ideas were never part of the official deposit of the faith. Not all tradition is sacred tradition, and it would be good to keep that in mind.

    I think Michael Hallman has presented very well reasoned arguments, so why the invective and vituperation on your part? It’s a generally accepted principal that the person who resorts to name calling has lost the debate. Speaking of name calling, your messages make it appear that intimating someone is a “Jew” is about the worst insult you can conjure. What does that say about your attitude toward Jews? Do you think your expressed attitudes are representative of the typical SSPX priest? What about the typical person who attends SSPX masses?

    I read the “Mystery of the Jews” document (since removed from the SSPX website) last year when looking into the SSPX. I don’t see how any reasonable person could consider the following quotes from the document to be anything *other* than anti-semitic:

    “Beyond its financial influence, Judaic thinking comes to dominate the cultural and educational fields. The pattern repeats: Jews get into posts of influence, and submit society to a high degree of corruption in ways of thinking and acting, which leads to a reaction of public opinion against them.”

    “Sixth Conclusion: Under pain of sin, Catholics cannot hate the Jewish people, cannot persecute them or prevent them to live, nor disturb them in their private practice of their laws and customs. But, they must nevertheless preserve themselves from the danger they represent. Catholics are not to enter into commercial, social, nor political relations which are bound hypocritically to seek the ruin of Christendom. Jews must not live together with Christians because this is what their own Jewish laws ordain and also because their errors and material superiority have virulent consequences among other peoples. If the other peoples reject these precautions, they will invite upon themselves these consequences, namely, to serve the Jewish people to whom belongs superiority in the kingdom of the material.”

    We learn in the first quote that Jews are “corrupting” and bring persecution on themselves because of how bad they are. In the second quote, we learn that Catholics can’t have anything to do with Jews, and that catholics can’t have any Jewish friends, neighbors or business associates.. This is anti-semitism no matter how you slice it.

    I think in many ways the SSPX could have a lot to offer, but they’ve got to repent of the anti-semitism.



Comments are closed.