Rorate Caeli

SSPX goes on trial in Britain, fails in bid to buy church

On July 15, the SSPX's bid to buy a disused Anglican church (St. George's, Gorton, in east Manchester) was rejected by the Commissioners of the Church of England. This came after more than a hundred letters letters of objection to the sale of the church reached the offices of the Anglican Diocese of Manchester. More on the actual decision here and here.

For more on the background to the decision, please read this:

Persecution Rising
SSPX Goes on Trial in Britain

(Posted 07/15/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) Today, July 15, 2009, the SSPX goes on trial in Britain accused of being a threat to the peace and welfare of society. The venue for this show trial is, however, no legal court of the land but rather the Church of England’s Commissioners offices in London.

The question to be formally decided by the sitting Committee for church buildings (uses and disposals) is: Can we sell a building to the SSPX in light of the Bishop Williamson comments about the Holocaust, or, as one Liberal Democrat Councillor put it, can the Church of England sell a building to “the church of latter-day Holocaust deniers.”

Read more in the Remnant

30 comments:

Peter said...

It's a good depiction of the current state of the Church of England. They can desacrate a church to make a restaurant inside, but they can't sell to Catholics. Maybe they're really afraid of the Jews, or maybe they remember that bishop Williamson used to be Anglican?

Notice that their accusations of so-called "antisemitism" are based not on bishop Williamson statements (which were not anti-anybody, as every unprejudiced person can see), but to the SSPX's adherence to traditional teaching of the Church about the Jews.

Paul Haley said...

It's part and parcel of the Modernist's conundrum. They cannot attack the FSSPX on any theological grounds so they take issue with the private views of one of its more vocal members and stigmatize the entire group for those private views. It's the same as saying "you must accept Vatican II and the current magisterium." OK, we do accept in the light of Tradition. Oooops, That's not enough.

Manc said...

Meh. This is old news. It was reported in the local press months ago.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Meh. This is old news. It was reported in the local press months ago."

There were rumblings, yes, but the actual rejection came last July 15.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Yes, one is a heretic in denying the holocaust, that is, the true holocaust of Calvary.

The schismatic/heretical sect of England and the Novus Ordo sect should get their own house in order before throwing stones.

Jordanes said...

They're not merely "private views of one of its more vocal members," they were public views of one of the four SSPX bishops, and they're views that are rightly associated with anti-Jewish bigotry. It's problematic enough even to hold such opinions, and highly imprudent to say the least to publicise them. They have seriously harmed the SSPX, blackening its reputation in the eyes of the outside world, where many have now lumped them together with neo-Nazi hate groups. The Anglicans' rejection of their bid to buy the church is just one consequence, and all for a scandalous opinion on a question having nothing to do with the Faith.

wheatforparadise said...

... they're views that are rightly associated with anti-Jewish bigotry.

You should say 'rightly or wrongly associated with anti-Jewish bigotry'. Not everyone who questions the official secular narrative of "the Holocaust" is an anti-Jewish bigot.

It's problematic enough even to hold such opinions ...

Perhaps you are among those who would like to see Bishop Williamson prosecuted and imprisoned for expressing such opinions?

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes,

You have missed the main point of my post which is: "They cannot attack the FSSPX on any theological grounds so they take issue with the private views of one of its more vocal members and stigmatize the entire group for those private views". As for these views seriously harming the SSPX and blackening its reputation, that is only your opinion However, I'm sure it's the view of many a modernist out there. And, the more publicity this gets the more the regularization gets derailed. Is that what you want?

Dan said...

"blackening its reputation in the eyes of the outside world"

Sorry, Jordanes, I actually thought that we are not to please the world (But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness).

Maybe His Excellency's opinions are not your opinions. Fine. But he said it was *his* opinion.

Actually, what it really touched was a sacred media dogma, a propaganda myth. And some groups don't like that and will make everything possible to distort whatever was said. But OK, let Bp. Williamson aside. Some truths are indirectly important for faith, particularly those that unmask bigotry and prejudice hidden in socially convenient dogmas.

If we really believe in the Social Reign of Christ we will offend the world. "The wold will hate you", isn't that right Jordanes? Or are we looking to please them, or to sound politically correct to them?

True, he expressed just an opinion, he never denied that fact. Every Catholic is absolutely right to agree or disagree with him. But the freedom to say what he said has to be preserved in the Church. Chances are we are going to displease the world, particularly some powerful groups whoever they are.

The Anglican sect hates the Church, not the liberal/progresivist/modernist side of it, but the orthodox side, whether SSPX or any other orthodox group within its ranks.

And this has to do with Faith.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

A bishop having an informed, yet politically incorrect opinion on a historical event pales in comparison to the Roman Pontiff engaging in scandalous prayer gatherings with members of false religions. Yet nobody in the Conciliar Church wants to discuss this, which only shows that the secular holocaust is being given more importance than divine one.

Don Johnstone said...

The article in The Remnant stating that this decision is the modern equivalent to the Tyburn executions is laughable. The Anglican's can sell their empty Churches to whoever they like. Them refusing to sell the Church to the SSPX is hardly the same as what happened at Tyburn. For a start the Catholics who were killed back then were authentic Catholics in good standing with the Pope. Genuine Catholics should stay out of this, it's a debate between two "Protestant" sects.

Please no more persecution complex hysterics. Instead why not try a little Christ like compassion and mercy and perhaps then people will trust the SSPX a little more.

Don Johnstone

Angelo said...

Don Johnstone said,
"Instead why not try a little Christ like compassion and mercy and perhaps then people will trust the SSPX a little more."

During the months from about Christmas into the following year,
2006-07, a natural catastrophe occurred in Sri Lanka -- a tsunami
which devastated wide areas with great loss of life. The Society of
Saint Pius X, was the only traditional Catholic group, as far as I know, that mobilized resource under the able direction of its district superior to bring material relief and spiritual comfort to the local inhabitants.
A major tsunami project was initiated to build houses and to enable villagers to obtain or construct their own boats so that they might resume their fishing upon which their livelihood is so dependent.

In gratitude to the Society of St Pius X, the local major and bishop
paid public tribute to the Society and thanked them for their material assistance.

When I hear remarks like Mr Johnstone or similar remarks, it really pisses me off.


http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/Sri_Lanka/sspxNewsArchive_2007.htm

Jordanes said...

You should say 'rightly or wrongly associated with anti-Jewish bigotry'. Not everyone who questions the official secular narrative of "the Holocaust" is an anti-Jewish bigot. ***

Wrong. The fact that not all Holocaust deniers are anti-Jewish bigots does not mean that Holocaust denial is not rightly associated with anti-Jewish bigotry.

Perhaps you are among those who would like to see Bishop Williamson prosecuted and imprisoned for expressing such opinions? ***

No, just censured and silenced and not permitted to have any ministry in the Church until he shows himself knowledgeable and prudent about sensitive matters of history.

Mr. Haley, I did not miss your point, but had to correct your mistaken downplaying of a factor that is far more important than you seem to be aware. It's not that the Anglicans "can't" attack the SSPX on theological grounds, but that they don't have to, because they have been handed an issue that more than suffices to accomplish their purposes of thwarting and marginalising the SSPX.

As for these views seriously harming the SSPX and blackening its reputation, that is only your opinion ***

No, it's not just my opinion. Bishop Fellay understands how harmful it has been -- if he didn't, he wouldn't have told Bishop Williamson to stop voicing his scandalous opinions about it.

However, I'm sure it's the view of many a modernist out there. ***

And of many orthodox Catholics out there too.

And, the more publicity this gets the more the regularization gets derailed. ***

If it is just my opinion, how could it derail the regularisation?

Is that what you want? ***

No, but traditional and traditionalist Catholics don't help themselves, their cause, or the Church by continuing to minimise Holocaust denial. They only dig the hole deeper that way.

Sorry, Jordanes, I actually thought that we are not to please the world (But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness). ***

Holocaust denial is not "preaching Christ crucified." We are blessed when we are persecuted for righteousness' sake, not for foolishness' sake.

Some truths are indirectly important for faith, particularly those that unmask bigotry and prejudice hidden in socially convenient dogmas. ***

So it's effective evangelism to repeat unhistorical, discredited, and scandalous assertions about the victims of Nazi genocide as long as it unmasks bigotry and prejudice hidden in socially convenient dogmas?

If we really believe in the Social Reign of Christ we will offend the world. ***

Holocaust denial has got nothing to do with the Social Kingship of Our Lord.

Or are we looking to please them, or to sound politically correct to them? ***

This is about historical accuracy and abhorrence of mass murder, not politics or pleasing unbelievers.

Every Catholic is absolutely right to agree or disagree with him. ***

Since his opinion is wrong, every Catholic is obliged to disagree with him once they know the facts.

But the freedom to say what he said has to be preserved in the Church. ***

And the freedom to censure and repudiate what he said has also to be preserved in the Church.

an informed, yet politically incorrect opinion ***

It was uninformed and historically incorrect.

For a start the Catholics who were killed back then were authentic Catholics in good standing with the Pope. Genuine Catholics should stay out of this, it's a debate between two "Protestant" sects. ***

Whatever their standing with the Pope, the SSPX members and adherents are authentic Catholics, and the SSPX is not a Protestant sect. Please be more circumspect and thoughtful in your comments and criticism regarding the SSPX.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Since his opinion is wrong, every Catholic is obliged to disagree with him once they know the facts."

Jordanes, I do not doubt for a second that the figure of six million murdered Jews is largely correct, but I do think anyone has the right to question the accuracy of that figure since it has not been dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church.

That it is foolish to do so on the grounds of what is almost universally regarded by serious scholars as bogus history is another matter. No-one has the right to be foolish, especially not a Bishop. When a Bishop is foolish it discredits the Faith. That is the real crux of the issue.

Gideon Ertner said...

"The Church of Latter-Day Holocaust Deniers"

Is that not offensive to the Mormons, I wonder?

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes,

And, the more publicity this gets the more the regularization gets derailed. ***

If it is just my opinion, how could it derail the regularisation?

By continuing to blame the FSSPX for the private views of an admittedly outspoken bishop. By playing into the hands of the modernists who would like to see the regularization scuttled. I expect that the bishop in question was well-known for his outspoken views long before this latest flap and he has even apologized for it but for some, it appears, that is not enough. He has been sent into exile for expressing his views and that is a tragedy not only for the church but for individual liberty as well.

Is that what you want? ***

No, but traditional and traditionalist Catholics don't help themselves, their cause, or the Church by continuing to minimise Holocaust denial. They only dig the hole deeper that way.

Have I ever minimized the holocaust? I saw Dachau with my own eyes and I can assure you it had a profound impact on me. You and I obviously disagree about the impact of a bishop's private views on the holocaust, the specifics of which I maintain are not articles of Faith and have no place in theological or doctrinal discussions.

You seem to believe that you can continue to berate him for his views with no damage to his reputation or by inference to that of the FSSPX. That is the ultimate tragedy of this forum, that someone who calls himself a traditionalist would play into the hands of the barracuda-like media and those out to scuttle the regularization process.

Do you believe that the Church is in Crisis mode or not? If you do, it would seem you would want to relegate this matter of his private beliefs to the dustbins of history where it belongs.

Gideon Ertner said...

I can't wait till the Muslims make a bid for the building...

Jordanes said...

Mr. Ertner, I quite agree with your first comment, and I think your follow-up on "Church of Latter-Day . . ." is also on the mark. It's doubtful that it was intended as respectful of either the SSPX or the Mormons.

Mr. Haley, I do not blame the FSSPX for the private views of Bishop Williamson, nor do I necessarily attribute his views to the SSPX as a whole, though I think I'm not far off in saying he's not the only member or adherent of the SSPX to hold such views. Actually I was and am very encouraged by the way Bishop Fellay and the SSPX have responded to the eruption of the media scandal surrounding the "Williamson affair."

Have I ever minimized the holocaust? ***

I'm not aware of you ever doing that, but the way you worded things, it gave the impression of minimising Holocaust denial.

You seem to believe that you can continue to berate him for his views with no damage to his reputation or by inference to that of the FSSPX. ***

I do not mean to berate him, but his views. I do say that he was very imprudent in airing his views, but I suspect he himself might agree with that assessment.

That is the ultimate tragedy of this forum, that someone who calls himself a traditionalist would play into the hands of the barracuda-like media and those out to scuttle the regularization process. ***

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean me or Mr. Palad who posted this new item? For one, I don't call myself a traditionalist, and for another, it was Mr. Palad, not I, who composed this blog post. I've said before that it's best if the Williamson affair be allowed to fade from people's consciousness, and defending or appearing to defend his expressed views (wholly apart from questions of historical accuracy) is only going to keep the issue alive.

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes,

You're the one who took issue with my post and my comments were directed to you not Mr. Palad. And to imply that I minimized the holocaust because I spoke in defense of a person's right to hold his private views is really a low blow.

But, since you said you'd like the controversy over this matter to quietly disappear, let us say no more about it. The FSSPX has many who hold private views and only the Good Lord knows what they are; they are not automatons. Let us welcome them for the spiritual benefits and gifts they can give to Holy Mother Church and leave it at that.

wheatforparadise said...

No, just censured and silenced and not permitted to have any ministry in the Church until he shows himself knowledgeable and prudent about sensitive matters of history.

Well, speaking of "sensitive matters of history", I notice that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists are perfectly free to publish books that deny and blaspheme Our Lord Jesus Christ, whose very historical existence is questioned by some of those people. Yet a person can be fined and imprisoned for questioning the facts surrounding the genocide of the Jews during World War II.

I also notice that there is a certain bishop in Germany who wants to censure Bishop Williamson, yet who himself denies basic Catholic dogma, e.g., the propitiatory nature of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, and still this man exercises ministry in the Church.

Jordanes, are you as eager to silence Christ-deniers as you are to silence Holocaust-deniers?

Rick DeLano said...

"Jordanes, are you as eager to silence Christ-deniers as you are to silence Holocaust-deniers?"

Bravo.

As for the magisterial pronouncements of Jordanes as to what does and does not constitute "foolishness", I note first off that he doesn't bother to substantiate what he asserts. This is a typical tactic employed when one intends to signal that a given question is no longer to be debated according to reason, but is instead to be submitted to by diktat.

I don't know how many Jews died in the Holoocaust.

Neither does Jordanes.

What I do know is that no one will be threatened with prosecution for questioning the number of Catholics who dies in the Holocaust.

Snow said...

You don’t think that the goal of the Holocaust Fundamentalists is to replace Jesus’ Sacrifice on Calvary with “the Holocaust” as the pivot point of all history?

“If Auschwitz is true, it represents human suffering that is incomparably greater than that of Christ... Auschwitz is the denial of Christ.” Claude Lanzmann, Les Temps Modernes, Paris, December 1993, page 133

“When each of us stands before the Six Million, we will be asked what we did with our lives.” Simon Wiesenthal’s magazine Response, Vol. 20, No. 1

Gideon Ertner said...

"What I do know is that no one will be threatened with prosecution for questioning the number of Catholics who dies in the Holocaust."

But have you ever heard anyone do it?

The laws against Holocaust denial did not exactly arise out of the blue, you know. They exist because the denial was seen as providing a boost to a certain political movement that all right-minded people should consider highly dangerous.

And I for one think we should all be thankful for it because it provides a prime example to the Liberals that even a 'Liberal' society may find it necessary, and even perfectly acceptable, to keep 'heresies' at bay.

(And, as it turns out, holocaust denial laws have provided the precedent for making illegal the denial of the genocide of Christian Armenians.)

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Jordanes,
Thank God for the courage of your words. Some of the comments on this thread are beyond scandalous.

ICXC NIKA
John

Snow said...

Scandalous???

Trying to separate TRUTH from LIES is scandalous???

What truth needs jails to enforce belief?

Gideon Ertner said...

"You don’t think that the goal of the Holocaust Fundamentalists is to replace Jesus’ Sacrifice on Calvary with “the Holocaust” as the pivot point of all history?"

Possibly, but Lanzmann has got it wrong; Auschwitz does not "represent human suffering that is incomparably greater than that of Christ", because the suffering of Christ surpasses even the suffering that would ensue if every single member of the human race were consigned to the eternal flames of Hell.

Auschwitz, if seen in its proper context, is not the denial of Christ. It is a reminder of the presence of evil in this world and of the fact that even in the most evil of evil places, the grace of God shines through (e.g., in men such as St. Maximilian Kolbe).

Gideon Ertner said...

"What truth needs jails to enforce belief?"

What truth needs interdicts, racks and stakes to enforce belief?

Jiman said...

Please Gideon. Do you think the quote was offered in agreement with Lanzmann?

Of course not, the context is clear. The quotes were explicitly offered to show that the exaggerations of "THE Holocaust" ARE being used to displace Jesus Christ.

Simon Wiesenthal's group wants to shove Christ the King from His Judgment Seat and replace Him with the "6 million" AND they get plenty of help from some people on this blog ("You know who you are.")

As to your snide remark about interdicts, etc., the Holy Office of the Inquisition claimed authority ONLY over Catholics, BELIEVERS. Jews and Muslims were not subject to the Inquisition.

In contradistinction, "holocaust denial" laws are used against NON-believers, the skeptics, to enforce their belief.

Gideon Ertner said...

Jiman, I know the comment wasn't offered in agreement with Lanzmann. I'm only saying his analysis is devoid of meaning, and we should dismiss it as such. The fact that some groups think in this twisted way is no reason not to acknowledge Auschwitz for what it was.

As for the Inquisitions - no, they did not claim jurisdiction over believers, but over the baptized. They certainly did attempt to force people who did not believe in the Catholic faith to do so. And I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing.

Jordanes said...

You're the one who took issue with my post and my comments were directed to you not Mr. Palad. ***

Alright then, but I'm not someone who calls himself a traditionalist, and this isn't my blog post.

And to imply that I minimized the holocaust because I spoke in defense of a person's right to hold his private views is really a low blow. ***

I did not say nor imply that you minimised the Holocaust. I'm not aware that you've ever done that. Rather, my concern is that your words have the effect, intended or not, of downplaying the seriousness of Holocaust denial.

But, since you said you'd like the controversy over this matter to quietly disappear, let us say no more about it. ***

Sounds good to me. I cringe inwardly whenever I see a report or post that references the Williamson affair (it always attacts certain unwelcome opinions, which I see have made their appearance again). Even so, this is a noteworthy event and I don't fault Mr. Palad for posting on it or anyone else for being bothered or offended by the Anglican refusal to sell the church to the SSPX.

Let us welcome them for the spiritual benefits and gifts they can give to Holy Mother Church and leave it at that. ***

Amen.

Yet a person can be fined and imprisoned for questioning the facts surrounding the genocide of the Jews during World War II. ***

That is an unjust law and furthermore is logically indefensible in any society that claims to be a liberal democracy.

Jordanes, are you as eager to silence Christ-deniers as you are to silence Holocaust-deniers? ***

If they are Catholics, definitely. Non-Catholics aren't yet responsible to the Church for any denials of the Church's faith. Catholics are, especially if they're in Holy Orders.

This is a typical tactic employed when one intends to signal that a given question is no longer to be debated according to reason, but is instead to be submitted to by diktat. ***

It's also a signal that the question is not to be debated here at all. The policy of Rorate Caeli on Holocaust denial has already been stated. It's not tolerated here.

I don't know how many Jews died in the Holoocaust. Neither does Jordanes. ***

We don't know the exactly number, but we know it's far more than a few hundred thousand, and not less than a few millions. The six million estimate is probably more or less accurate.

What I do know is that no one will be threatened with prosecution for questioning the number of Catholics who dies in the Holocaust. ***

Nor should anyone be prosecuted for the advancing the unhistorical and dangerous claim that the Holocaust is a hoax. They should be contradicted, refuted, and definitely not given a teaching platform in the Church.