Skip to main content

When is a rebuttal not a rebuttal?

Image
By
+
JMJ

When is a rebuttal not a rebuttal?

When it doesn't directly address the point of contention.



In this case we have Bishop Williamson's defense of his actions in 2009.
(Quoting Fr. Wegner) It is brought to my attention that in Queen of Angels, Texas, parish of the SSPX, you said recently that when in November of 2008 I spoke to a Swedish TV interviewer about the "Holocaust", I was perfectly well aware of what harm my remarks would do to the SSPX, and I made the remarks anyway, as though I positively wanted to harm the SSPX.
 Key elements:
  • When Bishop Williamson uttered his opinion in Germany he was definitely aware that he was breaking a civil law of that country.
  • He would have to be a fool to not foresee the effects that such actions would have on his own person as well as the apostolate of the SSPX in Europe.  Especially since he was banned from entering Canada for a number of years for similar comments.
  • Assuming that Bishop Williamson reasonably could foresee the effects of his words and still made them anyway, the inference made by Fr. Wegner is not out of the bounds of rationality.
(Bishop Williamson continues) I will assume that this report of your words is substantially accurate, because it is a widely shared version of my intentions at that moment.
Here is the truth, with which you must do as you see fit, but you will have been told it.
When I called in question the Six Million and the Gas-chambers, for good or ill the thought of the SSPX was absolutely not in my mind. I had in mind one thing and one thing alone -- to tell what I understood to be the truth on a very important question of modern history and religion, because the "Holocaust" has been made into the most widely spread and influential substitute religion of modern times.
I expect no apology. I might be grateful if you ceased to tell counter-truths about my intention in uttering those famous words. Over to you.
With good wishes in Christ, +Richard Williamson." 
So, Bishop Williamson claims that the "SSPX was absolutely not in my mind" ... well it should have been.

He should have had the SSPX forefront in his mind as he brashly proclaimed the 'truth' about a place he has never visited nor a time he has never experienced.

Truly, it is Bishop Williamson who has made a religion, his religion, out of the Holocaust (shoah).

Pray that he realizes his error before he makes his final journey.

P^3


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sedevacantism and Heresy

By
+ JMJ I've observed three core reactions during this crisis of the Catholic Church. The Pope can't be wrong, therefore this is the New Springtime The Pope is infallible in certain conditions and there is a problem with many things that have been said, done and written, during and after the Second Vatican Council (even in the Council doc). The Pope can't be wrong, this stuff is wrong, therefore he isn't Pope. Of course there are a spectrum of responses in between, but these are the key elements. The 1st group holds the words of the Pope et al as impeccable. Here, let me get you a Koran to kiss... The 3rd group holds that they've all been heretics and lost their office.  There is also a spectrum within this group.   One answer is that they are very poor judges of heresy.  The link below provides some reasoned thought that, I'm happy to say, is completely consistent with Church Teaching. Canon law blog: Its not impossible just very diff...
4 comments
Read more

What does it mean "I'm a Traditional Catholic"?

By
+ JMJ I was visiting with a friend the other day when he said: "I'm a traditionalist". This surprised me because, while I could imagine him saying he was a "conservative or faithful Catholic", I didn't really think that the "traditionalist" label would stick. This got me to to thinking about what it means, or should mean when a person shakes you hand and says: "Hi, I'm a Traditional Catholic".
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

By
 + JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...
Post a Comment
Read more

Schism

By
There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...
Post a Comment
Read more