Friday, January 30, 2009

Holocaust denial is no bar to communion with Rome

As has been observed by a number of communicants, Cranmer has restrained himself from commenting upon the matter of Bishop Richard Williamson, notwithstanding numerous requests for him to do so.

But he shall not.


He shall resist all temptation.

Fervently praying.

But he does have a question:

Rome has been fiercely critical of the Church of England for ordaining women and admitting them to the episcopate, and for even thinking about ordaining homosexuals. As far as Rome is concerned Anglican Orders are absolutely null and utterly void anyway, so a fortiori must they be for women and gays.

But what does it say of the Roman Catholic Church that it actively incommunicates a bishop who is a self-declared and unashamed holocaust denier?

Women have no choice with regard to their gender. The debate about a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality is on-going. But one does actively choose to believe 'there were no gas chambers' and that 'only 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, instead of 6 million' - as if the revised figure somehow renders Adolf Hitler a merciful and congenial sort of chap.

It has even led to questions in Parliament.

Labour MInister Sadiq Khan told MPs: "The fact that somebody who can deny that the Holocaust took place can hold high office, can be invited to august institutions to debate this, causes me great concern. Many MPs will... find the promotion of such a person highly unsavoury. Let's be clear those who deny the Holocaust aren't pseudo-historians who are revising history. Some of their views... demonstrate anti-Semitism. We can't pretend the Holocaust didn't happen."

For the Conservative Party, Dr Julian Lewis added: "The Pope has made this decision to take someone who is an unrepentant denier of the Holocaust back into his Church. I'm sure British Roman Catholics and British Jews and those of no religion whatsoever will be absolutely horrified about what the Pope has done."

And for the Liberal Democrats, Lembit Opik said the Holocaust was 'a blood-stained testimony to what happens when an ordinary, decent society is allowed to descend into extraordinary barbarism and the abandonment of basic human rights'.

Would one rather be in communion with an ordained woman, an ordained homosexual, or an ordained holocaust denier?

For all his faults, Cranmer cannot quite see the Archbishop of Canterbury tolerating a holocaust-denying bishop with Nazi sympathies, and less still being proactive in the rehabilitation of one.


OpenID BL@KBIRD said...

The handsomest and most well appointed Jew hating Jackal I have seen this month. Was he in any of the Gaza parades?

30 January 2009 at 16:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incommunicate - lovely word.

I suppose Peter Mandelson was 'incommunicated' last autumn.

Any other candidates for incommunication?

Ken Livingstone? (By Londoners)

Lucifer? (Mandelson's alter ego?)

the list is endless.

30 January 2009 at 16:27  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

I've been trying to keep out of this as I am no longer a communicant of the RC Church. This has been on the books since members of the Priestly Society of St Pius X and their followers allowed the BNP to groom them, using as their text part of Pope Leo XIII's answer to communism and consumerism:

"If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his [sic] would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life." (50 words out of morethan 16,000.)

I understand where the Pope is coming from - he is incommunicating the Bishop because he now accepts papal authority, but this narrow-minded decision has handed both schismatics and anti-semites a victory on a plate, in that they always hated the Second Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate, both because it reaffirmed the dignity of Judaism as a religion, and it formally withdrew the blood libel.

In aswer to His Grace's question, I am happy to be in communion with ordained women. Maybe one day the RC church will see that there is nothing magical about the Y chromosome that restricts ordination to men.

30 January 2009 at 16:42  
Anonymous James Goodman said...

I would rather (if I had to choose, which, thankfully, I do not) be in communion with an ordained holocaust denier.

My reasoning as as follows:

a) The homosexual.
I'm assuming that the homosexual has an active sex life and does not see it as a problem. Scripture forbids homosexual behaviour, so the homosexual is an unrepentant sinner.

b) The woman.
Scripture prohibits women from exercising authority over men in the context of a church meeting, so the woman also is being disobedient to God.

c) The holocaust denier.
We ought to be truthful, and to take seriously those things which ought to be taken seriously. So the holocaust denier is also being sinful.

The difference here lies in the type of sin being committed, and the view each sinner takes of his or her sin.
In cases a) and b), the sinners are taking clear statements, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are re-interpreting them. Their standards are not the same as the standards laid down in scripture.
In case c), it is possible that the sinner agrees with the standards of honesty and integrity laid down in the Bible, but is genuinely (and wrongly) persuaded that the holocaust was not an historical event.

Those ordained to preach to others ought to be competent and practised in handling the Scriptures. So those in cases a) and b) should have thought through their respective positions and weighed up all the Biblical data. Yet they have still come to positions plainly antithetical to the Scripture itself. They are happy to engage in disobedience, and call it obedience. These people should not be teaching others.

In case c), the man may be a competent Bible teacher, but may not have weighed up the historical eveidence concerning the holocaust. That is a bad thing, but a bad thing of lesser importance than the bad things in cases a) and b).

We do not require all ministers to be capable historians. We should require them to be capable exegetes.

30 January 2009 at 16:54  
Blogger Forlornehope said...

I would suggest that the answer is fairly simple and is in line with Rome's treatment of other schismatic bishops. Excommunicate Rome has absolutely no control over what they do. Within the communion there is some possibility of exerting discipline. Rome has a particular fear of validly ordained bishops continuing a parallel Apostolic succession. In any case excommunication is a bit of hangover from the middle ages when it was used (as in this case) mainly for political control. It is not the equivalent of a mandatory life sentence. Wilful murder is a "mortal sin"; if you die unrepentent, you go to hell. However, wilful murder does not get you excommunicated.

Nevertheless, the whole business has got the Pope some very bad press.

30 January 2009 at 17:02  
Anonymous ficit said...

Dr Julian Lewis is right.

30 January 2009 at 17:27  
OpenID BL@KBIRD said...

Imagine, ordinary Joes with ordinary Joe souls making a living from interceding between God and other ordinary Joes and their ordinary Joe souls? Incredibly impressive hats however and it is things like that that sway the vision of the innocent.

I say this because this holocaust denying bishop sounds like a drunken Orangeman puking on an Asian take out floor. Hardly inspiration for anything of the spiritual. What could the Pope be thinking?

30 January 2009 at 17:29  
Blogger Theresa said...

Your Grace,

There is an informative link on this story from Auntie Johanna;
The pope has removed a canonical obstacle to them rejoining. But
they have not been re-admitted to the church, because as this article points out, the bishop will first have to accept Vatican II's teachings which includes a official condemnation of anti Semitism. They will have to accept the Pope's authority, which they have not up until now, and that they were in the wrong. Sadly, I do not see the SSPX doing any of that; they have a vitriolic hatred of Vatican II and have turned what was a cultural quarrel over liturgy and music, into a theological one. I think we might be better without them, frankly.

30 January 2009 at 17:47  
Blogger Christian said...


Being wrong about a point of history neither means you should be excommunicated nor does it mean that you are a bad person. It just means you hold a minority opinion. +Williamson was very imprudent and has clouded the whole traditionalist question with these silly comments but that does not mean that the million communicants he helps lead should be excluded from the Church.

Besides, the refusal to 'ordain' women is more about the validity of the matter. One cannot consecrate whisky during Mass because it is not valid matter, that does not mean God thinks whisky is an inferior drink to wine! So with women. To have an ordination one needs a bishop, some oil and a confirmed man. If any of those things are not there then the ordination is invalid, whatever words are said.

Homosexuals wilfully disobey scripture and immemorial teaching (guided by the Holy Ghost). They are not mistaken about one historical event.


I am not an SSPX affiliated Catholic but the accusation that they "turned what was a cultural quarrel over liturgy and music, into a theological one" is ridiculous. The RC has always held 'Lex orandi, lex credendi' (loosely translatable as 'the law of prayer is the law of belief'). The liturgical changes of the 1960's were, therefore, theologically novel from the start. I am a traditionalist and we have not (in many cases) devoted our lives and thrown away careers because we think the old liturgy was pretty! Why do you think that liberal Catholics have fought against us so hard? Because they know that the New Rite embodies a whole theological perspective, a whole attitude to what it is to be Christian. A perspective and attitude that we traditionalists see as damaging to the faith and one which impoverishes the spiritual lives of millions.

30 January 2009 at 18:07  
Anonymous oiznop said...

At last! Thank you, Your Grace, for providing a thread on this.

@ James Goodman - that would be your interpretation, your exegesis, wouldn't it? The arguments against women is not so clear cut - it's more Church tradition. The ordination of gays might be clearer, but then there are those whop would disagree with you.

But on the matter of holocaust denial, it says rather more about the man's mind - his intellectual capacity - that he's happier believing in unhistorical flights of fancy. The primary and secondary sources are vastly against his belief. He's choosing to put his own 'opinion' above 'historical fact'.

Given the choice, I'd rather be in communion with a woman.

30 January 2009 at 18:15  
Anonymous James Goodman said...

I think the argument against female elders/overseers are pretty clearcut. The Bible is perspicuous, and this matter is pretty plain. I'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 here.

You say this is my opinion/interpretation, and fine- we can argue the exegesis if you like. I just thought that to do so might be hijacking the thread.

I'm not sure about intellectual capacity as such- some brainy folk have been holocaust "sceptics". But you're right that it says something about a man's mind if he'd rather believe in flights of fancy.

If, however, a man sincerely accepted and understood the Bible's standards of proof and honesty, then he'd be willing to be convinced by a clear presentation of the evidence in favour of the holocaust.

I'm not defending Williamson here- I know very little about him. My original post was merely an answer to the hypothetical question at the end of Cranmer's post.

30 January 2009 at 18:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bishop Williamson is clearly delusional, a liar or, a fool.
He should fit in well in the catholic church who`s whole theology is built on shifting sand.

30 January 2009 at 18:54  
Blogger Christian said...

of course it is... that is why the Catholic Church has held to its guns on contraception despite having every practical reason to change its teaching....

30 January 2009 at 19:00  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Ordaining women introduces politics into the church, it is also contrary to both scripture and tradition.

Attacks on tradition are frequently self serving.

Fornicators cannot be ordained.

30 January 2009 at 19:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even Hitler got some things right!
(motorways, vw cars)

30 January 2009 at 19:03  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Your Grace,

This Williamson character seems to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work. He is not only a holocaust denier. He claims that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a genuine document written by Jews, and he is a 9/11 troofer. The three things together would suggest he is a nutter, but an unpleasantly vicious kind of nutter. I suspect that bringing him into the Church will turn out to have been a mistake.

On the broader question of tradionalists and liberals in the Catholic Church, a wise priest once remarked that there are traditionalists who act as if Vatican II had put an end to the Church and liberals who act as though the Church began with Vatican II, and that both are making the same mistake. The Church is the same Church now that it was before and, God willing, always will be.

Your blessings, my Lord.

30 January 2009 at 19:38  
Anonymous penlan said...

As a humble Methodist,would your Grace enlighten me on some details.

I see that this despicable character is no longer excommunicated but does the Pope recognise him now as having Holy Orders and as a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church?

If so,he has made an epic misjudgment.

30 January 2009 at 19:42  
Anonymous the recusant said...

It is true, their was a time when It would have surprised me to know that His Grace fully understood why Pope Benedict had done this, but not anymore. I have gained an understanding of His Grace that there is more substance to his opinions than his ethereal body may exhibit. My observation of restraint however may have been a little premature.

Is His Grace aware of the Apology Letter of Bishop Richard Williamson?

To His Eminence Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

Your Eminence

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

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. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:

"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you."

Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.

Sincerely yours in Christ

+Richard Williamson

30 January 2009 at 19:52  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Your Grace,

The comment posted by the recusant transcribes a letter evidently written in the last few days by the Williamson character. He describes his Swedish TV interview as "imprudent". Is that all? As I said, a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

I think I need to revise my opinion that the Pope's action "will turn out to have been a mistake." Cardinal Schönborn, I now read, has already commented that "it was clearly a mistake" -- no nonsense about hanging around to see how it turns out.

Your blessings, my Lord.

30 January 2009 at 20:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still in denial then?

30 January 2009 at 20:04  
Blogger Theresa said...

Hi Christian

I think the trouble centres round what various people mean by 'traditional' and 'liberal'. To me, the term 'liberal' applies to people who disagree on matters of doctrine, esp sexual, in the Catholic church. However, to the SSPX, a 'liberal' can be anyone from the above, to someone who plays the guitar in church. Again, to me 'modernism' (which is a ter the SSPX is very fond of) is a specific term relating to the likes of TS Eliot and James Joyce. To the SSPX, a modernist could be someone who reads Ulysses, to someone who sings 'Bind Us Together'. They also do not like women who work. There is no middle ground with them at all.
On traditional 'traditionalists', I am someone who likes the traditional music and ritual of the church. I think it has a place, I think it was sidelined at great expense to the church and I think the wheel is beginning to turn on this. We should take out of our treasure house things both old and new. And I think this would be the perfect antidote to SSPX, because I think the majority of people who are in it are there because the church was discourteous to their culture and what they were brought up with. But I think that if the SSPX is allowed back, then Bishop Williamson should lose his position over this. There is no place for a Holocaust denier at this level of leadership, and it will cause us endless problems if this man is allowed a position of authority in the church.

30 January 2009 at 21:33  
Blogger Microcosm said...

Holocausts are the result of minority outsiders seeking preferential treatment, Sadiqs concerns are meaningless since he belongs to a Party that does just that, Bolshevism is the kind of holocaust that comes from their policies.

30 January 2009 at 21:37  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

Since His Grace has manifest considerable restraint throughout the past week, your observation that he had done so was more tardy than premature.

And His Grace is sure that you know he could have been an awful lot more visceral in his observations on the matter than the measured and utterly reasonable question he has posed. He has not said a word about the reaction of the world's Jewry, nor anything about anti-Semitism, Nazis, Marcel Lefebvre or the St Pius X Fraternity.

30 January 2009 at 21:49  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Not having been there, it was before my time, but I understand that around 20 Million People died in World War II.
I also understand that some Companies and Individuals made a lot of money either by supplying the Armaments or Loaning Governments the money to carry out these atrocities against humanity,

30 January 2009 at 22:00  
Anonymous 9-11 Truther said...

The world you think you live in does not exist.

Did you know that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 ( the One that was NOT hit by any plane and that you have NOT heard about and did NOT feature in the official 9-11 report ) 20 minutes Too early.

When Questioned over this, the BBC said they had LOST ALL OF THEIR 9-11 Tapes.

BBC Reports Collapse 20 mins Too early then reporter is cut off

BBC loses all their 911 Tapes

30 January 2009 at 22:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with this blog, however,
It seems to me that the quality most lacking in this world is love.
Not eros, not philo, but agape love.
Now agape love is a quality only God ( The God of Abraham , Isaac, and Jacob ) possesses.
We can partake of this love only as a gift of God through the Holy spirit, and share it with others.
Any works bases religion cannot replicate this process.
This world is ruled by the opposite of love which is not hate but self.
Religion (of whatever sort)is somewhat like the alchemists trying to make gold out of base metal.

30 January 2009 at 22:22  
Anonymous Preacher said...

"Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace"- Bob Dylan 'Infidels' album
1983. I think this song must be dedicated to some of the recent political leaders & churchmen on Your Graces excellent reports, more swan song than evensong maybe, but time will tell.

30 January 2009 at 22:27  
Anonymous Change we can believe in said...

Debate on Change

31 January 2009 at 01:12  
Blogger EUBanana said...

Dog bites man, bear shits in woods, Catholic church sympathetic to Nazis.

"The more times change, the more things stay the same."

31 January 2009 at 02:10  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Since you are all culturally conditioned to believe the holohoax,whoever steps out of line draws down the aprobrium of all "right thinking" people,there seems to be very little "forgivness"in any of the above attitudes,over which is no more than an opinion,and for all of this worlds "enlightenment"we seem to have regressed to the time of gallileo,not much progress there then,in order to draw any usefull conclusions concerning anything we need thesis and anti-thesis,but since no investigation is allowed you have become a howling mob capable of lynching anyone.Can any-one supply a verifiable name,address,time,date and place of some-one who was allegedly "gassed"during the unpleasantness of 1939-1945,because if you can the whole world would be delighted to hear from you.

31 January 2009 at 11:38  
Blogger Christian said...


I would agree that Holocaust deniers are not really the sort of people who we want leading the Church but would also point out that (despite the nature of the bishops office being one of authority) the SSPX bishops were only ever consecrated in the first place as sacrament dispensing machines. The Archbishop wanted the SSPX to be what is claims to be - an order within the Church. No orders (before the whole Opus Dei thing) had there own bishops. He intended the order to be run by priests (a wish now, sadly, ignored as Fellay was made Superior). He was worried that bishops with authority within the Society might make the Society look like it was attempting to set up a new hierarchy. He only wanted bishops so that he could insure that the ordination of SSPX priests would continue without Rome using it as a blackmail card by threatening not to ordain SSPX priests.

You also speak of the glorious movement towards traditional worship now taking place. I am afraid to say that this would never have happened if the SSPX did not exist. They were,for 20 years or more the only traditional order in the whole Church. They, alone, insured that the Old Mass was kept alive and laid the foundations of the present revival.

As I have said before that a 'liberal' and a 'modernist' are those who strum guitars (for the most part). Surly you cannot seriously try to tell me that there is no connection between heterodoxy and trendy liturgy. Indeed, the liturgy is part of the ordinary magisterium (as a part of Sacred Tradition) and, as such, should not be tampered with as this is actually an undermining of the faith in itself. Both the new Catechism and the first Vatican Council make this clear.

Reactionary views on women in the workplace are, I agree, unsavoury and irrelevant to the defence of Tradition. I will certainly concede that this is a legitimate criticism of the SSPX.

31 January 2009 at 12:19  
Anonymous Aodh Óg said...

+Cranmer is totally incorrect. The Pope has not "rehabilitated" Williamson but has merely lifted the excommunication that Williamson inter alia incurred lata sententiae for illicitly receiving episcopal orders without a papal mandate. The SSPX is still without canonical recognition, as it was suppressed in 1975. Bishop Williamson is still suspended a divinis. He has no jurisdiction, and never will. He is not even permitted to celebrate Mass!

His statements have been repudiated by the SSPX and the General Superior of the organization has imposed a ban on him from speaking on secular topics: (

And the calumnious imputation to the SSPX of Nazism is shamefully ignorant. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (the founder of the SSPX) lost his father in a concentration camp, having worked as a spy for British Intelligence and the French Resistance and was responsible for helping smuggle out ex-prisoners in concentration camps.

31 January 2009 at 12:51  
Anonymous The Daily Express said...

Daily Express from 1933

31 January 2009 at 14:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you know the word`gullible` is not in the dictionary?.

31 January 2009 at 15:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The pope hasn`t got the power to do anything that an ordinary christian can`t do!
Popery is all a scam!A clever one I grant you, but still a scam!

31 January 2009 at 15:40  
Blogger Theresa said...

Hi Christian,

I was a twinkle in my parents eyes in the 'sixties, so I can't tell you if guitar players then were also part of the sexual revolution; what I can tell you is that guitar players in church today, tend to be young, extremely orthodox Catholics with a very dim view of sexual shenanigans.

I know a bit about music and what I see when I look at church music after the sixties is a change in form from the chorale and plainsong, to folksong and ballad. I also see that those who were writing the music, were writing to suit instruments rather than singers; D and A are great keys for string instruments, but they are not great for your average singer, who really needs something to be in Bb or Ab. Some of the stuff is tacky and banal; 'If I were a butterfly' being a prime example. But there is always a sifting process going on with these things; the St Louis Jesuits, Bernadette Farrell and Chris Walker all write pretty decent stuff and Jacque Berthier of Taize has written some absolutely beautiful music which is filtering into the hymnbooks now. You can't just say that everything after 1963 is crap and everything before it is great; its just not true. And there were just as many crap hymns written before 1963, but fortunately they have been consigned to oblivion, which sadly has not yet happened to 'Shine Jesus Shine'.

There's so much more I want to say on this; I think I am going to do a post on my own blog re all this. Can I just add one more thing; when there is a dispute in the church, there are two possibilities. You can stay and fight from within, or you can leave. I look at the differing examples of John of the Cross and Martin Luther. John reformed the church from within; Luther did it from without, but left a wound and schism that has still not healed. The SSPX should take heed.

1 February 2009 at 01:43  
Blogger Christian said...


Thank you for your response. I am afraid that these "extremely orthodox" young Catholics of today are neither orthodox nor portents of a bright future. I am a young Catholic myself and I can say with first hand knowledge that these sorts are fanatically devoted to the 'magesterium' and the popes every command yet have no real understanding of the true nature of papal authority or what the magestrium really is. They would not play guitars during the liturgy if they did. The magestrium IS sacred tradition. The liturgy is an expression of the magestrium . Ancient tradition has no place for 'folk music'. It has existed for beside such music for centuries but has never, ever, seen fit to include it. It is a break with the ordinary magestrium , as expressed in the sacred liturgy to introduce such jarring innovations.

Besides, I say they are not the future because they are not, in my opinion, good evangelisers. I have always found that we young Catholics loyal to traditional Catholic liturgy are respected for our views by others our age. They see that we are part of a grand tradition that has help form western civilisation. Those who sing 'folk music' in the liturgy are openly held in contempt by all those who we are trying to evangelise. It was after noting the effectiveness of traditional liturgy that I chose to embrace these views. I saw that any true revival must proceed from a laity and clergy amerced in the beauty and splendor of 2000 years of genius and guidance by the Holy Ghost.

There was bad music before V2 but none so bad as that which came after it. None.

The SSPX have acted foolishly in many ways and they did not do ALL they could to prevent the rupture that did occur. They where, however, the ones who had not moved. It was the hierarchy that changed, not the people of the SSPX. Why were their views fine and orthodox one day and wicked and risible the next?

God bless (If I seem at all angered above it is merely my writing style so don't feel that I want to be rude).

1 February 2009 at 02:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you may have confused religion and `religious process`s with a relationship with the living God!
Relationship was Gods original plan, not religious dogma.
Sorry if this sounds blunt but people need to be shaken from the stupor that religion cloaks them in!

1 February 2009 at 11:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is addressed to all affected by religious spirits!

1 February 2009 at 11:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sure God doesn`t care less if you played a banjo or a ukele.
God looks at the heart not the religious performance you put on for Him.
Get real!

1 February 2009 at 11:08  
Blogger Christian said...

God, of course, does not mind what you like to listen to or play as entertainment but liturgy is not entertainment. The liturgy is a way to express ones beliefs and form others in the orthodox faith. Guitars do not do either of these things.

1 February 2009 at 19:58  
Anonymous len said...

David played a Harp!
Samuel 19:9
His wife reprimanded David for dancing wildly before the Lord, she was punished by the Lord by being unable to bear children!

2 February 2009 at 22:41  
Blogger len said...

I suspect if the Lord Jesus Christ walked into quite a few churches and sat on the alter no-one would recognise him!.
In fact he would probably be thrown out for disturbing the magesterium( whatever that is!)
Such is religion.

3 February 2009 at 08:32  
Blogger Theresa said...


This debate is more complex than you realise. I happen to disagree with Christian on this, but I do know where he is coming from; when Vatican II was introduced, overnight choirs were disbanded, altar rails were ripped out and a large chunk of our devotional liturgy disappeared. My own father, who was an organist, went up to the organ loft to find it locked and the choir disbanded. Can I also point out to our separated brethren here, that you are in no position to moralise about this; during the Reformation, choirs were disbanded and church organs ripped out; in some of the more extreme forms of Calvinism, instruments are not permitted at all. Noone has the high ground here.
Christian, I will do a post on this when I have time, because it's important.

3 February 2009 at 16:42  
Blogger len said...

I would not like to do or say anything to cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble.
But I do believe worship is important and we must strip away all religion and all pretence to enter The Holy of Holies.
God Bless both of you,(Theresa and Christian)

4 February 2009 at 20:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

V2 certainly ended Catholicism for
me. I was only 15 and it was like
being invaded overnight; being told that your native language was forbidden and having another language and culture imposed on you. I'm not sure if the dumbing down populist approach was as successful as had been hoped for.

Williamson is an excruciating embarrassment to
British Catholics. He has demonstrated that he is unsuited to any position requiring responsibility, sensitivity,and compassion. Unfortunately sometimes the rotten apple in the barrel slips through the cracks. Also,I don't think he is very bright(not that this is an excuse.)All sincere Catholics should boycott him. A shepherd without a flock is about as useful
as tits on a bull.

13 February 2009 at 10:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older