Topic: Bishop Williamson lashes out against the Jews again

[Jetavan]

Oh, brother.

The dissident Catholic bishop Richard Williamson, who caused an outcry in 2009 after publicly denying the Holocaust in a TV interview whilst being readmitted into the fold of the Catholic Church by the Vatican, has publicly criticized Pope Benedict XVI for absolving Jews of age-old charges of ‘deicide’. In his weekly web blog ‘Eleison Comments’, Williamson – one of four bishops of the ultra-conservative Catholic breakaway group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) – writes that “the killing of Jesus was truly ‘deicide’” and that “only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion.”

But wait, there's more!

Reiterating the century-old belief in Christian circles that even today’s Jews are to be held responsible for the death of Jesus, Williamson writes: “But [19th century Pope] Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively to recognize him.”

Ultimately...

Williamson, who after his Holocaust denial was asked in 2009 by the Vatican to recant in order to exercise episcopal functions and has been sidelined even by the leadership of the SSPX, ends his column by saying that the Jews “until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do [...] they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.”

[Ioannis Climacus]

Good on Bishop Williamson for not caving into political correctness (and believing what the fathers of the Church actually taught).

[Maria]

See this thread link given by the World Jewish Congress (WJC):
http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39340&sid=f66b2373fe0421ea5c10700b568932aa

However, this thread in Angelqueen.org does not identify tjc with Bishop Williamson.

So then, who is this tjc, from whom the WJC gets its lead story?
This sloppy news reporting by WJC (quoting a poster in a forum), shows their bias.

In yet another thread at Angelqueen.org at http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39374
there is a link provided to the Vatican Insider concerning Williamson.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/9033/

I think Vatican Insider may be less biased than the World Jewish Congress.

[J Michael]

Good on Bishop Williamson for not caving into political correctness (and believing what the fathers of the Church actually taught).

    Sarcasm, right?

[Maria]

Here is the link to subscribe to Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments to view his weekly addresses.
If one wishes to receive it, subscription is free.

http://www.dinoscopus.org/

This is not an endorsement, rather it explains why the WJC has not linked directly to the Bishop's blog, but instead quotes from unreliable second-hand sources, like forum posters.

[J Michael]

Here is the link to subscribe to Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments to view his weekly addresses.
If one wishes to receive it, subscription is free.

http://www.dinoscopus.org/

This is not an endorsement, rather it explains why the WJC has not linked directly to the Bishop's blog, but instead quotes from unreliable second-hand sources, like forum posters.

Does this mean you've read his original statements and they vary from what's been quoted here and on Angelqueen.org?  If so, how?  Can you link his original statement?

[Maria]

Here is the link to subscribe to Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments to view his weekly addresses.
If one wishes to receive it, subscription is free.

http://www.dinoscopus.org/

This is not an endorsement, rather it explains why the WJC has not linked directly to the Bishop's blog, but instead quotes from unreliable second-hand sources, like forum posters.

Does this mean you've read his original statements and they vary from what's been quoted here and on Angelqueen.org?  If so, how?  Can you link his original statement?

I have neither subscribed to Eleison Comments, the primary source, nor do I intend to do so.
Instead, I provided the link should you want to subscribe to the thing and verify that information for yourself.
However, I think that the Vatican Insider, a secondary source, might be less biased than the WJC, a tertiary source.

Sheesh. I cannot believe the sloppy journalistic practices displayed by WJC.

[Jetavan]

Here's the Vatican Insider story, which doesn't seem to differ from WJC's story:

The Lefebvrist Bishop, Richard Williamson, tries again. On the eve of the Interrelligious meeting convened in Assisi by Pope Benedict XVI - where the participation of the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, is already in doubt - and while the congregation to which he belongs, the Society of Saint Pius X, discusses whether to accept the conciliation proposal from the Vatican, the traditionalist bishop makes himself heard once again, and takes aim at one of his perennial targets: the Jews.

They are guilty of "deicide" and "continue to act collectively as enemies of the true Messiah," he writes in the latest edition of his weekly newsletter, the Eleison Comments. "How can the Pope to abandon these truths that are so ancient?", asks the lefebvrist Bishop.
....
At the origin of Bishop Williamson's new attack is something written by Pope Benedict XVI in his book "Light of the world": that the Jews can not be held responsible for 'deicide', or the death of Jesus on the cross.
....
Finally, according to the Lefebvrist bishop, at least one modern pope, Leo XIII, explicitly affirmed the "solidarity" between the Jews "who clamored for the killing of Jesus" and Jews of today, in the act of consecrating the world to the sacred heart of Jesus, with the Encyclical Annum Sacrum of 1899.
....
But this "continuity", according to Williamson, is shared by the Jews themselves today, who not by chance "claim for themselves the land of Palestine because it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament." "Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages?".
 
 

[Maria]

After viewing the articles in the WJC and the Vatican Insider, I wonder if the WJC copied directly from the Vatican Insider but only linked to that thread at angelqueen.org. Obviously by not following the best practices in journalism, World Jewish Congress has lost all credibility.

[J Michael]

Here is the link to subscribe to Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments to view his weekly addresses.
If one wishes to receive it, subscription is free.

http://www.dinoscopus.org/

This is not an endorsement, rather it explains why the WJC has not linked directly to the Bishop's blog, but instead quotes from unreliable second-hand sources, like forum posters.

Does this mean you've read his original statements and they vary from what's been quoted here and on Angelqueen.org?  If so, how?  Can you link his original statement?

I have neither subscribed to Eleison Comments, the primary source, nor do I intend to do so.
Instead, I provided the link should you want to subscribe to the thing and verify that information for yourself.
However, I think that the Vatican Insider, a secondary source, might be less biased than the WJC, a tertiary source.

Sheesh. I cannot believe the sloppy journalistic practices displayed by WJC.

Okay.  You kinda made it sound as if you'd read the original, that's why I asked.  I went ahead and subscribed to it and asked for the back issue for the week of May 16, 2011.  I prefer primary sources, when available, to secondary and certainly to tertiary!  By that point, it starts getting to be like that old game, "Telephone"  .

Not very professional of the WJC to quote an internet discussion forum without providing access to the original comments.  Oh well....

[J Michael]

Oh, brother.

The dissident Catholic bishop Richard Williamson, who caused an outcry in 2009 after publicly denying the Holocaust in a TV interview whilst being readmitted into the fold of the Catholic Church by the Vatican, has publicly criticized Pope Benedict XVI for absolving Jews of age-old charges of ‘deicide’. In his weekly web blog ‘Eleison Comments’, Williamson – one of four bishops of the ultra-conservative Catholic breakaway group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) – writes that “the killing of Jesus was truly ‘deicide’” and that “only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion.”

But wait, there's more!

Reiterating the century-old belief in Christian circles that even today’s Jews are to be held responsible for the death of Jesus, Williamson writes: “But [19th century Pope] Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively to recognize him.”

Ultimately...

Williamson, who after his Holocaust denial was asked in 2009 by the Vatican to recant in order to exercise episcopal functions and has been sidelined even by the leadership of the SSPX, ends his column by saying that the Jews “until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do [...] they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.”

In the interests of "equal time", there is also this:

December 22, 2010, 1:30 pm
A Greek Bishop’s Anti-Semitic Tirade
By ROBERT MACKEY
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus. Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.

Updated | 7:19 p.m. Leaders of Greece’s small Jewish community objected on Wednesday to televised remarks by a Greek Orthodox bishop who blamed the country’s financial problems on a conspiracy of Jewish bankers and claimed that the Holocaust was orchestrated by Zionists.  from here: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/a-greek-bishops-anti-semitic-tirade/

His comments were condemned by many in both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, by the way.

I only post that so that people don't get the impression that anti-semitism is limited to extremist Catholic bishops.  There is a very long, horrific, sad history of anti-semitism in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  When it comes from uneducated, often illiterate peasants, it is one thing, but no less horrific.  But when it comes from bishops, who really should know much, much better, it's something altogether far worse!

[primuspilus]

I think it's silly that all these folks that attack Jews for "committing Deicide" dont even realize that if it wasn't for those Jews, Jesus would not have ever died for us (and raised again). We'd still be dead in our sin. What a tool.

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

I think it's silly that all these folks that attack Jews for "committing Deicide" dont even realize that if it wasn't for those Jews, Jesus would not have ever died for us (and raised again). We'd still be dead in our sin. What a tool.

PP

And yet, even though we rejoice in the salvation wrought by His death and resurrection, even a cursory reading of our hymnography for Holy Thursday will show how we still pillory Judas Iscariot for betraying our Savior to death.

[primuspilus]

I think it's silly that all these folks that attack Jews for "committing Deicide" dont even realize that if it wasn't for those Jews, Jesus would not have ever died for us (and raised again). We'd still be dead in our sin. What a tool.

PP

And yet, even though we rejoice in the salvation wrought by His death and resurrection, even a cursory reading of our hymnography for Holy Thursday will show how we still pillory Judas Iscariot for betraying our Savior to death.

So is it wrong for me to not despise judas? I pity him terribly. But I dont hate him.


PP

[Cognomen]

I think it's silly that all these folks that attack Jews for "committing Deicide" dont even realize that if it wasn't for those Jews, Jesus would not have ever died for us (and raised again). We'd still be dead in our sin. What a tool.

And yet, even though we rejoice in the salvation wrought by His death and resurrection, even a cursory reading of our hymnography for Holy Thursday will show how we still pillory Judas Iscariot for betraying our Savior to death.

Right.  Many others, including authors of scripture and saints, must've failed to "realize" this debt of gratitude as well.

Williamson may lack discernment and tact, but he doesn't seem to be espousing a belief of innovation.

[Cognomen]

So is it wrong for me to not despise judas? I pity him terribly. But I dont hate him.

No, you're good, but you're also not supposed to thank him for taking place in the process that led to our potential resurrection.  That was the impression your assessment of certain Jews leading to Christ's death gave.

[Ioannis Climacus]

Oh, brother.

The dissident Catholic bishop Richard Williamson, who caused an outcry in 2009 after publicly denying the Holocaust in a TV interview whilst being readmitted into the fold of the Catholic Church by the Vatican, has publicly criticized Pope Benedict XVI for absolving Jews of age-old charges of ‘deicide’. In his weekly web blog ‘Eleison Comments’, Williamson – one of four bishops of the ultra-conservative Catholic breakaway group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) – writes that “the killing of Jesus was truly ‘deicide’” and that “only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion.”

But wait, there's more!

Reiterating the century-old belief in Christian circles that even today’s Jews are to be held responsible for the death of Jesus, Williamson writes: “But [19th century Pope] Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively to recognize him.”

Ultimately...

Williamson, who after his Holocaust denial was asked in 2009 by the Vatican to recant in order to exercise episcopal functions and has been sidelined even by the leadership of the SSPX, ends his column by saying that the Jews “until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do [...] they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.”

In the interests of "equal time", there is also this:

December 22, 2010, 1:30 pm
A Greek Bishop’s Anti-Semitic Tirade
By ROBERT MACKEY
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus. Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.

Updated | 7:19 p.m. Leaders of Greece’s small Jewish community objected on Wednesday to televised remarks by a Greek Orthodox bishop who blamed the country’s financial problems on a conspiracy of Jewish bankers and claimed that the Holocaust was orchestrated by Zionists.  from here: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/a-greek-bishops-anti-semitic-tirade/

His comments were condemned by many in both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, by the way.

I only post that so that people don't get the impression that anti-semitism is limited to extremist Catholic bishops.  There is a very long, horrific, sad history of anti-semitism in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  When it comes from uneducated, often illiterate peasants, it is one thing, but no less horrific.  But when it comes from bishops, who really should know much, much better, it's something altogether far worse!

Emphasis mine.

How is either Bishop Williamson's or Metropolitan Seraphim's statements "anti-Semitic"? The former has only reiterated the teachings of the Church fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc.) while the latter has merely expressed reality as he sees it. Notice that Metropolitan Seraphim never expresses hatred or contempt towards Jewish people. In his "famous" television interview, he states "We are against systems, not individuals".

[J Michael]

Oh, brother.

The dissident Catholic bishop Richard Williamson, who caused an outcry in 2009 after publicly denying the Holocaust in a TV interview whilst being readmitted into the fold of the Catholic Church by the Vatican, has publicly criticized Pope Benedict XVI for absolving Jews of age-old charges of ‘deicide’. In his weekly web blog ‘Eleison Comments’, Williamson – one of four bishops of the ultra-conservative Catholic breakaway group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) – writes that “the killing of Jesus was truly ‘deicide’” and that “only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion.”

But wait, there's more!

Reiterating the century-old belief in Christian circles that even today’s Jews are to be held responsible for the death of Jesus, Williamson writes: “But [19th century Pope] Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively to recognize him.”

Ultimately...

Williamson, who after his Holocaust denial was asked in 2009 by the Vatican to recant in order to exercise episcopal functions and has been sidelined even by the leadership of the SSPX, ends his column by saying that the Jews “until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do [...] they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.”

In the interests of "equal time", there is also this:

December 22, 2010, 1:30 pm
A Greek Bishop’s Anti-Semitic Tirade
By ROBERT MACKEY
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus. Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.

Updated | 7:19 p.m. Leaders of Greece’s small Jewish community objected on Wednesday to televised remarks by a Greek Orthodox bishop who blamed the country’s financial problems on a conspiracy of Jewish bankers and claimed that the Holocaust was orchestrated by Zionists.  from here: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/a-greek-bishops-anti-semitic-tirade/

His comments were condemned by many in both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, by the way.

I only post that so that people don't get the impression that anti-semitism is limited to extremist Catholic bishops.  There is a very long, horrific, sad history of anti-semitism in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  When it comes from uneducated, often illiterate peasants, it is one thing, but no less horrific.  But when it comes from bishops, who really should know much, much better, it's something altogether far worse!

Emphasis mine.

How is either Bishop Williamson's or Metropolitan Seraphim's statements "anti-Semitic"? The former has only reiterated the teachings of the Church fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc.) while the latter has merely expressed reality as he sees it. Notice that Metropolitan Seraphim never expresses hatred or contempt towards Jewish people. In his "famous" television interview, he states "We are against systems, not individuals".

The former:  Perhaps "anti-semitism" *might* be too strong, although it could very easily be interpreted as such.  However, I think his comments are a little less benign than how you portray them, even though there is some historical truth in what he says.

The latter: "Expressing reality as he sees it?"  Is he deluded?

[Ioannis Climacus]

The latter: "Expressing reality as he sees it?"  Is he deluded?

No, I would be willing to say the media has deluded most people into rejecting the obvious (i.e. what Metroplitan Seraphim has said). Political correctness has very much distorted our understanding of the world. We can become so emotionally moved that we fail to notice the reality. Let me further explain :

The Jews funded the Nazi's. Regardless of the amount of evidence supporting this claim, it will certainly initiate an emotional response. The media has planted in the minds of all that such statements are anti-Semitic.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This is also easily demonstrable with evidence, yet no one would accuse you of being anti-Japanese for uttering it. It is simply a historical fact (and it does not necessitate political motivation).

The Turks committed genocide against the Armenian people. Am I expressing anti-Turkish sentiment? Does it imply that every Turk took part in the murder? No, it is a simple recognition of historical reality.

Since when did the Jews become the most innocent people on earth? I can criticize the English, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Egyptians, etc. for every wrong they have ever committed and yet I am not seen as "prejudiced", but the moment I bring up Jewish wrongs, I am lambasted by the media and ostracized from society.

[PeterTheAleut]

I think it's silly that all these folks that attack Jews for "committing Deicide" dont even realize that if it wasn't for those Jews, Jesus would not have ever died for us (and raised again). We'd still be dead in our sin. What a tool.

PP

And yet, even though we rejoice in the salvation wrought by His death and resurrection, even a cursory reading of our hymnography for Holy Thursday will show how we still pillory Judas Iscariot for betraying our Savior to death.

So is it wrong for me to not despise judas? I pity him terribly. But I dont hate him.

Not the point I'm trying to make. Yes, we rejoice in the events that brought about our salvation, but we also recognize the heinous sins of man that put Jesus on the cross.

[Shiny]

The Jews funded the Nazis.

lol wut

[J Michael]

The latter: "Expressing reality as he sees it?"  Is he deluded?

The Jews funded the Nazi's. Regardless of the amount of evidence supporting this claim, it will certainly initiate an emotional response. The media has planted in the minds of all that such statements are anti-Semitic.


Since when did the Jews become the most innocent people on earth? I can criticize the English, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Egyptians, etc. for every wrong they have ever committed and yet I am not seen as "prejudiced", but the moment I bring up Jewish wrongs, I am lambasted by the media and ostracized from society.

Jews funded the Nazis? Can you provide proof of this, beyond, say 1935?  Did they also finance the building of the concentration camps?  That's a little like claiming Jesus committed suicide because he was a Jew and the Jews committed deicide, ergo....  Interesting.

I don't recall *anyone* saying the Jews were "the most innocent people on earth".  Ever.  Where'd you get that idea?

You're lambasted by media and ostracized from society for bringing up "Jewish wrongs"?  Perhaps for good reason.  Which "wrongs" would those be?

[Iconodule]

The latter: "Expressing reality as he sees it?"  Is he deluded?

No, I would be willing to say the media has deluded most people into rejecting the obvious (i.e. what Metroplitan Seraphim has said). Political correctness has very much distorted our understanding of the world. We can become so emotionally moved that we fail to notice the reality. Let me further explain :

The Jews funded the Nazi's. Regardless of the amount of evidence supporting this claim, it will certainly initiate an emotional response. The media has planted in the minds of all that such statements are anti-Semitic.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This is also easily demonstrable with evidence, yet no one would accuse you of being anti-Japanese for uttering it. It is simply a historical fact (and it does not necessitate political motivation).

When someone says "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor" he usually means the Japanese government/ military. When someone like Williamson says "the Jews are guilty of deicide" ("collectively" he says) he usually means... The. Jews. Not the Pharisees, not the 1st century Jews in Jerusalem. The Jews! I get the feeling that someone who blames today's Jews for what happened 2000 years ago, when asked what he thinks about white Americans paying reparations for slavery, will throw up his arms and say "That was 200 years ago! Get over it! White people living today didn't enslave them!"

And everyone just cut the "political correctness" crap already. Complaining about "political correctness" is one of the most politically correct things one can do. You can get away with saying almost anything as long as you preface it with some moaning about political correctness. It gives a lot of ideas a mystique of persecution to distract from the fact that they're just BS.

[Ioannis Climacus]

Jews funded the Nazis? Can you provide proof of this, beyond, say 1935?

Why did you edit your post to "beyond 1935"? The fact Jewish bankers would support an anti-Semitic party (such as the National Socialists) at any time should be disgusting.

As pointed out by Rabbi Israel :

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/a17cfed68ca9ddd08417100cfdf5e803.jpg

German chancellor Heinrich Brüning stated :

"I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany".

New York Times :

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/a8cd57ff2dc6552fb5b18ff38bd8ee24.jpg
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/3f0b795b271b836f3ac5d826877461e1.jpg
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/843ac3d79565700c3f8ef0ad4fd03a0d.jpg

Did they also finance the building of the concentration camps?  That's a little like claiming Jesus committed suicide because he was a Jew and the Jews committed deicide, ergo....  Interesting.

Ultimately, Jewish leadership was willing to do whatever necessary in getting the ball rolling again (so to speak) for Zionism.

As I have said before, not ever Jew is responsible just as ever Turk is not responsible for the Armenian genocide. Despite this, we do not hesitate to say the Turks did this or the Turks did that. Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus is based on adherence to the Pharisaical religion that killed him. A Jew who rejects Judaism is simply not responsible.

I don't recall *anyone* saying the Jews were "the most innocent people on earth".  Ever.  Where'd you get that idea?

The media pushes that idea pretty often actually. When was the last time you heard about Jewish wrongs on television or in the newspaper?

You're lambasted by media and ostracized from society for bringing up "Jewish wrongs"?  Perhaps for good reason.  Which "wrongs" would those be?

Off the top of my head? Genocide against the Palestinians, the false-flag operation known as 9/11, murder of the Russian Tsar (and creation of the Soviet Union), the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty incident.

[Ioannis Climacus]

When someone says "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor" he usually means the Japanese government/ military.

And I am referencing the actions taken by the Jewish "leaders", i.e the bankers, the media, the politicians, the lobbyists, etc.

When someone like Williamson says "the Jews are guilty of deicide" ("collectively" he says) he usually means... The. Jews. Not the Pharisees, not the 1st century Jews in Jerusalem. The Jews!

Jewish guilt is not derived from some sort of ethnic connection. Adhering to the religion that killed Christ (Pharisaical Judaism) makes one "responsible".

And everyone just cut the "political correctness" crap already. Complaining about "political correctness" is one of the most politically correct things one can do. You can get away with saying almost anything as long as you preface it with some moaning about political correctness. It gives a lot of ideas a mystique of persecution to distract from the fact that they're just BS.

How is condemning "political correctness" politically correct? You will have to elaborate on this one - I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

[PeterTheAleut]

Jews funded the Nazis? Can you provide proof of this, beyond, say 1935?

Why did you edit your post to "beyond 1935"? The fact Jewish bankers would support an anti-Semitic party (such as the National Socialists) at any time should be disgusting.

As pointed out by Rabbi Israel :

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/a17cfed68ca9ddd08417100cfdf5e803.jpg

German chancellor Heinrich Brüning stated :

"I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany".

New York Times :

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/a8cd57ff2dc6552fb5b18ff38bd8ee24.jpg
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/3f0b795b271b836f3ac5d826877461e1.jpg
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/843ac3d79565700c3f8ef0ad4fd03a0d.jpg

Did they also finance the building of the concentration camps?  That's a little like claiming Jesus committed suicide because he was a Jew and the Jews committed deicide, ergo....  Interesting.

Ultimately, Jewish leadership was willing to do whatever necessary in getting the ball rolling again (so to speak) for Zionism.

As I have said before, not ever Jew is responsible just as ever Turk is not responsible for the Armenian genocide. Despite this, we do not hesitate to say the Turks did this or the Turks did that. Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus is based on adherence to the Pharisaical religion that killed him. A Jew who rejects Judaism is simply not responsible.

I don't recall *anyone* saying the Jews were "the most innocent people on earth".  Ever.  Where'd you get that idea?

The media pushes that idea pretty often actually. When was the last time you heard about Jewish wrongs on television or in the newspaper?

You're lambasted by media and ostracized from society for bringing up "Jewish wrongs"?  Perhaps for good reason.  Which "wrongs" would those be?

Off the top of my head? Genocide against the Palestinians, the false-flag operation known as 9/11, murder of the Russian Tsar (and creation of the Soviet Union), the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty incident.

I'm not sure you've ever answered my question regarding why you're so quick to take the alternative media at face value. Your standard response of questioning my apparent quickness to accept the mainstream media at face value does not count as an answer.

[Iconodule]

When someone says "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor" he usually means the Japanese government/ military.

And I am referencing the actions taken by the Jewish "leaders", i.e the bankers, the media, the politicians, the lobbyists, etc.

Evidently you disagree with Williamson then and his use of the term "collectively".

When someone like Williamson says "the Jews are guilty of deicide" ("collectively" he says) he usually means... The. Jews. Not the Pharisees, not the 1st century Jews in Jerusalem. The Jews!

Jewish guilt is not derived from some sort of ethnic connection. Adhering to the religion that killed Christ (Pharisaical Judaism) makes one "responsible".

So why do non-religious Jews still end up in the gas chambers?

And everyone just cut the "political correctness" crap already. Complaining about "political correctness" is one of the most politically correct things one can do. You can get away with saying almost anything as long as you preface it with some moaning about political correctness. It gives a lot of ideas a mystique of persecution to distract from the fact that they're just BS.

How is condemning "political correctness" politically correct? You will have to elaborate on this one - I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

Complaining about "political correctness" has been done by pretty much everyone in politics for sundry purposes. Since the 90's it tends to come from the same sort of "conservatives" who complain about "liberal media" and the "liberal elite" i.e. members and supporters of a certain segment of the elite who want to project an image of being persecuted outsiders. When someone says, "This may not be politically correct, but..." it's usually a way of saying "I'm about to say some racist crap and don't you dare critique it." Any substantive engagement with criticism can be avoided by talk of "political correctness."

Offending people is cool now which is why a mediocre show like Family Guy is incredibly popular and lucrative. The humor might suck but, hey, it's "politically incorrect". I guess holocaust deniers also want to ride this wave of political incorrectness but fortunately it doesn't pay off- there are some limits to this stupidity.

[Ioannis Climacus]

I'm not sure you've ever answered my question regarding why you're so quick to take the alternative media at face value. Your standard response of questioning my apparent quickness to accept the mainstream media at face value does not count as an answer.

I believe you have inaccurately recalled the details of the thread in question. I asked you if you applied the same scrutiny to mainstream media, you said yes. You then asked me if I accept alternative media at face value. I responded no, but I appreciate a balance in views. The conversation ended there.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40078.msg650528.html#msg650528

[Ioannis Climacus]

Evidently you disagree with Williamson then and his use of the term "collectively".

No, we are talking about two different associations. I agree with Bishop Williamson's views on collective guilt (i.e. Jews, that is practitioners of the Jewish religion, are responsible for the death of Christ). Jews by virtue of ethnicity, however, are not guilty of every crime committed by their leaders.

So why do non-religious Jews still end up in the gas chambers?

Gas chambers?

If you are referencing the German labor camps, then it is quite simply different criteria for what defines a Jew. The Germans (for the most part) said it was racial (as do the Jews), whereas the Christian criticism of Jewry is rooted in religious adherence.

Complaining about "political correctness" has been done by pretty much everyone in politics for sundry purposes. Since the 90's it tends to come from the same sort of "conservatives" who complain about "liberal media" and the "liberal elite" i.e. members and supporters of a certain segment of the elite who want to project an image of being persecuted outsiders. When someone says, "This may not be politically correct, but..." it's usually a way of saying "I'm about to say some racist crap and don't you dare critique it." Any substantive engagement with criticism can be avoided by talk of "political correctness."

Offending people is cool now which is why a mediocre show like Family Guy is incredibly popular and lucrative. The humor might suck but, hey, it's "politically incorrect". I guess holocaust deniers also want to ride this wave of political incorrectness but fortunately it doesn't pay off- there are some limits to this stupidity.

I fail to see how this furthers your arguments. Sure, many self proclaimed "conservatives" criticize "political correctness" quite regularly, but that does not negates the validity of said criticism. In fact, arguing the opposite would be more logical (i.e. political correctness is used to shut people up).

Just make your point, Iconodule - no one is hindering you in that.

[biro]

The Jews funded the Nazi's.

What color is the sky in your world? 

[Ioannis Climacus]

The Jews funded the Nazi's.

What color is the sky in your world? 

That depends upon both perspective and time of day.

It is a well established fact that Jewish bankers funded Adolf Hitler. Scroll up to my earlier posts. Both a pre-Nazi German chancellor and a rabbi condemn the actions of the Zionist bankers.

[J Michael]

Wow!  It's like deja-vu all over again, here  .

Perhaps, being a Jew, knowing some real history, having traveled extensively, having "been around the block" more than a few times, having served in the (not *totally* Jewish) Israel Defense Force, and having lived with real survivors of the real Holocaust, etc., I'm just too close to this.  Or, perhaps not.  No matter. 

Unfortunately, I recall another thread about all of this that rapidly devolved into something ugly.  And I, for one, am not getting on that nightmare merry-go-round again.  There are certain things that you just cannot argue about with certain people without it becoming spiritually destructive for one or the other or all concerned.  It seems to me that we've reached that point again, here. 

I'm sure some might draw conclusions which, in keeping with some of their statements, do not reflect reality on planet Earth.  That's fine.  I've no need to try to justify myself to them, nor am I concerned what they might think of me.  So, in an attempt to keep whatever little spiritual health I *might* have, in an attempt to not descend into an anger that may cause me to sin more than I already do...... I'm outta here.

[Jetavan]

Wow!  It's like deja-vu all over again, here...

More like deja-Jew?

[podkarpatska]

Sorry, but the virulent anti-Jew nonsense that permeates some who profess to be Orthodox is too much for me to comment upon. Thank the Lord you do NOT represent the teachings of any of our credible hierarchs and spiritual leaders ranging from the current Patriarch of Moscow to the Ecumeninal Patriarch and their respective churches as well as most in between. Lord, have mercy.

[podkarpatska]

The Jews funded the Nazi's.

What color is the sky in your world?  

That depends upon both perspective and time of day.

It is a well established fact that Jewish bankers funded Adolf Hitler. Scroll up to my earlier posts. Both a pre-Nazi German chancellor and a rabbi condemn the actions of the Zionist bankers.

Ioannis, I see you are of the OCA. I urge you to meet with your pastor and discuss your beliefs on this subject. If he is in agreement with your overriding sentiments, I would ask you to write your Bishop on your Synod for further edification. I have known two of them for fifty years, Bishops Michael and Matthias, and they would point you on the proper path to understanding this issue from an Orthodox perspective.

This video is almost two hours long. It is from 1998 and the Archons of St. Andrew's honoring Elie Weisal with the Patriarch Athenagoras Huminatarian Award. I was present and I was profoundly influenced by his address. It is worth a listen to:  http://wn.com/Order_of_Saint_Andrew

[Ioannis Climacus]

Ioannis, I see you are of the OCA. I urge you to meet with your pastor and discuss your beliefs on this subject. If he is in agreement with your overriding sentiments, I would ask you to write your Bishop on your Synod for further edification. I have known two of them for fifty years, Bishops Michael and Matthias, and they would point you on the proper path to understanding this issue from an Orthodox perspective.

And if he told me otherwise? Should I reject the words of Metropolitan Seraphim, Elder Paisios, Elder Ephraim, St. Nikolai Velimirovic? In the case of Jewish guilt, should I reject the words of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory of Nyssa?

To tell you the truth, I have grown to despise holding the views that I do. While I have been zealous about it in the past, the level of ostracization one experiences from speaking about such things is at times unbearable. I cannot, however, conform my beliefs to suit my comforts. I find the idea of abandoning what I understand to be true (all for the sake of public acceptance) to be repulsive. To quote the German reformer, Martin Luther, : "Here I stand, I can do no other".

If anyone were to demonstrate how I have misinterpreted numerous saints and elders, I would be more than happy to "conform" my beliefs. Without first addressing that issue, a rejection of my understanding would be rooted in social acceptance and political correctness.

[Ioannis Climacus]

This video is almost two hours long. It is from 1998 and the Archons of St. Andrew's honoring Elie Weisal with the Patriarch Athenagoras Huminatarian Award. I was present and I was profoundly influenced by his address. It is worth a listen to:  http://wn.com/Order_of_Saint_Andrew

I honestly doubt my ability to make it through anything with Elie Wiesel in it. I only associate that name with lies and fraud.

[podkarpatska]

This video is almost two hours long. It is from 1998 and the Archons of St. Andrew's honoring Elie Weisal with the Patriarch Athenagoras Huminatarian Award. I was present and I was profoundly influenced by his address. It is worth a listen to:  http://wn.com/Order_of_Saint_Andrew

I honestly doubt my ability to make it through anything with Elie Wiesel in it. I only associate that name with lies and fraud.

Your last two posts convince me all the more that you must consult your pastor. Your convictions are not those of your jurisdiction. You need spiritual peace to resolve your inner conflicts and I hope that many of us will pray for you and with you.

[augustin717]

This video is almost two hours long. It is from 1998 and the Archons of St. Andrew's honoring Elie Weisal with the Patriarch Athenagoras Huminatarian Award. I was present and I was profoundly influenced by his address. It is worth a listen to:  http://wn.com/Order_of_Saint_Andrew

I honestly doubt my ability to make it through anything with Elie Wiesel in it. I only associate that name with lies and fraud.

Your last two posts convince me all the more that you must consult your pastor. Your convictions are not those of your jurisdiction. You need spiritual peace to resolve your inner conflicts and I hope that many of us will pray for you and with you.

He's like 19 IIRC. He'll grow out of it. It's almost sure.

[Iconodule]

This video is almost two hours long. It is from 1998 and the Archons of St. Andrew's honoring Elie Weisal with the Patriarch Athenagoras Huminatarian Award. I was present and I was profoundly influenced by his address. It is worth a listen to:  http://wn.com/Order_of_Saint_Andrew

I honestly doubt my ability to make it through anything with Elie Wiesel in it. I only associate that name with lies and fraud.

Your last two posts convince me all the more that you must consult your pastor. Your convictions are not those of your jurisdiction. You need spiritual peace to resolve your inner conflicts and I hope that many of us will pray for you and with you.

He's like 19 IIRC. He'll grow out of it. It's almost sure.

Yeah but you just added a couple years by telling him he'll grow out of it. 

[Ioannis Climacus]

Your last two posts convince me all the more that you must consult your pastor. Your convictions are not those of your jurisdiction. You need spiritual peace to resolve your inner conflicts and I hope that many of us will pray for you and with you.

Emphasis mine.

And this is where we run in to trouble. It's great to be able to follow the leadership of your jurisdiction, but where do does one draw the line? Had I lived at the time of the Great Schism (in the west), would it have been preferable to align my convictions with that of my bishop? Had I lived at the time of the First Ecumenical Council (and my bishop had Arian leanings), would it have been reasonable to devote myself entirely to his teachings?

When a bishop (or even a synod) in the Church teaches something contrary to what is written (by either the councils or the fathers), I have a duty to follow the traditional teachings of the Church (and consequently disregarding the words of the bishop).

Any prayers would most certainly be welcome.

[Ioannis Climacus]

Yeah but you just added a couple years by telling him he'll grow out of it. 

Then allow me to ask my older and wiser brothers in the Faith a simple question :

Where do I go from here? I have most certainly been over-zealous in the past - something which I regret and indeed apologize for. The vast majority of my writings, however, have basis in the words of both reposed and living saints. To whose writings should I look once I have out grown these?

[Ionnis]

Well I'm older, not wiser, but I'll answer anyway.

The one thing that I rail against more than anything is sectarianism within the Church.  If you have a belief that you would like validated, you can probably go to the Fathers and find something that will.  If you want a "conservative" Orthodoxy you can go to Orthodox Christian Information Center and they will provide you with a specific set of Fathers and specific works of theirs to defend their position.  If you want a more "liberal" Orthodoxy you can contact Orthodox Peace Fellowship and they will direct you to specific saints, elders, bishops, and priests.  Let's say you want Old Calendar Orthodoxy, the Holy Synod in Resistance/CTOS has a whole host of writing you might enjoy.  If you want an Orthodoxy that says that the "World Orthodox" are graceless, I can also lead you to some elders, bishops, and priests who will support that. 

The problem with that kind of approach is that it is inherently deficient.  It is carefully selecting Fathers to defend a particular viewpoint.  Usually those who follow such an approach are seeking to glorify themselves, their human reasoning, much like what Gregory is doing on that other thread. Or, one is naive and doesn't realize that what they are being fed is a selective Orthodoxy.  They are being led to read specific Fathers and they begin to think "Well all the Fathers I read say_____, therefore it must be what the Church teaches."  One must seek out the whole.

Yeah but you just added a couple years by telling him he'll grow out of it. 

Then allow me to ask my older and wiser brothers in the Faith a simple question :

Where do I go from here? I have most certainly been over-zealous in the past - something which I regret and indeed apologize for. The vast majority of my writings, however, have basis in the words of both reposed and living saints. To whose writings should I look once I have out grown these?

[podkarpatska]

Well I'm older, not wiser, but I'll answer anyway.

The one thing that I rail against more than anything is sectarianism within the Church.  If you have a belief that you would like validated, you can probably go to the Fathers and find something that will.  If you want a "conservative" Orthodoxy you can go to Orthodox Christian Information Center and they will provide you with a specific set of Fathers and specific works of theirs to defend their position.  If you want a more "liberal" Orthodoxy you can contact Orthodox Peace Fellowship and they will direct you to specific saints, elders, bishops, and priests.  Let's say you want Old Calendar Orthodoxy, the Holy Synod in Resistance/CTOS has a whole host of writing you might enjoy.  If you want an Orthodoxy that says that the "World Orthodox" are graceless, I can also lead you to some elders, bishops, and priests who will support that. 

The problem with that kind of approach is that it is inherently deficient.  It is carefully selecting Fathers to defend a particular viewpoint.  Usually those who follow such an approach are seeking to glorify themselves, their human reasoning, much like what Gregory is doing on that other thread. Or, one is naive and doesn't realize that what they are being fed is a selective Orthodoxy.  They are being led to read specific Fathers and they begin to think "Well all the Fathers I read say_____, therefore it must be what the Church teaches."  One must seek out the whole.

Yeah but you just added a couple years by telling him he'll grow out of it. 

Then allow me to ask my older and wiser brothers in the Faith a simple question :

Where do I go from here? I have most certainly been over-zealous in the past - something which I regret and indeed apologize for. The vast majority of my writings, however, have basis in the words of both reposed and living saints. To whose writings should I look once I have out grown these?

In another thread on a different subject I just said much the same, "I think that all of us professing the faith in our very different parishes, some extremely traditional - others - well,not so much ( really, both can be 'OK' and both are found throughout Church history)....have to find the strengths and the weaknesses that we each bring with us."

If one searches for 'real, absolute Orthodoxy' in this life, I fear he will be disappointed. Look,the reality is that our Dogmas, our Doctrines were molded together in the way they are handed down to us over time. Unlike the Mormons, we didn't find Scripture, Tradition or the Fathers 'under a rock'. It is probably an easier path for some to find solace in such a faith system- however that is not the way of Orthodoxy.

A dear friend of mine who was a priest and who died far too young once put it this way in a sermon: We are not called to a smorgasbord of faith, or a salad bar of Orthodoxy - a little of this, or a little of that... If we are searching for the True Faith, we have to look inward to our own soul, and with the assistance of the 'external' Church and all of Her teachings and all of her Saints and in all of God's temples - be it the greatest Cathedral built or simplest wooden frame hut - we can only try to find it.

The greatest Fathers of the Church wrote and said some of the most unpalatable, and subsequently undogmatic things.You can find those writings from many sources. Yet, those who accepted the consensus of the Church on Earth and moved beyond those errors, they became pillars of the Faith. I don't think anything less is expected from us in our own way as no one is given a burden too great for them to handle.

By the way, the aforementioned Orthodox Information Center, which I rarely cite, has a wonderful article about the very writings of St. John Chrysostom which prompted this exchange. I highly recommend it, although I don't completely agree:  http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/antisemitism.aspx

[Ioannis Climacus]

Well I'm older, not wiser, but I'll answer anyway.

The one thing that I rail against more than anything is sectarianism within the Church.  If you have a belief that you would like validated, you can probably go to the Fathers and find something that will.  If you want a "conservative" Orthodoxy you can go to Orthodox Christian Information Center and they will provide you with a specific set of Fathers and specific works of theirs to defend their position.  If you want a more "liberal" Orthodoxy you can contact Orthodox Peace Fellowship and they will direct you to specific saints, elders, bishops, and priests.  Let's say you want Old Calendar Orthodoxy, the Holy Synod in Resistance/CTOS has a whole host of writing you might enjoy.  If you want an Orthodoxy that says that the "World Orthodox" are graceless, I can also lead you to some elders, bishops, and priests who will support that. 

The problem with that kind of approach is that it is inherently deficient.  It is carefully selecting Fathers to defend a particular viewpoint.  Usually those who follow such an approach are seeking to glorify themselves, their human reasoning, much like what Gregory is doing on that other thread. Or, one is naive and doesn't realize that what they are being fed is a selective Orthodoxy.  They are being led to read specific Fathers and they begin to think "Well all the Fathers I read say_____, therefore it must be what the Church teaches."  One must seek out the whole.

In large, I agree with you, Ionnis, but would you not say we run an equally dangerous risk of ignoring the harder sayings of the fathers on the grounds that such things do not represent the Church? From your point of view, what should be made of the early Church writings against the Jews? Would you say they speak for the Church? When we are talking about people who have seen the uncreated energy of God, I have an incredibly difficult time contradicting them.

What is to be made of Elder Paisios and Elder Ephraim's writings concerning a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity? Should they be ignored in favor of the views of more ecumenical minded hierarchs in the Church? What should, in your opinion, a good Orthodox layman believe?

I ask in all sincerity because, regardless of whether or not you recognize it, you are one of the wisest members of OC.net. I would take your opinion to heart more than most.