'I Will Not Travel to Auschwitz' (Interview with SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson)

Der Spiegel ^ | February 9, 2009

[NYer]

Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust has done serious damage to the Catholic Church. In an e-mail and fax exchange with SPIEGEL, the ultra-conservative bishop says that he is willing to "review the historical evidence."

SPIEGEL: The Vatican is demanding that you retract your denial of the Holocaust, and it is threatening to not allow you to resume your activities as a bishop. How will you react?

Williamson: Throughout my life, I have always sought the truth. That is why I converted to Catholicism and became a priest. And now I can only say something, the truth of which I am convinced. Because I realize that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must now review the historical evidence once again. I said the same thing in my interview with Swedish television: Historical evidence is at issue, not emotions. And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time.

SPIEGEL: How can an educated Catholic deny the Holocaust?

Williamson: I addressed the subject in the 1980s. I had read various writings at the time. I cited the Leuchter report (eds. note: a debunked theory produced in the 1980s claiming erroneously that the Nazi gas chambers were technically impractical) in the interview, and it seemed plausible to me. Now I am told that it has been scientifically refuted. I plan now to look into it.

SPIEGEL: You could travel to Auschwitz yourself.

Williamson: No, I will not travel to Auschwitz. I've ordered the book by Jean-Claude Pressac. It's called "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers." A printout is now being sent to me, and I will read it and study it.

[Uri’el-2012]

Do you believe Jesus is God?

Yes

NAsbU Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;

KJV Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

NIV Mark 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

NAU Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

TNK Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

BHT Deuteronomy 6:4 šüma` yiSrä´ël yhwh(´ädönäy) ´élöhêºnû yhwh(´ädönäy) ´eHäd

Yah'shua stated that there is only one G-d.

He also stated the If you see me you have seen the Father

Also The Father and I are one.

NAsbU John 14:9 ..... He who has seen Me has seen the Father...

NAsbU John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Uri’el-2012]

And don't presume to tell me to go to Confession, when you don't even believe in it! It could be a simple mistake.

There you go again.

I know you need a reading comprehension course.

This is what I said:

I believe you are prevaricating.

Do you need to go to confession ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Pyro7480]

I excerpted something that YOU posted, and you’re accusing me of not reading correctly? If that’s the case, where am I wrong? You’re just being provocative, not corrective.

[Uri’el-2012]

I excerpted something that YOU posted, and you’re accusing me of not reading correctly? If that’s the case, where am I wrong? You’re just being provocative, not corrective.

Sorry, I believe you did not excerpt me.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Pyro7480]

It’s from your post #136.

[D-fendr]

Thank you, I just wanted to make sure before I replied to your previous post.

Since this is your belief, Jews would accuse you of much the same you accused me of - polytheism, paganism... blasphemy at the very least. Had you lived back they, you may have had to avoid their stoning, you might have been the one Paul was after on the road to Damascus.

And, to Christians, you are a judaizer, one who does not recognize the difference between the old law and the good news; also, a great many Christians would say you cannot accept Jesus without accepting His Church, that you are a heretic of the first class. That’s what they would say to someone with your professed beliefs.

Now, I doubt these slurs bother you any more than yours bother me.

But I do sympathize with you - you catch them from both sides. And you must give them to both: Christians are not Jewish enough for you; Jews are not Christian enough.

thanks again for your reply.

[Uri’el-2012]

There you go again, claiming something to be true that’s not.

Constantine was NOT the first pontiff.

No he was not the first pontiff.

There were many before him

as it is a PAGAN religious title
from Rome and earlier from Ephesus
and earlier from Babylon.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Uri’el-2012]

And, to Christians, you are a judaizer, one who does not recognize the difference between the old law and the good news; also, a great many Christians would say you cannot accept Jesus without accepting His Church, that you are a heretic of the first class. That’s what they would say to someone with your professed beliefs.

There is only one G-d.

Not two gods

and not three gods.

I stand by the words of Yah'shua.

I do not subscribe to syncretic man made religion of the fourth century.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[D-fendr]

There is only one God.

Hey, we agree on something!

I stand by the words of Yah'shua.

Two things!

I do not subscribe to syncretic man made religion of the fourth century.

Three things!

[Pyro7480]

No, it’s just a term derived from the Latin generic word for “priest,” which is “pontifex.” The priests of the Temple in Jerusalem could legitimately referred to as “pontiffs” in a generic sense as well.

[Uri’el-2012]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus

[Petronski]

Quoted above is a text labeled: "This is the Decree from the Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world."

That label is immediately followed by language stating "Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest."

It should remain clear to all readers that the Emperor Constantine was never the Pontiff of the Catholic Church, though for as far as I know, he might have been Pontiff of some other church in Rome.

Further reference is made to "In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine..." which is a laughable distortion of history, since Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD.

Constant effort is necessary to correct and re-correct and re-re-correct the record, since these distortions have been posted many times before and no doubt will be posted again.

[Petronski]

The Pressac book mentioned by Williamson is available online, free of charge, legitimately:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/

It is a formidable piece of work.

[netmilsmom]

Thanks!

[Kanakabaraka]

It was Judaism then and now that rejected Paul’s teaching. Judaism did not “become” Christian.

So, they are two beliefs; and your view remains: replacement of Jewish beliefs with Christian beliefs.

I’m a little puzzled by what you’ve posted. As a Christian, I have always understood that Christianity is the correct interpretation of the revelation originally given to the Jews. Certainly, the Jews who accepted Christ in His day branched off from the mass of the Jews of the time, and became what we now call Christianity. But that doesn’t mean that 2000 years down the road, we have to say that they were always two different religions. How can what we call Judaism today be the Judaism of Moses, when Moses would have recognized in Christ the fulfillment of the revelation he had received (and did, as evidenced during the Transfiguration)? I would agree that a person following the religion calling itself Judaism today can't become a Christian and continue to be a modern Jew, but that doesn’t seem to be your argument. I understand you are a Catholic Christian; are you saying that Christianity is true for those who believed, but the Jews who followed the interpretation that Christ wasn’t the Messiah, nor the second person of the Trinity, were also accurately interpreting the revelation they had received, so their spiritual descendants are validly following the faith tradition of their fathers, rejecting not Christ, but only Paul? Is there a doctrine of the Catholic Church that speaks to your argument, that can help me figure out what you’re saying is wrong with my understanding?

[D-fendr]

I would agree that a person following the religion calling itself Judaism today can't become a Christian and continue to be a modern Jew, but that doesn’t seem to be your argument.

No, that's pretty much the summary of my argument here. And that that was was the case in Paul's time. The two split as religions - and it wasn't a very friendly split.