The good bishop and the killing of God

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 15 October 2011 22:58.

Never let it be said that Richard Williamson was cowed into submission by his January 2009 encounter with Jewish power. The SSPX’s most politically adventurous bishop is back, via a circular to his email list, with a fresh perspective on the papal perspective on our Elder Brothers in Faith:

In his second volume on the life of Jesus published several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide, i.e. the killing of God. Worse, on May 17 the executive director of the US Bishops’ Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs said that one cannot charge the Jewish people with deicide at any time in history without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. Against what many people today want to believe, it is time to recall, however briefly, what the true Church always used to teach on the judicial murder of Jesus.

Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide”, i.e. the killing of God, because Jesus was the one of the three divine Persons who in addition to his divine nature had taken a human nature. What was killed on the Cross ? Only the human nature. But who was killed on the Cross in his human nature ? None other than the second divine Person, i.e. God. So God was killed, deicide was committed.

Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But 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 (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).

Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life”?

But 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. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the Talmud. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26-27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.

How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths?

The good bishop makes three observations of Jewry here:

1. For Catholic traditionalists, Jews are, by their fidelity to the rejection of Christ the Messiah, collectively sinning. Thus they are the enemies of Christ until the end of time.

2. Their rejection of Christ removed them from the Abrahamic faith of their forefathers and consigned them to Talmudism, which Bishop Williamson identifies as the faith of Caiaphas, Christ’s principal persecutor.

3. In our age Jews, the enemies of Christ and the followers of a satanic faith, exercise a significant control over the Catholic heirarchy on all matters pertaining to them. This control might only be through the notions of virtue and benignity which attach to them generally today - much of it the result of exploitation of the Holocaust narrative - but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, for a Catholic traditionalist, the mother church has been drawn into darkness. The God-killing is on-going, and the Catholic Church is become a party to it.

We now arrive at some understanding, at least, of why Bishop Williamson felt constrained to speak out when he did against the Holocaust narrative. In the same way that the Holocaust revisionists and many German-American WNs assert that bringing down the narrative is the key to a vast freeing of European Man - indeed, a freeing from genocide - Bishop Williamson would seem to perceive that the Catholic Church cannot perform its world-historic mission of realising the salvation of Mankind unless and until Jews are turned from evil, their works undone, and their acceptance of Christ the Messiah obtains ... and evil’s triumph is averted thereby.

All are brothers in the struggle for light.

Tags: Christianity

Comments:

Posted by MOB on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:33 | #

GW,

This may not be the perfect response to this posting on the admirable Bishop, but it will be the first time I’ve had the honor of making a first Comment, and I’ve read that the early comments get the greatest number of views.

I’ve watched many David Duke videos—he’s an extraordinary person who makes extraordinary videos—nobody else so perfectly captures the Jewish problem the way that he does, over and over and over.

I viewed this at VNN just now. It has to be one of the top three that he’s ever made. Positively inspiring.

http://www.vnnforum.com/video.php?do=viewdetails&videoid=3274

MOB

Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:48 | #

Though I admire bishop Williamson for his moral courage (among others in his questioning of the official stories of the Holocaust and 9/11) I cannot endorse his religious views on the Jews which seem to me to exhibit a rather medieval state of mind that I do not share.Whether the Jews are really collectively and hereditarily “guilty” of the murder of Christ or not, or whether Jesus is really the “second person” in the Deity or not,such questions cannot fascinate me much since I don’t believe in the Christian Myth anymore.But to criticize the Jews for the misuse of their disproportionate power and influence and their shameless exploitation of the Holocaust narrative,is an all toghether other matter.This is a battle I can understand and relate to.We need all hands in this battle and the esteemed bishop - no matter what his beliefs - is welcome in it.

Posted by Brandon on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:42 | #

The murder of Jesus 2000 + years ago by jewry, set a precedent in the manner which it was done. The jews manipulated the romans into doing it. This is how the jew has done his work ever since - using proxy’s/front/between men/useful idiots/stooges, to do his dirty work. This shows his satanic origin.

Also, the one time historical incident of the crucifixion/murder of Jesus, became the initial act in a continuous series of like acts of similar character/nature, down through history through the present day. The jew, by and through his work has become the special instrument of the adversary - called satan - is a culture and nation destroying cancer/parasite and continues to “kill and crucify Jesus on down through history”, by warring against anything that speaks of moral conduct or “goodness” displayed in the culture.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 16:42 | #

It’s funny as it is part of Jewish rhetoric that the Holocaust was uniquely evil and an attempt to kill God. Funny how that psychological projection thing works, yes?

BTW I found this on Youtube - is this mendacious little piece of shit what passes for an intellectual these days?

Please don’t watch all of the frogs dull lecture but the last 20 minutes or so are a masterclass of Jewish duplicity and posturing by the loathsome Bernard-Henri Lévy.

Posted by The Decline of the WEJ on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00 | #

The life and continued activities of Bishop Richard Williamson are nothing less than evidence of the decline of the WEJ. WEJ is, of course, the acronym for White European Jews, much like the better known acronym WASP that the WEJ like for us.

The WEJ don’t take kindly to others’ naming them, but it is coming about that their status, ideas, and supremacy are more and more seriously under examination and deconstruction at the level of the intersection of tribalism and universalism. Their anti-human and anti-life instincts are losing ground.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:31 | #

Jailhouse interview with White “supremacist”.

“I’m hoping the sacrifice we have made will open some people’s eyes and they will wake up and hear the call. It’s not as hard as they think,” said Grigsby, 24. “This is what I was born to do.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:24 | #

In Oregon, they killed a 19-year-old Chris ian man and stole his car. Grigsby corrected media reports that Cody Myers was killed because his name was Jewish, and said she and Pedersen didn’t know his name until they had his wallet and could only hope there was a reason he deserved to be killed.

“It’s unfortunate he was a white man, but it was to facilitate further action,” Grigsby said. “In every war, there are going to be civilian casualties, and he was one of them.”

A psychopath, Jimmy. The cause she says she serves conveniently “explains” her true cause of violence.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:18 | #

G-dub,

She seems pretty coherent. She isn’t technically a psychopath based on what I’ve read.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:23 | #

Coherence is required of psychopaths, Daniel, in so much as manipulation is a near universal feature of the psychopathic mind.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:42 | #

GW,

true cause of violence

For sake of discussion, I’ll grant your tidy explanation of psychopathology as “true cause”, but in so doing I’ll alternately suggest that multiculturalism could just as easily be seen as contributory to that psychopathology and therefore an even truer cause.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:48 | #

Attention Jimmy!

You have just rendered those earnest devotions to the Saint of the Berlin bunker superfluous. You are now a convert to the politics of reality. For the sake of discussion, of course.

Posted by anon / uh on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:30 | #

J-Dawg,

She seems pretty coherent.

“But one thing is the thought, another thing is the deed, and another thing is the idea of the deed. The wheel of causality doth not roll between them.”

The failure is always, always, always the causative gap between what the white nationalist believes this or that action will have, and reality.

Besides, she used the word “Zionist”. This was her big moment and she didn’t even say “Jew”. Or perhaps she did and they changed it. Who effing cares!

Sorta cute though. In that potato-face krauty fashion. Is this what Captain’s gf looks like?

Posted by danielj on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:03 | #

It’s my understanding that psychopaths need to have dissociative breaks with reality. She has a firm grip G.

She understands herself as advance guard and for all we know, she may be right.

Uh,

She probably used the word Jew too. I’m sure there was a lot of parsing for the article.

Posted by anon / uh on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:04 | #

Daniel,

Why don’t you take me seriously sometime??

It’s my understanding that psychopaths need to have dissociative breaks with reality. She has a firm grip G.

I just told you she suffers from a very severe misunderstanding of causality, the “causative gap” between what the psychopath, or whatever we call them, believes to be the reason for their action or what will come of it. Clinically she may be quite different from someone with Capgras syndrome, but the result is the same. Nothing. No change. The world rolls on, oblivious to this bullshit.

She understands herself as advance guard and for all we know, she may be right.

Guess what! She isn’t. Millions look on and shake their heads. Her private narrative, despite its descriptive validity to the state of affairs, remains a useless and ineffectual private narrative, with no—sorry to do this—extensive power.

Random murders, either of our kind or by our kind, have no effect. Absolutely none. Even where they’re systemic, as black on white murders.

Unless murder is wielded by the army or the state, or a force sufficiently large to combat the opposing element in body on all fronts, politicized murder (for this is not even political murder) is useless, distracting, ugly, and ought to be ignored.

I say this, as you might be aware, as a full-throated extremist in these matters.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:18 | #

She understands herself as advance guard and for all we know, she may be right.

She may indeed. A harbinger of psychopathology is a harbinger nonetheless:

“The primary reward [of increased diversity in America] is the growth in alienation as young Americans fail to develop a healthy sense of racial identity and fail to find satisfactory role models. Diversity goes up, and homogeneity simultaneously goes down. And as homogeneity disappears, so does the individual’s sense of community, of belonging, of identity.

... the side benefits of diversity: rising suicide rates, a greatly increased incidence of neuroses and psychopathologies, more schoolyard shootings… and a number of other consequences of the diversity being visited upon us by the government and the Jewish media.”

Dr. William Pierce, Free Speech - April 2001 - Volume VII, Number 4

Posted by anon / uh on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:47 | #

Unhappily for that theory, the structure of our society is intended not only to encourage a maximum of anomie among its subjects, but to justify it with an appropriate worldview.

Which means sporadic murders, with all the clear sight a prole can muster, fall on legions of unseeing eyes.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:46 | #

But she admitted in the interview that her actions would probably amount to nothing Uh. She knew.

I’ve been desperate enough to do stupid things so perhaps I can relate easier. It ain’t easy being trash.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:45 | #

Brandon,

Are you a Catholic traditionalist in the line of the SSPX? If so, you must accept that Jews can be redeemed through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and are not satanic in any original sense but have become so through the deed of deicide. They can stop. This is surely what Bishop Williamson is saying. Do you agree?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:08 | #

Well there is stupid and then there is the psychotic. There have been and always will be evil and evil people. The issues at stake are these: (i) do the cultural values etc., of a society facilitate and amplify the pathological? Compare the per capita murder rate of Switzerland and the USA (or indeed between state variations within the USA, say North Dakota and California); and (ii) quasi-random acts of violence by weirdo ‘lone-wolf’ individuals are not a political strategy, indeed they might not even be considered political acts in any meaningful sense.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:41 | #

Oh, cmon, surely you are brighter than that, Graham?! How can you compare Switzerland and the USA - demographic apples and oranges, yes? Ditto ND and CA (how about white Far Northern CA with ND?).

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:52 | #

“Elder brothers” and all those kind words notwithstanding, under Catholicism today there is nothing special, or specially evil, about Jews. They are simply another set of people who have not been brought yet to Christ. We Catholics do not venerate Jews, nor are we allowed per papal bull especially to condemn them. I like shit-stirrers like Williamson, but sorry, he does not get to decide the content of Church doctrine on his own authority.

The Church regards modern Jewry as neither uniquely special, nor malign. A good Catholic wants to bring a Jew to Christ to the same extent that he wishes to convert the Muslim or the atheist. Nothing more. I’m not that good of a Catholic personally, because I really am only interested in saving my own soul, not others’, which I take to be each man’s responsibility (and I have a rather liberal conception of salvation anyway). But at least I don’t commit the sin of deliberately distorting doctrine under color of ecclesial authority.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:16 | #

I watched the first 20min of the BHL vid. Rather interesting figure, definitely some strange exotic charisma, but also a weird guy, linguistic difficulties nothwithstanding. Is this man considered a serious intellectual, or just a poseur?

Posted by Brandon on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:11 | #

@ Guessedworker 4:45 Am…

No, I have nothing to do with catholicism or any of her daughters; ie, the denominations.

All can be redeemed…“many are called, but few are chosen”.

The present age we live in is not the jew’s time to have his eyes opened. He is under wrath, not mercy, for as I said, he is the adversary’s special instrument of destruction. They operate like he does. They have his nature and he speaks from their mouth.

Yes, “they have come to be so” through their rejection of Jesus and his murder at their behest. They won’t stop - corporately - until it is their time. A long way off yet.

Mr Williamson has some truth.

Individual jews have been “saved”. Jews for Jesus is one example. Others calling themselves Messianic Jews, who believe and accept Jesus as their messiah, but are persecuted by their fellow jews.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:36 | #

Re - BHL - yes sadly he is considered a ‘public intellectual’ and somewhat incredulously a philosopher in France. Repulsive example of universalism for the goyim and vigorously pursued ethnocentric particularism for the chosen people.

I guess France has a history of producing absurd pseudo-intellectuals but even by those standards BHL is a risible figure.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:58 | #

Brandon,

OK, thanks. I find the radical Christian/traditionalist Catholic perspective on Jewry interesting. It is a perspective I can understand intellectually but cannot actually share. Like a lot of non-believers, I have a deep love of the religious history of England as it is written in stone, and Anglicanism’s expression of the English temper and Mind. But it is not possible for me to enter into religious meaning through the experience of faith.

Whether this is a source of liberty or enslavement I cannot say for certain, hence MR will publish religious contributions to our European claim on life (DanielJ’s writings, for instance - as and when he wants to submit them).

Messianic Jews:

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

Posted by Fr. John+ on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:06 | #

Brandon and Guessed Worker:

I will address your questions as soon as I comment on Bp. Williamson’s statement.
If I were inclined to return to the Church of Rome, if he were Pope, I’d seriously consider it.

The man should receive a Nobel Prize for Truth, if nothing else.

As for the Deicides. The Orthodox Church (and Rome before Vat. II) considered the ‘Jews’ (really, the Khazars/Edomites, as they have not been ‘biblical Jews’ since at least AD&), or, if you are being picky, @ 700 when the Khazars adopted Judaism as a military -and not as a religious ‘conversion’ strategy) to be apostate, cursed, outside of God’s grace and forever disbarred.

In short, irredeemable.
As I wrote yesterday, the modern Multiculturalist R.C. is decidedly schizophrenic when it comes to the “Jews” - http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/oh-pat-no/

Whereas Bendict (arnold) is merely Antichrist.

As a great saint once said, “The Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews.”
- Saint John Chrysostom: Six Homilies Against the Jews.

And, as for Benedict’s fallacious statments, I leave you with a quote from another Catholic of a bygone, saner day:

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
G. K. Chesterton

Posted by Robert Reis on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:01 | #

There is a problem with the very popular “Father forgive them” verse in today’s version of Luke.

The problem is this. Some of our earliest and best Greek manuscripts do not contain these words. There is no prayer at all in these early witnesses. This omission has led the editors of both the UBS and Nestle Aland texts to place the words in double brackets.

The double brackets is a later addition to the text that is not from the pen of Luke.

The editors of the UBS text think that it is absolutely certain that these words did not come from Luke. Some other scribe added them later.

It is missing from the best papyrus manuscript (the exact place one would expect to find it if it were an authentic saying of Christ), and it is missing from the important codex Vaticanus.

If these words were not written by Luke, they were added by someone else.

Who might have wanted Christians to think that Jesus forgave the Jews?