Author Topic: +W issues apology (Read 2894 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 26, 2009, 01:54:16 PM »

The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested
that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months
ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.

Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having
made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm
and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but
also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the
Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (..."I believe"..."I
believe"...) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the
basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since.
However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members
of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility
for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from
what I said before God I apologise.

As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one
man hurts all mankind.

+Richard Williamson
London 26 February 2009

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:58:05 PM »

What about the scandal caused by his capitulation? Indeed, the 'rite of sodomy' is alive and well...

Dawn · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:30:08 PM »

Well, that saddens me. This nonsense about one not being able to speak your own opinions will reverberate even on a purely secular level. Libs used to disagree with your words, but defended your right to say what what you wished. That is gone now in the age of Obama.
So, is this now a "dogma" of Benedict's Church? Seems so, and since this is the case, will all still regognize him as the pope or see that he is not the pope because of to capitulate to the Jєωs when they have not recognized Christ as the saviour is the worse form of traitorous heresy to Christ.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2009, 03:12:30 PM »

Quote

I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

This is NOT capitulation/recanting/etc?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2009, 03:14:42 PM »

What you call humility, I call licking the boots of the devil. What "harm...to the Church...to the victims...etc...blah, blah, blah..."???

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2009, 03:26:31 PM »

If I have misread anything, may it become clearer to me. I bear him no ill will.

Dawn · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2009, 03:52:35 PM »

No, before Vatican II, there was no couching of terms when dealing with the Jєωs. Jesus certainly was not P.C. or apologetic when dealing with them in his day. Words have meaning, and this will be taken by the world as anyone who differs with this final dogma of NewChurch being brought into line or else.
Never do any of the NewPopes threaten those who deny the REAL Dogmas of the REAL Church.
This will be taken by the enemies of Christ as the tool they need to issue the edict of persectution by those of us who will not accept the false Church dogma of Shoah.

trad123 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2009, 04:52:45 PM »

roscoe · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2009, 05:01:50 PM »

trad123-- please use caution as the term Conciliar Church refers properly to the Vatican Council of 1870.

trad123 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2009, 05:10:00 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

trad123-- please use caution as the term Conciliar Church refers properly to the Vatican Council of 1870.

I thought calling the Vatican II sect the "Conciliar Church" is because it's teachings are based off of one [false] council alone.

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2009, 05:31:33 PM »

Just a matter of semantics I guess-- so as to avoid confusion. I do not even like to use the term Vatican I Council because it implys there is such a thing as a VII Council.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2009, 05:42:53 PM »

Quote from: Uriel

moderated He should of never caved in and made it seem like what he had orginaly said was wrong. Never bow down to that heretic pope and his zionist leaders!!! Typical SSPX fasion I guess...to cave in?

Another unfortunate use of the "freedom of speech".

Your inflamatory rants do your particular flavor of Catholicism no good at all.

But you win, dear - I'm done here.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #12 on:** February 26, 2009, 06:30:48 PM »

Although you may have not liked the brutal comment, Matthew, do you agree or disagree with its appositeness?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #13 on:** February 26, 2009, 07:06:54 PM »

I don't see much difference between this and his previous apology. He regrets the situation caused by his remarks (and, therefore, wishes he hadn't said them) but still does not say he was incorrect in his opinion.

Perhaps the point of this statement is that it's addressed to the general public rather than the Holy Father in particular.

I'm sure we'll see soon enough how much of a non-recant this is as those who have been calling most earnestly for an apology will not be satisfied with this statement.

Dawn · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2009, 07:04:29 AM »

That is true. Nothing short of blood satisfies the likes of Abe Foxman. Ask Mel.