By BISHOP WILLIAMSON
December 28, 2019
LD (introduction) : The famous Catholic dissident and “Holocaust denier”, Bishop Williamson, here invokes Shakespeare to argue that the Catholic Church, initially betrayed by Martin Luther and King Henry VIII through the Protestant Reformation, has now been betrayed yet again from within by the Catholic Church’s relatively recent “reforms”.
This second betrayal took place in 1962-1965 by the misguided reforms of Vatican II, which were thrust upon the Catholic Church in an inept and authoritarian way, making a mockery of many of the core beliefs of our Christian ancestors.
Neither St Augustine nor St Jerome, translator of the great Vulgate Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, would have been happy with these outrageous reforms.
None of the early Church Fathers, who believed devoutly that the Jews were collectively to blame for the death of Christ—the crime of ‘deicide’—would have approved of the Pope’s sudden decision that the Jews were not to blame after all but were spotlessly innocent of the death of Christ. Instead, the finger of blame was now pointed at Pontius Pilate and the Romans. And the account given in the New Testament of the Jews clamouring for the death of Christ and declaring “His blood be on us and our children.” (Matthew 27:24-25), was dismissed as an early example of antisemitic hate speech—henceforth known as the “blood curse”.
Finally, none of the great Christian martyrs, from the early Christians who were prepared to be eaten alive in the Circus Maximus by lions, to St Thomas More who was ready to have his head chopped off on the orders of Henry VIII, would have died for the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. This newfangled monstrosity was not the Church founded by Jesus Christ, by the man who founded no Church at all if the truth be told, but who simply left behind a corpus of oral teachings which were later refined and organised into orthodoxy by St Paul, St Jerome, St Augustine and a panoply of popes and cardinals in subsequent centuries.
I hope this brief introduction will give no offence to Bishop Williamson if he should read it, and I apologise if it should contain any errors. [LD]
— § —
The Archbishop said, “Rome is no more in Rome.”
Elsewhere today is Catholics’ spiritual home.
If there have been great minds from the past, it is because they will have been thinking on great matters, which means, explicitly or implicitly, matters of God, and if they were truly great minds, their thinking will have been not just destructive. One such mind was certainly England’s Shakespeare.
As a Catholic, Shakespeare grappled with his country’s apostasy being fulfilled just as he was reaching his prime, around 1600. But that turning of England to Protestantism meant that if he did not want to be hanged, drawn and quartered, he had to disguise his Catholic message, as Clare Asquith proved in her book of 2005, Shadowplay, where she took English literature way above English “patriots” and the dwarves of literary criticism.
To take just one example, in the book’s Appendix on Shakespeare’s Sonnet 152, she shows how from start to finish, beneath the obvious application to a woman Shakespeare has known, there is a complete second meaning of far wider application to himself as a writer who has failed to warn his countrymen as he should have done. Here are the 14 lines of the sonnet together with their obvious meaning:—
In loving thee thou know’st I am forsworn
But thou art twice forsworn to me love swearing,
In act thy bed-vow broke and new faith torn,
In vowing new hate after new love bearing.
But why of two oaths’ breach do I accuse thee,
When I break twenty? I am perjured most,
For all my vows are oaths but to misuse thee,
And all my honest faith in thee is lost;
For I have sworn deep oaths of thy deep kindness,
Oaths of thy love, thy truth, thy constancy,
And, to enlighten thee, gave eyes to blindness,
Or made them swear against the thing they see.
For I have sworn thee fair: more perjured eye,
To swear against the truth so foul a lie.
Paraphrased in modern English:
You know I break a promise by loving you, but by
swearing you love me, you break two promises: you
forsook your husband’s bed, then returned to him
(“new faith,” “new love”) only to forsake him again.
But why do I accuse you of breaking two oaths when
I break twenty oaths? It is I the greater perjurer, for
To your own harm I have sworn oath upon oath about
your goodness when I well knew you were not good.
Thus I have been swearing that you are very kind,
very loving, very truthful, very constant, and to
put you in a good light, I have made me see what I
Did not see, or, have sworn I saw not what eye saw.
For I have sworn you were good. What terrible
Perjury on my part, when that is so untrue!
Interestingly, the sonnet’s text makes more sense in its hidden meaning, referring to faithless England, than in its apparent meaning, referring to Shakespeare’s unfaithful mistress.
Thus “Merrie Englande” had been a faithful wife of the Catholic Church for 900 years. By Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy (1534), (“In Act”) England broke its marriage (“bed-vow”) with the Catholic Church and took Protestantism as its lover. Then it remarried the Catholic Church under Mary Tudor (1553, “new faith,” “new love”), only to fall back into adultery with Protestantism under Elizabeth I (1558, “new faith torn,” “new hate” of the Catholic Church). But Shakespeare (1564–1616) blames himself for much worse infidelity, because down these years he has repeatedly glorified (“to enlighten thee”) England with its unfaithful Tudor rulers, for instance in his History Plays, glorified to England’s harm (“to misuse thee”), because as a Catholic he knew full well that Protestantism would be the ruin of “Merrie Englande.” Sure enough!
And today? The pattern repeats itself: for over 1900 years Catholics were faithfully married to the true Church, but with Vatican II (1962–1965) the mass of them followed bad leaders into more or less of adultery with the modern world (“bed-vow broke”). Then Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) led many back to the truly Catholic Church (“new faith,” “new love,” or renewal of the old faith and the old love), only to see his successors at the head of the Society of St Pius X which he founded in 1970 fall back into an adulterous longing for a reunion with Conciliar Rome, by a “new hate” for the pre-Conciliar truth.
Conclusion? Any Shakespeares amongst us, or any Catholics, must speak up, that Pachamama Rome is, as such, nothing other than an abomination, to be shunned.