Pope Benedict XVI and Catholic Jewish relations

[mswas]

@The_Second_Stone

You and I have different understandings of what Protestant means and what bigot means. That does not mean that either of us haven’t researched the topic, only that you don’t accept I have any understanding of it.

I apologize. I don’t have enough knowledge of the topic myself to make such accusations. It was intemperate.

For the edification of the Teeming millions, here are the reasons that Luther eventually broke from the Roman Catholic Church http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html Chief among these reasons were the sale of indulgences, that salvation is based on the Grace of God alone, and not good works. Communion has nothing to do with it. In most Protestant denominations any Christian from any other denomination is welcomed and encouraged to partake of communion. The RCC does not give Communion to Protestant denominations, including Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists, etc. And yes, we Protestants do have Communion as a central tenet of the religion. I don’t know what denomination you belong to that doesn’t think that Communion is central, but I suspect that you are wrong about your own denomination. Communion is universal among Christians under the Nicean Creed and universal is interchangeable with the word catholic in this sense. Communion for those that believe in bodily Resurrection is more important than life itself.

Right, but the protestants are still separated from the church. I didn’t say that Communion isn’t universal, I said that Protestants do not believe in the universal authority of the Roman church to confer communion.

Had the RCC under the Medicis not sold indulgences, it is entirely likely that Luther would have sucked it up on everything else and stayed in the Church. And without his leadership and scholarship to back it up we’d probably all still be Catholic and the various offshoots would be as well remembered as the Cathars. This is not intended to overly lionize Martin Luther. He was a very intelligent and strong willed man. But his own differences with Jews he tried to convert led him to write the most influential anti-Jewish tracts in history that led in a more or less straight line to the Holocaust.

Right, but the Catholic church doesn’t sell indulgences, the Medicis no longer rule Italy, but the Protestant denominations are still in schism.

Bigotry is: Bigot - definition of bigot by The Free Dictionary prejudice in favor of one’s own group and intolerance of others.

Ok, so by this definition everyone who doesn’t approve of the pope’s decision is a ‘bigot’. They are judging internal Roman Catholic matters by whether or not it favors THEIR group. So everyone’s a bigot, thus the term is essentially meaningless.

I’m not calling the current Pope a bigot for “merely being Catholic” but rather for emphasizing the superiority of Catholics to other religions at virtually every opportunity. The superior attitude is the very definition of bigotry. The remarks about Islam need not have been made. The numerous remarks about how Roman Catholicism is the true Christian religion need not have been made. The revival of the prayer about “perfidious” Jews even softened to “faithless” Jews is grossly bigoted, and in fact it’s anti-Jewish on its face even in the softened form, and still offensive. Now I will concede that most religions think they are better than the others, but the current Pope’s constant rubbing it the face of the whole world is the very definition of bigotry.

This is the same as calling him a bigot for “merely being Catholic”, the Roman Church has always held to its own supremacy, it’s a basic tenet. The new liturgy doesn’t even say ‘faithless’ Jews. The Pope doesn’t ‘constantly’ rub anything in anyone’s face, Journalists seeking to create controversy do. The Pope is attending to internal matters.

When John Paul II was Pope these were the same doctrines, but he virtually never made a point of alienating other religions this way, and the only Vatican pronouncements that did are easily traced back to Ratzinger as head of the office of doctrine. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t the most prominent Christian in the world, he is. But it is unfortunate that the world’s most recognizable and influential Christian is a bigot, or as others have more diplomatically put it, “politically tone deaf”.

The new Pope is hardly politically tone-deaf, what a bigotted thing to say. He is making his decisions based on the weighing of the evidence, of the pros and cons and then doing what he thinks he needs to do. Tone deafness implies he can’t comprehend the situation. This sort of bigotry assumes that the way YOU and others who agree with you assess the situation is the de facto ‘correct’ interpretation, and thus the Pope’s deviation from the plan you prefer is ‘tone deafness’.

And you mistake disagreement as ignorance. I’m not as educated as Tomndebb or Polycarp on religious (esp Catholic) matters, but I know what I’m talking about. You don’t seem to understand the central place that Communion has to all Christians, including Protestants, and you don’t seem to understand what bigotry means or that the Pope should be excused for being rude in the way he takes actions and interprets doctrine. You also seem to think that Catholic Christian doctrine hasn’t changed in two millenia. WTF? Did you miss the Council of Nicea? Augustin? Aquinas? The Council of Trent? Vatican II?

No, that’s just some assumptions you’re making. I never made any comment about the centrality of communion. I was specifically speaking of ROMAN CATHOLIC communion, in which you are not included as you stated above.

The fact that you and I have completely different understandings of most of these things doesn’t make either of us completely ignorant, just of each other’s point of view.

Sure, fair enough.

[tomndebb]

I offer this commentary on the lifting of the excommunications simply to provide a different perspective on the whole issue.

The points to which I would call attention are:[ul][]That while the the opposition of the SSPX group to Vatican II did include a strong opposition to Dignitatis Humanae, the statement on religious freedoms, it was not focused on opposition to Judaism, but to any recognition of any non-Catholic tradition. (This does not mean that the SSPX group did not have far too many anti-semites, only that anti-semitism was not the specific root of their challenge; they were equally upset about Lutherans and Calvinists, etc.)[]That even Fellay, the leader of the SSPX group, condemned Williamson’s comments about the Holocaust as soon as they were broadcast by Swedish television;[]that the lifting of the excommunication was the result of several years of discussion between the pope and the leader of the SSPX group in which it appears that Fellay and his followers did commit to making no further open breaches with the RCC;[]That both the pope and the Vatican congregation that supervised the lifting of the excommunications have stated that the only meaning of the lifting is that the group may participate in the Sacraments, (based on their agreement to promote no further breach), but that they are not fully reconciled to the church.[/ul]The site to which I have linked is run by a very conservative guy who spends a lot of time condemning “modernists” and liberals, but has never shown any sympathy to the SSPX folks.

[The_Second_Stone]

Protestants are not in schism from the Roman Catholic Church as Protestants see it. If the RCC sees it that way, so be it, I really have no idea. This may not apply to Anglicans, who may consider themselves in schism, I do not know.
Protestants do not recognize that Rome ever had the authority that it claims to have over all Christians. No priest intercedes between a communicant and God the Father, as Jesus does himself. ‘No one comes before the Father except through Me’ “John 14:6-9”. We can conduct communion wherever two or more Christians are gathered in His name, without a consecrated Priest, or ordained minister or pastor. “For wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). Claims that there must be Priests to do all the interceding on behalf of laity are not accepted by most Protestants. Saints don’t intercede for Protestants either. Just Jesus.
Galatians 2:15-16 15 "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”
Protestants recognize that there is but one “Holy Catholic Church” where “catholic” means universal. Nicene Creed - Wikipedia But if you look at the Nicene Creed, even the claim about one catholic church was later added. This seems to me to deflate the earlier claim that RCC doctrine does not change. Of course it does. After Nicene there came Constantine, Augustine, Aquinas, The Council of Trent and Vatican II. All of these represented enormous change in doctrine as I see it. Even the crystallization of Papal Infallibility and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception only came about as dogma in the 19th century. Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia

The RCC, in denying communion with Protestants is viewed by many Protestants as a power grab unsupported by scripture and on the order of the power grab of the Donation of Constantine. Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia Much of the history of the RCC seems concerned with gathering and consolidating power, temporal and spiritual. The Greek Orthodox Church is just as old, if not older, than the RCC and does not recognize the supremacy of the Pope.

In summary, there can be no schism because the Pope and the RCC has no more authority (in Protestant theology) than any two Christians gathered in Christ’s name. If other denominations wish to believe otherwise, they are welcome to it.

But the Pope’s insistence that this is all hooey and that neither we nor the Jew nor anyone outside Communion with Rome are saved is bigotry when the Pope and the RCC make a big public deal about it such as calling Hebrews “faithless Jews”. It’s rude and it’s bigoted. That is how Jews see it, and that is how this Protestant sees it. If it was okay to drop “perfidious Jews”, it’s okay to drop it, period. It is not pleasant to call the Pope of the RCC a bigot, but he almost seems to go out of his way to piss people off. The prior Pontiff was much more sensitive to the things he was saying about other people, and as a result, he was much more effective in helping the image of the RCC with outsiders. JPII’s personal humility and humanity was impressive and a wonderful Christian example. I found his forgiveness of Agca Mehmet Ali Ağca - Wikipedia to be an inspiring example of Christian faith in action. The new guy, not so much.

[tomndebb]

I am really not all that interestd in getting into a squabble between you and mswas, but a couple of your comments indicate a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.

@The_Second_Stone

Claims that there must be Priests to do all the interceding on behalf of laity are not accepted by most Protestants. Saints don’t intercede for Protestants either. Just Jesus.

That is not the point of Catholic theology. The only intercessor between any person and God in Catholic theology is Jesus. (For example, one does not need the Sacrament of Reconciliation, (Confession), to be forgiven of sins. Simply expressing remorse brings forgiveness.)
The theology of the Sacraments is tied into a broader belief based on Paul’s metaphor of the Body of Christ. Actions that affect any member of the Body of Christ, (the whole church, all believing Christians, not just the RCC or even the Catholics and Orthodox), also affect all members of the Body of Christ. While there is definitely a direct, personal action between any person and God, through Jesus, there is also an interaction between any person and the Body of Christ and, since it is more than difficult to gather three or four billion people together to arrange for all the exchanges and interactions among all those people, the church calls forth members to carry out those obligations on behalf of the whole community, bishops, priests, and deacons.
Similarly, the intercession of saints is merely the same understanding that most non-Catholic Christians have that they can ask their friends and family to pray for (intercede for) them. The Catholic and Orthodox position simply opens up the people called upon to perform those prayers to those who have already attained heaven.

Now, that theology is definitely different than most Calvinist and some Lutheran theology, and I am not putting it forth as “Truth,” but if one’s belief is different, it would still be considerate to not misrepresent the theology that one does not follow.

@The_Second_Stone

The RCC, in denying communion with Protestants is viewed by many Protestants as a power grab unsupported by scripture and on the order of the power grab of the Donation of Constantine.

I can easily see where the difference in approaches to who may receive Communion would be upsetting–perhaps even insulting–to people outside the RCC, but a claim of a “power grab,” (which I have never heard from any previous Protestant with whom I have spoken), seems odd and even the more typical complaint of exclusionism indicates a postion that simply does not recognize the Catholic theology. The basic difference, (although there are several), is that the RCC sees shared Communion as expressing a current reality while groups that embrace a more open communion perceive it as an expression of a hoped for unity. The two positions are probably not compatible, but there does not seem to be a need to throw stones at each other over the issue. (And I am well aware that Catholics have thrown their share of stones. I simply do not see the need to continue that practice.)

[tomndebb]

@The_Second_Stone

. . . the Pope’s insistence that this is all hooey and that neither we nor the Jew nor anyone outside Communion with Rome are saved. . .

This claim, however, is simply false. The church makes no claim that only Catholics are saved. (See my previous link to the Catechism for a fuller expression of that point.)

[The_Second_Stone]

@DSeid

And again Second Stone, it is not yet at all clear what exactly they have recanted, if anything.

They have recanted their opposition to Vatican authority as I understand it. Their anti-Semitism, while still disgusting is irrelevant to their acceptance of the authority of the hierarchy of the tradition they claim to belong to. As a protestant of half Jewish ancestry, I get the dangers of what Williamson has been saying. But this kind of prejudice is a sin of hating, which does not require excommunication, merely confession and repentance, both of which are private, not public. Williamson may choose to one day make such a renouncing of the hate public, but forgiveness does not require it unless his priest (as I understand it) requires it.

[The_Second_Stone]

@tomndebb

I am really not all that interestd in getting into a squabble between you and mswas, but a couple of your comments indicate a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.That is not the point of Catholic theology. The only intercessor between any person and God in Catholic theology is Jesus. (For example, one does not need the Sacrament of Reconciliation, (Confession), to be forgiven of sins. Simply expressing remorse brings forgiveness.)…

Now, that theology is definitely different than most Calvinist and some Lutheran theology, and I am not putting it forth as “Truth,” but if one’s belief is different, it would still be considerate to not misrepresent the theology that one does not follow.

It was out of ignorance. Thank you for squashing mine in that regard.

@tomndebb

I can easily see where the difference in approaches to who may receive Communion would be upsetting–perhaps even insulting–to people outside the RCC, but a claim of a “power grab,” (which I have never heard from any previous Protestant with whom I have spoken), seems odd and even the more typical complaint of exclusionism indicates a postion that simply does not recognize the Catholic theology. The basic difference, (although there are several), is that the RCC sees shared Communion as expressing a current reality while groups that embrace a more open communion perceive it as an expression of a hoped for unity. The two positions are probably not compatible, but there does not seem to be a need to throw stones at each other over the issue. (And I am well aware that Catholics have thrown their share of stones. I simply do not see the need to continue that practice.)

You are, or course, correct that stone throwing is not productive and I regret any hurt I have caused (or am causing) in this discussion.

@tomndebb

This claim, however, is simply false. The church makes no claim that only Catholics are saved. (See my previous link to the Catechism for a fuller expression of that point.)

I’ll look for that link, but it isn’t in a recent post. I take my view of what the Pope has said from my memory, which google reveals http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2007/07/10/pope.html that he said such ecclesiastical communities did not have the “means to salvation.” You may then understand why I arrived at this conclusion. And yes, not having communion with fellow Christians is insulting. It was a lot easier to deal with when JPII was Pope, as he was clearly a better man than I and the good will he engendered spread to the whole Church. Benedict the Current is just another Christian with his own way of seeing things for lack of wanting to repeat my earlier name calling. It gets to the whole point of this thread: Benedict is hurting the Catholic Church’s image outside the Church, and image his predecessor went to great lengths to successfully burnish. Every time the Jews perceive that they are slammed, or the Protestants, it tends to color the views of those who are insulted to the entire RCC organization.

I’ve often felt that the best representatives of various religions are not the guys with the robes and the hats, but the humble little old ladies and gents who run the soup kitchens, check in on the sick and ride herd on the kids. I suppose it is not reasonable to be so fortunate as to have someone as admirable as JPII as the leading Christian in the world. But I also do think that the problems that Benedict presents were entirely predictable to those that had followed him. I knew he was going to be a let down, and the Cardinals should have known it a lot better than me.

[mswas]

Second Stone And the Catholic Church was on the wane under JPII. Who should Catholics favor the opinion of? Other Catholics or non-Catholics?

[The_Second_Stone]

@mswas

Second Stone And the Catholic Church was on the wane under JPII. Who should Catholics favor the opinion of? Other Catholics or non-Catholics?

Cite?

This site seems to suggest that RCC church membership beat general population increase even in North America http://www.catholicnews.com/jpii/stories/story19.htm

[DSeid]

@tomndebb

I offer this commentary on the lifting of the excommunications simply to provide a different perspective on the whole issue.

The points to which I would call attention are …

Thank you for that link.

As of now the understanding must be that indeed the problems that the group have included, to no small degree, the call for dealing with other religions as other than enemies. The attitude that the group wishes to hold is not specifically anti-Semitic but it faciliatates anti-Semitism. The attitudes that they espouse are those that justified much of what some of the rest of us would consider the evil that the Church has done to others in its history.

We have no knowledge that any concessions or assurances were actually received in return for the Pope’s actions; speculations that some must have been given notwithstanding.

Negotiations over how to interpret Vatican 2 are apparently ongoing. If it seems fair to assume that the Pope must have gotten some private assurances that the SSPX would be willing to give some ground, then it is also fair to assume that the SSPX must have gotten similar private assurances that the Pope would give significant ground too. On matter liturgical he seems to be already on their page (if not their verse) so the matter for compromise is that respect for other religions vs consider them enemies bit.

Yes, my ignorance has been reduced by many posts on this thread, for which I am grateful, but my concern about where this is leading in terms of Catholic-Jewish relations and how that may play out in the generations to come is only confirmed.

[tomndebb]

@DSeid

The attitudes that they [SSPX leadership] espouse are those that justified much of what some of the rest of us would consider the evil that the Church has done to others in its history.

I have no contest with this observation.

I am no fan of the SSPX crowd. I am amused by the contrast of JP II to Benny, given that JP II was the one who bent over backward to avoid offending the SSPX crowd, originally, and only reluctantly imposed sanctions when they insisted on making the break public. (That is one of the reasons that I have never shared many of the adulatory opinions of JP II–I have always seen him as being in near lockstep with Benny’s views, but having a more charismatic personality to get away with it.)

I do believe that my earlier assessment that Benny is a bit tone deaf regarding his own statements is accurate. I keep running into observations he has made or actions he has taken regarding a long list of issues within and without the church in which he comes out on the side of the angels, but which no one seems to know about because he has also made slightly different comments on the topics in which his language gives a very different impression of what he intended.

Of course, if his heart is in the right place and he still pushes people away or offends them, then he is defeating his own goals.

[Huerta88]

@DSeid

As of now the understanding must be that indeed the problems that the group have included, to no small degree, the call for dealing with other religions as other than enemies. The attitude that the group wishes to hold is not specifically anti-Semitic but it faciliatates anti-Semitism.

. . .my concern about where this is leading in terms of Catholic-Jewish relations and how that may play out in the generations to come is only confirmed.

Bolding and snipping mine.

So maybe there is not much of a debate here, after all?

As others have made clear, there’s no way the participants in this brouhaha regarded the LeFebvre controversy and its drawn-out sequelae as being predominantly, or even significantly, related to Catholic-Jewish relations. I’ve been hearing about LeFebvre for years and years, and of the many disputed issues, I’ve never heard of any having to do with anti-Semitism. As has been pointed out, the much broader war against perceived “modernism,” and semi-open rebellion against every Pope since John XXIII, has many, many, roots and aspects. It’s probably fair for you to say, “Modernism” is less tolerant of negative attitudes toward Jews, so resistance to “Modernism” may corellate to some degree with tolerance of such attitudes, but again, that does not go to the heart of the debate. Check out:

Sedevacantism

for the wacky twists and turns of sedavacantism writ large. Also consider the amount of ink and concern traditionalists have spent on the Latin Mass. JPII revived and authorized its use, and Benedict has made it even more readily available. Is that because he’s a throwback, or because it proved to be a popular success? Does that make him more authoritarian, or more populist? Certainly, traditionalist Catholics I’ve known have been much more concerned with the Tridentine Rite than with anything to do with denigrating other religions (well, fundies, maybe).

When the Pope speaks out on Jewish-Catholic relations as such, or does something directly relevant like deciding whether to put a convent at Auschwitz, I get that it’s fair play for commentary from all interested parties. Where it gets confrontational is when people perceive that outsiders are critiquing internal policy when, as my mother might have said, "it’s not all about you!.

Bart: You gotta help me. These two guys work me night and day. They don’t feed me. They make me sleep on the floor. They put anti-freeze in the wine, and they gave my red hat to the donkey.
French Policeman: Anti-freeze in the wine? That is a very serious crime.

[DSeid]

Huerta88 as you say, your link puts it “writ large”:

Sedevacantists thus reject the Council, on the basis of its documents on ecumenism and religious liberty

Ecumenism.

… the advocation of a greater sense of shared spirituality across the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Religious liberty … well I don’t think needs a link.

The status of this movement and the potential compromises made to them as part of “healing the schism” has everything to do with Catholic-Jewish and Catholic-any other faith relations and is completely fair game for us outsiders to be concerned about.

[The_Second_Stone]

@tomndebb

I have no contest with this observation.

I am no fan of the SSPX crowd. I am amused by the contrast of JP II to Benny, given that JP II was the one who bent over backward to avoid offending the SSPX crowd, originally, and only reluctantly imposed sanctions when they insisted on making the break public. (That is one of the reasons that I have never shared many of the adulatory opinions of JP II–I have always seen him as being in near lockstep with Benny’s views, but having a more charismatic personality to get away with it.)

I do believe that my earlier assessment that Benny is a bit tone deaf regarding his own statements is accurate. I keep running into observations he has made or actions he has taken regarding a long list of issues within and without the church in which he comes out on the side of the angels, but which no one seems to know about because he has also made slightly different comments on the topics in which his language gives a very different impression of what he intended.

Of course, if his heart is in the right place and he still pushes people away or offends them, then he is defeating his own goals.

I’ve gotta admit that the contrast is awkward, and I knew it when I made it. JPII was the guy who put Benedict where he is today and supported him and had the same underlying beliefs. I’m also cautious of charismatic personalities, especially in politics and religion. But JPII was so much more diplomatic about the theology, and when he wasn’t, it was because Ratzinger was behind it: the classic good cop, bad cop. However, this stuff is important. I think you were dead on about politically tone-deaf, or at least I hope that is the explanation.

I think that Benedict doesn’t have the personal discipline that JPII had. But I don’t either. On the third hand, I’m not the Pope.

[DSeid]

Apparently it isn’t only that he is stone-deaf. This update suggests that he is avoiding input from those who might help him avoid the rocks.

The cardinal in charge of relations with Jews has acknowledged that the Vatican handled the rehabilitation of a Holocaust-denying bishop very badly and complained that Pope Benedict did not consult him.

“There wasn’t enough talking with each other in the Vatican and there are no longer checks to see where problems could arise,” said Cardinal Walter Kasper in a blunt interview with Vatican Radio’s German program, broadcast on Monday night. …

… Leading Catholic commentators have said the Williamson affair shows fundamental flaws in Benedict’s governing style.

“This and other controversies point to a fatal systemic flaw in the Benedict papacy that is destroying his effectiveness as pope: He does not consult experts who might challenge his views and inclinations,” said Father Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

“He is surrounded by people who are not as smart as he is and who would never think of questioning him.” …

… The controversy has led many to take a closer look at the traditionalist group, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), its view of Jews and its future place in the Church.

Traditionalists reject most of the teachings of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council. One of its key documents, “Nostra Aetate” (In Our Times) repudiated the concept of collective Jewish guilt for Christ’s death and urged dialogue with all major religions.

Now the question is: is that just a general stylistic flaw or is it more specifically avoiding input that he’d rather not hear? I’d like to believe the former but when dealing with accepting in those who have not yet accepted Vatican 2’s rejection of collective Jewish guilt, call for dialogue, and whose group includes one still engaged in Holocaust denial, how can one not even think to get input from your cardinal in charge of Jewish relations?

[Jackmannii]

“This and other controversies point to a fatal systemic flaw in the Benedict papacy that is destroying his effectiveness as pope: He does not consult experts who might challenge his views and inclinations,” said Father Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

Hmm, kinda sounds like George W. Bush.

“He is surrounded by people who are not as smart as he is”

Nevermind.

[tagos]

Lack of due diligence it seems.
Holocaust bishop told to recant.

The Vatican has ordered an ultra-traditionalist bishop to publicly recant his views denying the Holocaust.

A statement said Bishop Richard Williamson must “unequivocally” distance himself from his statements to serve in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican also said that the Pope had not been aware of the bishop’s views when he lifted excommunications on him and three other bishops last month.

Earlier, a senior cardinal acknowledged the Vatican had mishandled the issue.

[DSeid]

Okay … now what if Williamson doesn’t recant? Or does so insincerely? Does rehabilitation work like a Bush pardon and can be taken back? Is he re-excommunicated? Or is his current status not really rehabilitated fully but more akin to probation and it just doesn’t progress?

[mswas]

@The_Second_Stone

Cite?

This site seems to suggest that RCC church membership beat general population increase even in North America http://www.catholicnews.com/jpii/stories/story19.htm

It’s not just about the flock but also about the shepherds.

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/statistics.htm

[Sarahfeena]

@DSeid

Okay … now what if Williamson doesn’t recant? Or does so insincerely? Does rehabilitation work like a Bush pardon and can be taken back? Is he re-excommunicated? Or is his current status not really rehabilitated fully but more akin to probation and it just doesn’t progress?

I don’t think he’ll be re-excommunicated, because, again, his Holocaust denial is not the reason he was excommunicated in the first place. Also, the article quotes this from the Vatican statement:

“Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to the Episcopal functions of the Church, must in an absolutely unequivocal and public way distance himself from his positions regarding the Shoah [Holocaust],” it said.

Being “admitted to the Episcopal functions…” has to do with his standing as a Bishop, not his standing as a Catholic. They will still let him take communion, but if he ever wants to reconcile with the Church to the point where he is allowed to act as a bishop, then it looks like he is going to have to recant what he said.