Paul Touvier & The SSPX

[King Wenceslas]

1.  Perhaps they didn't know.

2.  Perhaps some of the Jews needed killing.  There was a war on after all.  It's a foggy business.  Some of the people they killed would have been communists or political enemies who happened to be Jewish.

3.  Most likely, the priests in the SSPX had some sympathy for him.  A lot of years had passed by then and the Jews do seem to have a psychotic desire for revenge and reminding everyone of their plight every five minutes.  Not a week goes by without being reminded of it.  Gets very wearing to be honest.

If I had to guess, I would say that they harboured him as a political statement against the types of Nazi hunting Jews that these right wing French Catholics would detest.  I would harbour Trump.  Not because I particularly like him, but just because the people who hate Trump and want him jailed or killed I really detest to the marrow of my bones.

You don't see German women baying for the blood of the Soviet Soldiers who raped them

There were British and American civilians tortured and murdered in Japanese prisoner of war camps.  When were you last reminded of that in the newspaper?

Jews and the Holocaust is every phucking week.  It's never out of the newspaper.

The question that is never addressed is why Hitler found it so easy to convince countries he had conquored to hand over their Jews for death camps.  You might think that a conquered country would resist any of the occupiers demands, but in the case of the Jews it appears that almost nobody in Europe liked them.  I think Denmark was about the only country that resisted deporting them.

I am sure there were plenty of good Jews but for some reason, wherever they go, a minority of them piss people off.  Even plenty of Jews realise this.

I actually like Jews.  I like their personalities, so I have never really understood why.

Maybe a big impetus could have been because the German army was there with MG42's and Tiger tanks and they had just steamrolled over Europe. Just might a "little bit" influenced them to hand over the Jews.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Excellent post and response.  Unfortunately the correct answer is that Western theology is simply insufficient for dealing with the modern world.  The modern world asks questions that Western theology simply cannot answer, so the only possible responses are either to huffingly condemn the modern world as evil in toto, or submit to it.  But the problem is that trads ARE SIMPLY WRONG on various points and refuse to admit it.

The result is: that while the Neo-Modernists failed in their endeavour to find a language to preach the gospel to the modern world, Traditional Catholics have not found one either - worse, they've not even tried, refusing to do so on principle; the idea being that the world must adapt itself to the Church, not the Church to the world.

But the world need not and should not adapt itself to the Church in areas where it is good, and the Church is deficient.  This is the traditionalist blind spot.  It is good that the "world" brought the pedophile priest scandal to light, while the "Church" was attempting to cover it up.  It would have succeeded in doing so had the traditionalist "integralist" view that the State must be subject to the Church prevailed in the United States or the State of Pennsylvania.  You do not have a case for this (integralism) and I don't care (and neither does the world) what anybody else, even Pope, might have said on the matter.  The protection of children is a higher value than hoity-toity theological pronouncements why priests should be shielded from justice after having committed crimes against children or protecting the image of the Church, says the world, whatever Canon Law might or might not say.  And it is right.

And, we're simply not going to accept a pre-scientific view of the world, or the superiority of monarchy, or that every single complaint raised against the Church is the result of an ungodly "conspiracy" and ipso facto invalid, or that priests and Bishops should be exempt from civil law, or that philosophical or scientific controversies should be settled based on the authority and creds of who gave an opinion rather than on the actual merits of the arguments themselves.  And so on.

Yes I know, you hate evolution/old earth, popular government, freedom of speech, criticism of St. Thomas, and so on.  Too bad.  These things are here to stay, whether you like it or not.  You facilely equate them with atheism/materialism, tyranny of the majority, and skepticism, in the absence of on actual argument to make.

But this last statement is only right when balanced; the relationship of the Church and the world is like a husband and a wife: the husband may have the authority but he can't be totally uncompromising or he'll only succeed in alienating his wife. How to approach the precarious modern world morally and intellectually is not a problem that we've solved or even honestly confronted yet. What I mean is, that insofar as Traditional Catholicism demands that its members make a more or less full retreat from modern life in order to remain Traditionally Catholic, then we've not yet begun to confront the problem. The problem of why Traditional Catholic children fall away from the faith is very much related to this: they're not given an adequate explanation of why such opposition to the modern world is needed, and so they fall right into it.

More than that, they find that their traditional Catholic "leaders" were lying, or at least heavily distorting the truth, on many issues.  Or brazenly holding palpably untenable positions.  Just as what was happening on this thread.

The response was equally interesting:

I hear you, but I don't think a solution to that problem exists. How would such "preaching to the modern world convicting its conscience without condemning it" look like? Lets look at the things which would be necessary for the modern world to truly repent:
- Recognizing, en masse, that Catholicism is the only true religion;
- Obliterating much of modern popular culture (films, music, etc.) which is filled with sexual (and other forms of) immorality;
- Oblierating abortion industry, banning contraception, etc.;
- Rejecting sexual immorality in which much of our society is immersed;
- Fundamental transformation of current Western education system;
- Complete rejection of feminism;
- Freemasonry would have to be dealt with

All serious problems.  But the response is nonetheless an evasion, for these things would be the result or fruits of repentance and not the precondition of it.  The real question is: what can we tell the modern world in order to show it needs to repent, and will benefit greatly from doing so?  And you better have an answer for: if God wants us to convert, why does He not will that we do so and infallibly produce it, since He is omnipotent?  You don't, and thus no one takes you seriously.

This list is far from exhaustive and does not get into the fundamental problem that our youth (and indeed, much of the society) has completely different epistemology than pre 1950s generations, an epistemology based on relativism, individualism and lack of objective truth. Without a change on these grounds nothing can be accomplished.

Yes, and the problem is that trads are themselves guilty of exactly the same thing.  Their epistemology is no less based on relativism.
"Truth" is whatever flatters their a priori epistemological beliefs.  We see it on this thread.  People are actually arguing that it is A-OK for an SSPX chapel to have sheltered a Nazi war criminal from justice.  Because, you see, the powers-that-be in the world favor Jews, persecute Catholics, and and so on.  They won't say the same thing about those who shelter illegal aliens from ICE.  BUT IT IS THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT!!  The powers-that-be favor whites and Christians, persecute blacks and other "people of color" and religious minorities, etc.  This justifies thumbing one's nose at civil authorities, even when one knows laws have been broken and crimes committed.

Now, I know Arvinger from a while ago, and he qualifies belief in the Church as foundational and epistemically basic.  But others have other beliefs which they can also qualify as epistemically basic (e.g. all whites are racist) and he is left without an argumentative ground to stand on.  His argument that his epistemology is based on truth whereas that of others is based on relativism is simply begging the question.

So, let's be realistic - the above-mentioned things are not. going. to. happen. by the effort of any Traditional Catholic group, for many reasons. No leader, however charismatic he might be, will change this. On human level, the battle is lost and it will take direct divine intervention to restore things (which is one of the reasons I believe in Great Chastisement predicted in Fatima, Akita and many private revelations).

And the world will say that is the tired-out old argumentum ad baculum.  And it would be correct.

[Vetus Ordo]

The Jews allied with the pagans to persecute early Christians in the years right after Christ's death, according to that book.

And in turn the Christians persecuted them for centuries without end. Things only got better after the Reformation.

It's not a pretty story.

[An aspiring Thomist]

It is good that the "world" brought the pedophile priest scandal to light, while the "Church" was attempting to cover it up.  It would have succeeded in doing so had the traditionalist "integralist" view that the State must be subject to the Church prevailed in the United States or the State of Pennsylvania.  You do not have a case for this (integralism) and I don't care (and neither does the world) what anybody else, even Pope, might have said on the matter.  The protection of children is a higher value than hoity-toity theological pronouncements why priests should be shielded from justice after having committed crimes against children or protecting the image of the Church, says the world, whatever Canon Law might or might not say.  And it is right.

I agree to a certain extent but you make the facts out to do more work than what they actually do.
For instance: a government kills all its black citizens (local church covers up sex scandal), so good citizens over throw the government (local state punishes local church or its member despite its protests); hence governments are wrong in general!! ( hence integralism is wrong!!!). There is only a problem with government in general if it must always be obeyed. I would say the same thing for "integralism". I will say I have not heard of integralism but I think I know what you mean. Furthermore, I'm not super well studied on how Church and State authorities should interact.

What annoys me about your anti trans rants, is that I think you make the same mistake you claim us of making: holding to unproven ideology despite more counter than pro evidence. Or put another way we don't have an epistemological leg to stand on for X. You do this in regards to all papal magisterium whatsoever needing to be infallibly safe and always submitted to. Now, I really do respect you very much and know that you have given arguments for this claim before, but I have thought about it, things have clicked in my mind, and I'm pretty sure you don't have deductive arguments for that claim. Hence, past Church, Scriptual, and Traditional authorities become relevant issues as to whether or not we can question Pope Francis on the death Penalty or Amoris Laetitia and so forth. Furthermore, we don't have to grasp at straws to make them harmonious with past teachings or dogma. To use your rhetoric:
Pope Francis has come. The Pope has contradicted past teachings, scripture, tradition, magisterium, and reason. Even conservatives see it; the world sees it and no one is changing their mind because they are told they must. No one is going to square the circle. The fact that you do is because you are an ideologue....

Now, I don't really fault you for that or actually believe you are intellectually dishonest. The thing is is that it's very hard to be right about every major issue.

[John Lamb]

Excellent post and response.  Unfortunately the correct answer is that Western theology is simply insufficient for dealing with the modern world.  The modern world asks questions that Western theology simply cannot answer, so the only possible responses are either to huffingly condemn the modern world as evil in toto, or submit to it.  But the problem is that trads ARE SIMPLY WRONG on various points and refuse to admit it.

It's not a problem with western theology, because it's not really an intellectual problem. The world didn't reject the faith because it found the western theological exposition of it wanting. It rejected the faith because it's gone seeking an earthly paradise through technological & political advancement, when it's faith in the true paradise had already been weakened. At bottom, the problem is a lack of faith. Liberals who lack faith rely too much on modern human institutions and ideologies, and traditionalists who lack faith rely too much on old ones. I agree that Thomistic theology and Integralist politics is kind of irrelevant at this point; they're still fun intellectual exercises, but they're not things to rely on. Good Catholic philosophy and politics is a fruit of faith, not its essential support. We're getting closer and closer to the situation of the early Christians, the era of persecution & martyrs; it's not really Aquinas' theology or Louis IX's politics that we need, but their faith. Being "in the world, but not of the world" is the puzzle that the Church has been trying to figure out, but we've been approaching it too intellectually when faith is the only solution.

[Quaremerepulisti]

I agree to a certain extent but you make the facts out to do more work than what they actually do.
For instance: a government kills all its black citizens (local church covers up sex scandal), so good citizens over throw the government (local state punishes local church or its member despite its protests); hence governments are wrong in general!! ( hence integralism is wrong!!!). There is only a problem with government in general if it must always be obeyed. I would say the same thing for "integralism". I will say I have not heard of integralism but I think I know what you mean. Furthermore, I'm not super well studied on how Church and State authorities should interact.

You're missing the point.  The idea is that just as government leaders are accountable to the citizens, pastors are accountable to the laypeople, and certainly not exempt from civil law should they commit crimes.  The Church has fought both these points throughout the course of history and She has simply been on the wrong side of the issue.  The world is simply not going to change to accommodate the Church on this nor should it.  We don't respect the arrogant pronouncements of Kings of France ("L'etat, c'est moi") any more than Pius IX ("La tradizione, sono io").

What annoys me about your anti trans rants, is that I think you make the same mistake you claim us of making: holding to unproven ideology despite more counter than pro evidence. Or put another way we don't have an epistemological leg to stand on for X. You do this in regards to all papal magisterium whatsoever needing to be infallibly safe and always submitted to. Now, I really do respect you very much and know that you have given arguments for this claim before, but I have thought about it, things have clicked in my mind, and I'm pretty sure you don't have deductive arguments for that claim.

There are absolutely deductive arguments for that claim given the fundamental principles of Western theology and philosophy.  And I'll make the argument again here.  There are two prongs: that it it is safe, and that it needs to be submitted to.

If the Magisterium is merely a suggestion, but need not in and of itself be obeyed merely because it is Magisterium, then it is not really a teaching authority (as opposed to say, a guy on a street corner, who may be absolutely correct if he tells you not to commit adultery, but the authority derives from what is being said rather than who is saying it).

But according to Western theology, the Magisterium really is a true teaching authority and not just a guy on a street corner.

Therefore, the Magisterium must be obeyed.

You cannot put the Magisterium to an independent test to figure out whether it is true or good, and only then, after passing the test, submit to it.  As I've said countless times before, that makes you, and not the Magisterium, the real authority.

And:

If obeying the Magisterium could possibly lead one to hell, then the Church is not by nature an infallible means of salvation, but only an accidental help, just like Protestant groups.

But according to Western theology, the Church is by nature an infallible means of salvation; that is what in essence distinguishes itself from Protestant groups.

Therefore, obeying the Magisterium is infallibly safe.

But I agree that Western theology on various issues is either self-contradictory or contradicted empirically.  That's why debates on this forum go around and around with no end in sight.  You have to choose which part of that theology you will deny, or else be logically incoherent.

Hence, past Church, Scriptual, and Traditional authorities become relevant issues as to whether or not we can question Pope Francis on the death Penalty or Amoris Laetitia and so forth. Furthermore, we don't have to grasp at straws to make them harmonious with past teachings or dogma. To use your rhetoric:

But this is just an exercise in special pleading.  If you can question Pope Francis, you can likewise question "past Church, Scriptural and Traditional" authorities which makes them, in fact, not authorities either.  Which is, of course, exactly what I am doing and exactly what should be done.

Pope Francis has come. The Pope has contradicted past teachings, scripture, tradition, magisterium, and reason. Even conservatives see it; the world sees it and no one is changing their mind because they are told they must. No one is going to square the circle. The fact that you do is because you are an ideologue....

Of course it's impossible to be right on everything.  That doesn't I'm not right on some things.

The Pope has contradicted those things and that means it's game over for Western theology.  The contradiction is an empirical fact.  The game is over because this is exactly the type of thing which Western theology holds as impossible.  Therefore, it's empirically contradicted.

But let's face it; this has happened many times in the past, whether trads care to admit it or not.  The Church flip-flopped on geocentrism, usury, and EENS.  The game was up a long time ago.

Bringing back the TLM isn't going to fix it.  The horse has already left the barn.  For all practical purposes I've gone East (Byzantine) and all that is left is to finish the paperwork.

[John Lamb]

Quare, you make it sound like ultramontanism and "western theology" are identical. As though Francis' abuse of the limits of papal infallibility invalidates the entire theological tradition from Augustine, through Aquinas, to Alphonsus and beyond, and invalidates the entire papal magisterium down the ages. This is ridiculous. There is nothing in Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility against the notion that a pope might go off the rails and abuse his authority to the point of making heretical statements seem magisterial. We know that John XXII made heretical statements about the blessed not seeing the beatific vision until the end of time, but Vatican I still defined papal infallibility because John XXII did not invoke his papal authority when he made those statements. Similarly, Francis has not invoked his authority in the way that invokes infallibility as described by Vatican I.

"The Church flip-flopped on geocentrism, usury, and EENS."

Geocentrism was never part of the papal magisterium; teaching on usury was accommodated to advances in the financial system, but former teaching has never been repudiated; our understanding of EENS has been deepened by our further understanding of faith and implicit faith, but former teaching has never been repudiated.

"But I agree that Western theology on various issues is either self-contradictory or contradicted empirically."

There are various western theological schools that contradict each on certain non-dogmatic points (e.g. Thomism vs. Scotism), but that is a sign of the vitality and scope of western theology, not its weakness.

[Quaremerepulisti]

It's not a problem with western theology, because it's not really an intellectual problem. The world didn't reject the faith because it found the western theological exposition of it wanting. It rejected the faith because it's gone seeking an earthly paradise through technological & political advancement, when it's faith in the true paradise had already been weakened. At bottom, the problem is a lack of faith. Liberals who lack faith rely too much on modern human institutions and ideologies, and traditionalists who lack faith rely too much on old ones. I agree that Thomistic theology and Integralist politics is kind of irrelevant at this point; they're still fun intellectual exercises, but they're not things to rely on. Good Catholic philosophy and politics is a fruit of faith, not its essential support. We're getting closer and closer to the situation of the early Christians, the era of persecution & martyrs; it's not really Aquinas' theology or Louis IX's politics that we need, but their faith. Being "in the world, but not of the world" is the puzzle that the Church has been trying to figure out, but we've been approaching it too intellectually when faith is the only solution.

This essentially says, the world lacks faith because it lacks faith.  We have to come up with something that might make the world want to have faith.  Constantly berating the world for how evil and stupid it is isn't going to work.  They can and will quite return the favor, with screeds about the Inquisition, about science deniers, pedophile priests, etc.  Now, obviously, faith is a singular good considered in itself, but it appears to us as good under several different aspects.

There's truth.  Have faith and you will possess the truth.  In this aspect, intellectual expositions absolutely do count and they absolutely have been found wanting.  And the world isn't as yet, as a whole, completely unmoored from the desire for truth, despite SJWs, Leftists, atheists, and other assorted hordes.

There's goodness.  Have faith and you will become good.  After the priest scandals, the claim really has no a priori credibility.  Nor does the prison population have disproportionately fewer numbers of Christians.  And now, we have someone canonized who, far from giving those responsible for the priest scandals the sack, actually promoted them.

There's experience.  Faith will allow you to experience something profound, something much beyond the ordinary human way of life and perception.  But this is shot down as "Modernism", by trads, anyway.

Three strikes and you're out.  What can you say to convince the world?

[John Lamb]

This essentially says, the world lacks faith because it lacks faith.

It's more like the world lacks faith because we lack faith.

Three strikes and you're out.  What can you say to convince the world?

It's not really what we're saying, but how we're saying it.

You can't convince someone that the faith is true when you speak of it with lack of conviction.
You can't convince someone that the faith is good when, as you say, you aren't good yourself.
You can't convince someone that the faith is a profound experience when you are lukewarm and lack that experience yourself.

"Constantly berating the world for how evil and stupid it is", and constantly praising the world for how wise and wonderful it is, are two sides of the same coin. Both are born out of frustration and lack of faith.

But at the moment, it wouldn't make that much of a difference anyway. Even if Christians today were as holy and devout as ever before, we'd still be shrinking in numbers because the world has turned so decidedly against us - not primarily on intellectual grounds, but on religious grounds (the Church worships God whereas the world is currently making an idol out of Man). Today it's a matter of us holding on and sowing seeds that others will reap later. Still, even if only a few converts are to be made in our time, they are extremely valuable and can only be gotten by faith & prayer; and if there is to be any future restoration, it will depend on how faithful we are today.

My point is that the problems we are having begin with our own lack of faith and holiness. We can't even begin to make a proper case in public when all the world sees is the Church covering up the rape of children, and lukewarm Catholics that don't even follow their own Church's teaching on marriage, divorce, contraception.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Quare, you make it sound like ultramontanism and "western theology" are identical. As though Francis' abuse of the limits of papal infallibility invalidates the entire theological tradition from Augustine, through Aquinas, to Alphonsus and beyond, and invalidates the entire papal magisterium down the ages. This is ridiculous.

You're simply making an end-run around the arguments, since you cannot really refute any of the premises.

That it is possible for Magisterium to teach harmful error has absolutely no support in the western theological tradition.  Nor should it, for that tradition has done nothing more than follow the statement that the Church is an infallible means of salvation to its logical consequence.

There is nothing in Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility... Francis has not invoked his authority in the way that invokes infallibility as described by Vatican I.

My argumentation has nothing to do with Vatican I.  Francis has evoked his authority, and that is enough.

Geocentrism was never part of the papal magisterium

False.  The Holy Office is delegated Magisterial authority by the Pope.

teaching on usury was accommodated to advances in the financial system, but former teaching has never been repudiated

False.  The former teaching was that a loan contract is, in itself, immoral.

...our understanding of EENS has been deepened by our further understanding of faith and implicit faith, but former teaching has never been repudiated.

So our understanding of EENS is different than it was before, contrary to the Church's assertion that Her understanding of dogmas cannot change.

[John Lamb]

Nor should it, for that tradition has done nothing more than follow the statement that the Church is an infallible means of salvation to its logical consequence.

You're going to have to unpack this. What statement(s) are you referring to exactly, and what do you understand by an "infallible means of salvation"?

[An aspiring Thomist]

I don't have to time to respond right now, but my basic rebuttal is that you make authority either absolute or non existent in the realm of the Church. Does a bishop as an individual bishop have authority to teach his flock? And is his flock bond to listen/obey in some way? If you answer yes then your arguments ultimately fail because then the question can be asked if certain levels of magisterium can be analogous to that. Furthermore, there is the question of whether or not the Pope always speaks as head of the Church in such a way that his teaching is identical with Church teaching. In fact, depending on how you define the term magisterium, bishops teaching are magisterium.

Also what you mean by you are going eastern? You mean eastern Catholic right? And then I don't see how their theology squares with your ultramountanist views.

[Prayerful]

Quare, you make it sound like ultramontanism and "western theology" are identical. As though Francis' abuse of the limits of papal infallibility invalidates the entire theological tradition from Augustine, through Aquinas, to Alphonsus and beyond, and invalidates the entire papal magisterium down the ages. This is ridiculous.

You're simply making an end-run around the arguments, since you cannot really refute any of the premises.

That it is possible for Magisterium to teach harmful error has absolutely no support in the western theological tradition.  Nor should it, for that tradition has done nothing more than follow the statement that the Church is an infallible means of salvation to its logical consequence.

There is nothing in Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility... Francis has not invoked his authority in the way that invokes infallibility as described by Vatican I.

My argumentation has nothing to do with Vatican I.  Francis has evoked his authority, and that is enough.

Saying so, does not make it so. The Argentine and his friend Canadian friend and employee Rosica (who must have helped himself to a few extra Martinis before asserting Frank is beyond the Bible and Tradition in his Salt and Light blog, might agree, but it's an assertion in tune with the tyrannical, ultra vires posture of this office holder. The Jesuitical (an Order in ways dubious since the 17th century) tricks employed to ensure that the official Latin additions to the 1983 CCC would not legalistically or strictly contradict the support for the death penalty from scripture and tradition, lends credence to the Cassianicum Thesis. It is suggests the charism of this legal successor is utterly impaired.

[Vetus Ordo]

Despite being a bit forceful in trying to put his point across, Quare is essentially correct in his assessment.

The Roman church plainly blew it when it comes to claims of infallibility. Or to use Greg's famous expression taken from card games back when we were all at FE, "they overplayed their hand." Vatican II and the subsequent magisterium of the conciliar popes is the latest example. Undoubtedly, this is a sobering realization but it must be met if you are to make proper sense of the situation.

However, a fallible Church is not a useless Church. The argument that the Church is only profitable, or worthy of being believed and obeyed, if invested with infallibility is spurious. The OT Church was a vehicle of salvation and it wasn't infallible. The same with the NT Church.

God alone is infallible and His word will continue to guide us, and purge us, until the end of time.

[GloriaPatri]

Despite being a bit forceful in trying to put his point across, Quare is essentially correct in his assessment.

The Roman church plainly blew it when it comes to claims of infallibility. Or to use Greg's famous expression taken from card games back when we were all at FE, "they overplayed their hand." Vatican II and the subsequent magisterium of the conciliar popes is the latest example. Undoubtedly, this is a sobering realization but it must be met if you are to make proper sense of the situation.

However, a fallible Church is not a useless Church. The argument that the Church is only profitable, or worthy of being believed and obeyed, if invested with infallibility is spurious. The OT Church was a vehicle of salvation and it wasn't infallible. The same with the NT Church.

God alone is infallible and His word will continue to guide us, and purge us, until the end of time.

The NT calls the Church the "Pillar and Foundation of Truth." Christ says that the scribes and pharisees sit on the "chair of Moses." He follows this up by instructing his followers to "All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do." Both of these seem to imply that the OT temple and NT church has real, God-derived authority to command the obedience of individuals. I'm not sure how one can say that these institutions were never intended to be infallible.