I watched a TV show yesterday afternoon; it may have been The History Channel. It was about Beate & Serge Klarsfeld, the flight of Nazi war criminals into Argentina and other countries. I heard and saw credible evidence from journalists who exposed Paul Touvier, a self-described "Catholic" who was a murderer and a Nazi operative working closely with Klaus Barbie. He was a known fugitive who was hid and protected by Marcel Lefebvre in his priory at Nice, France. This continued for decades. And when SS Captain Erich Priebke died without public remorse for his crimes against humanity, the SSPX gave him a full Catholic requiem mass!
Here's some background in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X
I was shocked and angry because:
1. I was misled by The Remnant Newspaper and other Catholic bloggers about the truth of Lefebvre's life. I thought he was a holy priest defending the church against modernism like St. Pius X. I was foolish to believe their rubbish that one day he might be canonized. Now I don't trust them and their propaganda.
2. Lefebvre and his cohorts knew Touvier was a fugitive and they spent considerable effort to thwart the police and investigative reporters. I don't buy their excuse that they were simply protecting a homeless man. More rubbish!
3. Anti-Semitism ran rampant at the SSPX priory in Nice. Now, I'm no fan of Rabbinical Judaism. I despise any cult that rejects Christ. However, I pray that the Jews and others accept Christ as Messiah one day. There is never any excuse for racial hatred, ever! It isn't Catholic.
4. The SSPX priory in Nice espoused far-right extremist viewpoints, including public Holocaust denials.
5. The SSPX is equally guilty as the Vatican in its protection of priest abusers today.
6. I've got nowhere to go if my if my local parish introduces gay nuptial blessings, women deacons or married priests. I'll have to practice my faith at home. I won't support modernists, anti-Semites, far right wackos or abusers.
7. This news comes while I'm still recovering from shock at my own parish, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, since Pastor Phillips was removed as a practicing homosexual. I don't trust anyone anymore. What are they hiding beneath their facade of piety?
Honestly, is there a single priest left standing that isn't a wacko, a Nazi sympathizer, a criminal or a pervert?
Yes, Lauer, there are many, many holy priests. Most are NOT corrupt. Any one bad priest within an organization does not mean ALL are corrupt. Thank God!
Edit: The history channel is not unbiased and therefor not trustworthy when portraying matters of church. The media at times, are masters of spin, manage to sound so plausable. Surely don't want to insult your intelligence here. No doubt you know this. But....all matters pertaining to Catholicism, I personally would want a different source. I may find them right, but then again, I may find them dead wrong. Just saying, public broadcasting would NEVER be my last word on a subject.
Carlee, it's not a problem of just one person. It appears rampant in the SSPX and traditional culture.
I understand the despair over each bad priest. But as in trusting anyone, anyone, we are vulnerable and may be hurt. Priests are even more devastating when proven to be corrupt. That's why we react so hard. But the temptation to separate from the Church instituted by Christ to give grace, must be fought. We pick ourselves up again and again trust a good priest when we find one. I have been blessed many times over by the good priests. In my 59 years I have only been hurt once. Personally. Of course there were many, many awful events, but personally, pertaining to my family and i, just once. Should never happen, of course, but I've found more good than bad.
I am a consecrated soul so I don't separate myself from Christ. But I believe the organized Catholic church on earth has separated itself from Christ. As such, it's no longer truly Catholic.
In my 58 years, have witnessed betrayals in parishes I've belonged to many times:
1. In 1996, SJRL had a "conservative" pastor removed as a known pedophile abuser.
2. The next priest that took over at SJRL was committing sacrilege and was removed also.
3. In 2008, at SGG, my pastor advised me to accept my transsexual brother as God made him and said the Catholic church is moving toward acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle. My brother was not in sin as he is a child of God, and I shouldn't be judging him. He also said there's nothing wrong with gay marriage as long as it isn't consummated! I became physically and emotionally ill after speaking with him and had to stay home from work for a day. It took me a week to recover from the depression. At this same parish, an associate pastor in confessional told me to read a Buddhist book for my penance. I finally left this parish for SJC in Chicago around 2013.
4. In 2018, the removal of Pastor Phillips as a homosexual at my parish in SJC Chicago.
That's enough for a lifetime.
Youre right quick to believe everything you read, arent you.
The Church has separated from Christ
Arch-Separated Bishop (Cupich) removes a pastor on allegations
Yet you believe those allegations immediately without question
Do you see the disconnect here?
Also regarding OP...it was the History Channel. Do youre own fact checking before you buy whatever TV tells you. Our media isnt exactly friendly to anything remotely Catholic
The anti-Catholic media has exposed the many atrocities of the Vatican scandals. Witnesses are numerous. I'm not going to shoot the messenger.
The Catholic Church no longer teaches that marrying outside the church or engaging in free unions are automatically mortal sins. The Catholic church no longer publicly teaches the doctrine of EENS. So many books & articles show the separation, there's no need for me to list them all here.
Yes, there are public records for the allegations against the SSPX hiding Nazis and denying the Holocaust. Priebke's requiem mass happened. The full truth about Touvier is exposed.
Yes, I believe that Phillips is culpable. It is possible for a man to suppress his impulses for over 30 years (like my brother did to his wife and kids) until a feared authority figure dies or leaves (my dad), then he figures it's safe to come out of the closet. I know the psychology well.
In Phillips' case, it started 3 years ago, after the installation of Bergoglio and his tolerance. I believe Phillips was afraid of being found out; especially during the reign of Ratzinger and how he cleaned up the Marcel Maciel scandal. Phillips probably figured the church was heading in a new direction, like my pastor at SGG said. He allowed himself to be tempted and didn't suppress it. He thought the "mercy and accompaniment" tolerance would apply to him, but he was wrong. It is for liberal priests only, not traditional priests.
The connection is at least a serious concern. And I didn't read the Society repudiating his murdering of Jews as a Nazi. Even from a public relations point of view, the non-response itself made them look like they lacked concern about the scandal.
Re Fr. Phillips of the Canons in Illinois. He is innocent until proven guilty of the charges, and Oakes Spalding on his blog has reported he has an overwhelmingly unanimous support from his parishioners. Something to consider.
The order of SJC removed Phillips because of credible evidence. There was more than one witness over 3 years. The witnesses said it was consensual and not rape. So yes, he is guilty of homosexual relations. But there will not be a trial folks, because there are no anti-sodomy laws on the books anymore. So the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra doesn't apply here.
There is nothing more to consider. Why? Because my pastor at SJRL in 1999 had overwhelming support from me and my parish because we thought the allegations of sexual abuse were false. He was a conservative pastor and we didn't want to believe he was guilty. Eventually it was proven. My mom was angry, and she wouldn't say why. Only after she died did my uncle tell me she had witnessed the pastor's abuses. She used to work in the rectory.
Someday "Oakes Spalding" will grow up and use his real name instead of a pseudonym. Maybe he will accept reality if he witnesses the devious acts himself. People can wear a straight and narrow mask for a long, long time. My brother, two award-winning police office officers in our community (both eventually found to be notorious criminals), Corapi, Euteneur, Weakland, Law, Paul VI, Opus Dei, etc. They can fool you for decades. Not me any longer.
I did not see the History channel episode; I watch very, very little TV as it is, and almost nothing produced in contemporary times. Years ago, I did watch that channel, but sometimes their scholarship is questionable and is "edited" for popular appeal. I do not know the particulars of the SSPX involvement or supposed lack of response, of which the OP speaks. I know only this: Many years ago, at a time when I was friendly to Jewish causes and movements, I happened to meet Beate Klarsfeld and hear her speak. It is my impression that not only she, but other Nazi-hunters and Holocaust historians I have personally known, and known well, are on the fanatic and semi-paranoid side, to say the least.
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 07:48:47 AM
I am a consecrated soul so I don't separate myself from Christ. But I believe the organized Catholic church on earth has separated itself from Christ. As such, it's no longer truly Catholic.
In my 58 years, have witnessed betrayals in parishes I've belonged to many times:
1. In 1996, SJRL had a "conservative" pastor removed as a known pedophile abuser.
2. The next priest that took over at SJRL was committing sacrilege and was removed also.
3. In 2008, at SGG, my pastor advised me to accept my transsexual brother as God made him and said the Catholic church is moving toward acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle. My brother was not in sin as he is a child of God, and I shouldn't be judging him. He also said there's nothing wrong with gay marriage as long as it isn't consummated! I became physically and emotionally ill after speaking with him and had to stay home from work for a day. It took me a week to recover from the depression. At this same parish, an associate pastor in confessional told me to read a Buddhist book for my penance. I finally left this parish for SJC in Chicago around 2013.
4. In 2018, the removal of Pastor Phillips as a homosexual at my parish in SJC Chicago.
That's enough for a lifetime.
Lauermar, what does SGG and SJRL stand for? What are the actual names?
Thanks & God bless :pray1:
So go home alone then? How about the local Institute? An Eastern rite? Some old priest saying a private Mass? Something. Consider Greg's Kung Fu approach, just move onto another Mass when things get bad like the character in that TV show. And he is as cynical as it comes about the institutional Church. Vodka helps too. :)
Priebke gave a public apology and renouncement of his sins, which included war crimes. He became Catholic and lived as a pious (NO) Catholic while under supervised incarceration. The scandal here was the refusal of the New Church to give him his rightful service. This is where the Society stepped in and did the Catholic, i.e. right thing.
Why do Catholics foam at the mouth over anything regarding the Jews?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
Why do Catholics foam at the mouth over anything regarding the Jews?
How can you trust a people who systematically cut baby penises
I don't know about any of the things you are talking about, but I do know that the History Channel is full of garbage. I would find another credible source.
You've had a lot of bad luck op.
I am attending sspx since I was 15, that's 30 years ago. Never once ever ever did I see, hear, suspect or even get a hi t of immorality from any priest ever.
I liked some and disliked others , I've seen so many with all the changes and appointing of different priest.
Never once have I heard anything remotely considered as Nazi sympathising. Sermons at times reference Jews in the biblical context and never in the political/modern conspiracy context.
However that sort of talk is frequent among the mass goers. After 30 years I've heard every conspiracy theory going. Some are probably true but some are just wacko.
You watch one programme and have written off truly Catholic organisation. Considering our school books worldwide have been rewritten and fraudulently mapped history to erase Catholic heritage, nationalism to dismantle the fruits of Christianity for civilization. What can you expect from a TV station ....true history , pffft....you must be joking.
Quote from: diaduit on April 08, 2018, 03:38:10 PM
You've had a lot of bad luck op.
I am attending sspx since I was 15, that's 30 years ago. Never once ever ever did I see, hear, suspect or even get a hi t of immorality from any priest ever.
I liked some and disliked others , I've seen so many with all the changes and appointing of different priest.
Never once have I heard anything remotely considered as Nazi sympathising. Sermons at times reference Jews in the biblical context and never in the political/modern conspiracy context.
However that sort of talk is frequent among the mass goers. After 30 years I've heard every conspiracy theory going. Some are probably true but some are just wacko.
You watch one programme and have written off truly Catholic organisation. Considering our school books worldwide have been rewritten and fraudulently mapped history to erase Catholic heritage, nationalism to dismantle the fruits of Christianity for civilization. What can you expect from a TV station ....true history , pffft....you must be joking.
That's a long time in the sspx. Do you remember they had a bishop who denied the Holocaust, and dozens of like-minded priests were kicked out of the Society who followed him?
We had an sspx priest who would preach 1.5 hour sermons berating the faithful. Slapped an altar boy. Never seen anything like that? Another priest taken off the Mass circuit for disobeying the district Superior. Etc etc
Yes, their shoelaces are straight, but "immorality" goes beyond not swearing or obeying rubrics. Wouldn't you agree, Diaduit?
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
Neither is harboring a Nazi murderer at an SSPX Priory, I suppose. At least not technically. But it is a scandal.
Ja?
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
After agreeing to host the funeral, the Italian district of the Society of St. Pius X issued a statement on its website saying, "A Christian who was baptized and received the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist, no matter what his faults and sins were, to the extent that he dies reconciled with God and the church, has a right to the celebration of the holy Mass and a funeral."
The statement said the SSPX condemns "every form of anti-Semitism and racial hatred, but also hatred under all its forms. The Catholic religion is one of mercy and forgiveness."
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/10/17/sspx-burial-of-nazi-war-criminal-met-with-protestors/
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
Neither is harboring a Nazi murderer at an SSPX Priory, I suppose. At least not technically. But it is a scandal.
Ja?
As st Justin said, even questioning the official story is beyond unthinkable.
People treat the shoah as something more sacred than our holy religion.
Why? What makes it so special?
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
You glossed over the fact they harbored him at their priory, and that he actually murdered Jews. Surely they knew something of his past as a Nazi before they let this "homeless man" live with them. Right?
There was some pro-Nazi sentiment in the SSPX. To describe it as "rampant" is emotional horseshit.
To the best of my knowledge there were half a dozen Nazi sympathising priests. The problem was that they held positions of relative power Twenty to Thirty years ago so plenty of people saw those views on public display.
There is more distrust of the Jews. Not without good reason. But distrusting the Jews doesn't make one a Nazi sympathiser.
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:18:52 PM
You glossed over the fact they harbored him at their priory, and that he actually murdered Jews. Surely they knew something of his past as a Nazi before they let this "homeless man" live with them. Right?
The only unredeemable person is a nazi, right?
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Greg on April 08, 2018, 05:22:51 PM
There was some pro-Nazi sentiment in the SSPX. To describe it as "rampant" is emotional horseshit.
To the best of my knowledge there were half a dozen Nazi sympathising priests. The problem was that they held positions of relative power Twenty to Thirty years ago so plenty of people saw those views on public display.
There is more distrust of the Jews. Not without good reason. But distrusting the Jews doesn't make one a Nazi sympathiser.
To folks in this thread and the world, though, anything but pure praise and adulation for Jews is rampant antisemitism
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
Christe Eleison,
SGG = St. Gertrude the Great
(Don't know myself what SJRL means.)
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 08, 2018, 05:33:33 PM
Christe Eleison,
SGG = St. Gertrude the Great
(Don't know myself what SJRL means.)
"In 2008, at SGG, my pastor advised me to accept my transsexual brother as God made him and said the Catholic church is moving toward acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle. My brother was not in sin as he is a child of God, and I shouldn't be judging him. He also said there's nothing wrong with gay marriage as long as it isn't consummated! I became physically and emotionally ill after speaking with him and had to stay home from work for a day. It took me a week to recover from the depression. At this same parish, an associate pastor in confessional told me to read a Buddhist book for my penance. I finally left this parish for SJC in Chicago around 2013."
Um. I know SGG means Saint Gertrude the Great, but are you sure she is not speaking about another group with a similar name? Because this is so scandalous that I don't believe it even possible that Father Cekada or Bishop Dolan or his priests would dare to say something so scandalous. And I do not think highly of them and I have read websites that "expose" them, but I think that this would be going too far because it seems they would have to keep up appearances, even if all the bad things people say about them are true.
Agreed, Matto. Good point.
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:38:30 PM
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
JP2 harboured a known pedophile in the Vatican.
He's now a Saint.
Good point, Matto. I guess I shouldn't assume anything; you're right. It's just that I've never heard any other reference for that abbreviation among trad groups. And even then, I wouldn't be meaning to ascribe anything untoward to SGG parish. It's just that I'm not sure that our dear poster lauermar has all the facts straight in this particular case. Thanks for your comment.
Maybe M. Touvier was being unjustly prosecuted.
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:38:30 PM
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
Stop being driven by emotions and we might get somewhere.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:38:30 PM
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
Stop being driven by emotions and we might get somewhere.
OK, then why do you justify the Society harboring a Nazi Jew killer in one of their priories. That point was made several times in this thread. Re-read your spin. Quite the position to take for the owner of a Catholic forum, don't you think KK?Less video games.
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 06:22:01 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:38:30 PM
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
Stop being driven by emotions and we might get somewhere.
OK, then why do you justify the Society harboring a Nazi Jew killer in one of their priories. That point was made several times in this thread. Re-read your spin. Quite the position to take for the owner of a Catholic forum, don't you think KK?Less video games.
You are becoming emotionally unhinged, dude. Käse never justified any such thing. Worldly, brainwashed nincompoops recoil in apoplexy anytime the "H" incident is mentioned in historical review, and anyone remotely connected to Germany is given a benefit of doubt. As it was once said, "Lighten up, Francis." --Sgt. Hulka
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 06:22:01 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:38:30 PM
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
Stop being driven by emotions and we might get somewhere.
OK, then why do you justify the Society harboring a Nazi Jew killer in one of their priories. That point was made several times in this thread. Re-read your spin. Quite the position to take for the owner of a Catholic forum, don't you think KK?Less video games.
You are becoming emotionally unhinged, dude. Käse never justified any such thing. Worldly, brainwashed nincompoops recoil in apoplexy anytime the "H" incident is mentioned in historical review, and anyone remotely connected to Germany is given a benefit of doubt. As it was once said, "Lighten up, Francis." --Sgt. Hulka
Um, yeaaahhh. You might want to re-read the exchange. I know your generation doesn't like to read and reason things out, but try and focus.
They harbored a Jew Killer in their priory. Do you justify that too? Crazy
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.
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 06:22:01 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:38:30 PM
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
Stop being driven by emotions and we might get somewhere.
OK, then why do you justify the Society harboring a Nazi Jew killer in one of their priories. That point was made several times in this thread. Re-read your spin. Quite the position to take for the owner of a Catholic forum, don't you think KK?Less video games.
You are becoming emotionally unhinged, dude. Käse never justified any such thing. Worldly, brainwashed nincompoops recoil in apoplexy anytime the "H" incident is mentioned in historical review, and anyone remotely connected to Germany is given a benefit of doubt. As it was once said, "Lighten up, Francis." --Sgt. Hulka
Um, yeaaahhh. You might want to re-read the exchange. I know your generation doesn't like to read and reason things out, but try and focus.
They harbored a Jew Killer in their priory. Do you justify that too? Crazy
You are arguing per fallacy: begging the question, erroneous information( I am older than you), and ad hominem.
Btw, standard English uses "try to." Your rhetorical here is quite turdy.
Sure, if the Jews were fighting for the enemy, but there is no indication the 7 he mowed down (woops, sorry KK/Heinrich for the unhinged, emotional rhetoric) deserved to be killed by Touvier.
BTW, I just remembered. Hadn't even thought of it. I'm 1/16th Jew. My German great-grandfather was killed at Auschwitz for being 1/2 Jew (though he was Lutheran) and for protesting Hitler in the town center. True.
So yeah I think it especially revolting an SSPX Prior would harbor a Nazi war criminal, even as a political statement. In the very least it is a serious scandal.
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Oh, he may not have denied, but he certainly downplayed. Have others exaggerated? Oh yes. Is that worse than downmplaying? I don't know. I cannot judge these matters. I only know that there is truth and there is non-truth. When truths are skewed, a wrong has been done. To me. When your ordinary pew sitter can not rely on truth from the pulpit, we are at a loss. To me, no one's agenda matters. I only want truth. And, God would want it so. God help the betrayer of truth. Because people like me rely on it. I have no agenda. No malfeasance. I just want truth, and I certainly look for it, and expect it from my spiritual leaders!
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 08, 2018, 08:32:24 PM
I only know that there is truth and there is non-truth. When truths are skewed, a wrong has been done. To me. ... I only want truth. And, God would want it so. God help the betrayer of truth. Because people like me rely on it. I just want truth, and I certainly look for it, and expect it from my spiritual leaders!
In that case, where is the truth in this situation? Have you done the research? Do you really want to know the truth about the biggest lie of all time, or are you just saying that?
If you really do want only the truth, are you willing to accept the consequences? Like becoming a social outcast? If not, then you can't really talk about wanting only the truth.
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 08, 2018, 08:32:24 PM
To me, no one's agenda matters. I only want truth. And, God would want it so. God help the betrayer of truth.
Are you willing to be chased through the airport by reporters as you are forced to flee from one country to another? If not, then you can't say that you only want the truth.
https://youtu.be/9cppYojvBG8
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 08, 2018, 08:32:24 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Oh, he may not have denied, but he certainly downplayed. Have others exaggerated? Oh yes. Is that worse than downmplaying? I don't know. I cannot judge these matters. I only know that there is truth and there is non-truth. When truths are skewed, a wrong has been done. To me. When your ordinary pew sitter can not rely on truth from the pulpit, we are at a loss. To me, no one's agenda matters. I only want truth. And, God would want it so. God help the betrayer of truth. Because people like me rely on it. I have no agenda. No malfeasance. I just want truth, and I certainly look for it, and expect it from my spiritual leaders!
He denied the Holocaust by denying the fact Hitler/the Nazis tried to wipe out the Jewish race, and that 6 million were killed. He thinks it was 200,000 - 300,000 which isnt quite a holocaust or attempt to wipe them out. So he denies that 5 million, 700,000 human beings were murdered. Only 5 % actually died, he believes, of the total all countries of the world accept as historical fact, not to mention Pope Pius XII after WWII.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
Quote from: Maximilian on April 08, 2018, 09:03:39 PM
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 08, 2018, 08:32:24 PM
To me, no one's agenda matters. I only want truth. And, God would want it so. God help the betrayer of truth.
Are you willing to be chased through the airport by reporters as you are forced to flee from one country to another? If not, then you can't say that you only want the truth.
https://youtu.be/9cppYojvBG8
Funny video, how Williamson holds up his fist. Creepy for a Catholic bishop to physically threaten a reporter. Not something St Paul would've done when persecuted (great movie BTW), but there's a Crisis in the Church, so different rules apply now. Right?
Maximillian. Maybe you're right. Maybe I am not able to handle truth in the way you describe. Just maybe I don't truly want it. : ( Maybe.
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 09:16:42 PM
Creepy for a Catholic bishop to physically threaten a reporter. Not something St Paul would've done when persecuted
So you are in a position of superiority to judge? Because you have taken a stand for the truth that has required you to flee from one country to another while being hounded by the world press?
It doesn't have to be Bishop Williamson. It could be Cardinal Mindszenty or Julian Assange. Those who have suffered the weight of the world for the sake of truth are in a position to speak. Others who criticize without having made these kinds of sacrifices are merely contemptible.
Quote from: Maximilian on April 08, 2018, 09:31:36 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 09:16:42 PM
Creepy for a Catholic bishop to physically threaten a reporter. Not something St Paul would've done when persecuted
So you are in a position of superiority to judge? Because you have taken a stand for the truth that has required you to flee from one country to another while being hounded by the world press?
It doesn't have to be Bishop Williamson. It could be Cardinal Mindszenty or Julian Assange. Those who have suffered the weight of the world for the sake of truth are in a position to speak. Others who criticize without having made these kinds of sacrifices are merely contemptible.
Correct. I know Catholic morality and hating the enemies of Christ when I see it. Read the Gospels. Our Lord taught us to love our enemies, not hate them.
You should have no contempt for anyone, according to the Catholic Faith, didn't you know that Max ?? Including those who criticize bishops who deny the Holocaust, or downplay it.
Quote from: Greg on April 08, 2018, 06:03:44 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 05:38:30 PM
Harbored. in. priory. Do you copy? Over.
JP2 harboured a known pedophile in the Vatican.
He's now a Saint.
More than one.
How many were killed at Auschwitz?
Pick a number
http://rense.com/general62/auch.htm (http://rense.com/general62/auch.htm)
Quote"In the beginning was the Holocaust. We must therefore begin again. We must create a new Talmud and compile new midrashim, just as we did after the destruction of the Second Temple. We did so then in order to mark the new beginning: until then we lived one way; from then on nothing could be the same."
— Elie Wiesel, in "Jewish Values in the Post-Holocaust Future: A Symposium.'' Judaism, vol. 16 no. 3, 1967.
I haven't researched this in years, so I'm stunned at how much information has been scrubbed on the internet (i.e., David Cole).
Quote from: christulsa on April 08, 2018, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: diaduit on April 08, 2018, 03:38:10 PM
You've had a lot of bad luck op.
I am attending sspx since I was 15, that's 30 years ago. Never once ever ever did I see, hear, suspect or even get a hi t of immorality from any priest ever.
I liked some and disliked others , I've seen so many with all the changes and appointing of different priest.
Never once have I heard anything remotely considered as Nazi sympathising. Sermons at times reference Jews in the biblical context and never in the political/modern conspiracy context.
However that sort of talk is frequent among the mass goers. After 30 years I've heard every conspiracy theory going. Some are probably true but some are just wacko.
You watch one programme and have written off truly Catholic organisation. Considering our school books worldwide have been rewritten and fraudulently mapped history to erase Catholic heritage, nationalism to dismantle the fruits of Christianity for civilization. What can you expect from a TV station ....true history , pffft....you must be joking.
That's a long time in the sspx. Do you remember they had a bishop who denied the Holocaust, and dozens of like-minded priests were kicked out of the Society who followed him?
We had an sspx priest who would preach 1.5 hour sermons berating the faithful. Slapped an altar boy. Never seen anything like that? Another priest taken off the Mass circuit for disobeying the district Superior. Etc etc
Yes, their shoelaces are straight, but "immorality" goes beyond not swearing or obeying rubrics. Wouldn't you agree, Diaduit?
I can only take your word for it but it's not something I've witnessed or heard of ever.
Some priests have had to berate the faithful, frankly if I was in their shoes I'd do alot more than that......I don't know how they stick the bickering and in house fighting.
Bishop Williamson's views on the Holocaust was slammed by a priest in our Church during a sermon.
What does "Nazi War Criminal" mean when if you turn him over to the "authorities" you are turning a man alledged to have committed a crime, who will never get a fair trial, to a bunch of politicians and judges who promote widespread legal abortion and sodomy?
I fail to see what qualifies them to sit in judgement on a Nazi? Other than might is right.
How many Holocaust survivors children defend the abortion today? Surely those pictures of chopped up babies should trigger a few memories?
Jews need to complain less and do more. I've been to the military graveyards of Europe and indeed of Russia and it was non-Jews who defeated the Nazis. Why do the Jews get to be vigilantes and not the Russians 50-70 years on? Why doesn't a woman who lost her husband and children in the London blitz get to turn up at the trial of the airman who loaded those bombs onto the aircraft knowing full well they would be dropped on civilians?
Because war is a dirty business. And picking over the bones - a generation on not a healthy thing to do.
If fifty percent of the Jews controlling the media who bitch about the Holocaust that affected their grandfather, simply recognised the close parallel to abortion, firstly Abortion would be outlawed in all western countries and second Trad Catholics and Jews would be on friendlier terms.
If they promote abortion and the lust that leads that encourages it, then I don't care all that much about the historical plight of them either. Certainly, this is one war crime that the British can't be blamed for. I really don't see why the entire top floor of the Imperial War Museum should be dedicated to dead Jews and everyone walk around in hushed silence.
The above view doesn't make me a Saint, I know, but it is a human response to people crowing for justice who give very little justice to the world.
Yeah...no need for a fair trial or righteous judge to establish guilt. Touvier himself confessed to his war crime, that he killed 7 innocent Jews. If he was truly sorry for mass murder, he would have turned himself over to the police.
All war crimes that involve systematic murder, like his, require punishment under the law. Apoplectic, self-righteous Jewish Nazi-hunters don't negate that. So that is a red herring.
Yet the SSPX illegally harbored him in a priory for years. Is there one right-reasoning person here who can see how that might be wrong? Or at the very least cultish? I guess not.
Back to the points raised by the OP. He rightly has problems with all the pedo, homosexual, and otherwise scandalous priests. Including in the SSPX. Every Catholic should be sober about the clerical abuses, both in the novus ordo world and traddom, right? Sycophantic defense of horseshit in the Society, and other trad groups, only drives people away from the Church, like our OP who is about to throw in the towel, it seems.
But I guess that's good, to purify the trad elect? Lord help us.
Not ideal. But there are worse things.
Jailing an old man 40 years after his crime, especially if he is sorry, does seem a little vengeful.
Nelson Mandela and Gandhi are morally superior to the Jews.
Quote from: Greg on April 09, 2018, 05:07:04 AM
Not ideal. But there are worse things.
Jailing an old man 40 years after his crime, especially if he is sorry, does seem a little vengeful.
Nelson Mandela and Gandhi are morally superior to the Jews.
You mean the hypocritical members of that race, right? Not the race as a whole.
Of course not all of them.
I don't mind Argentinians who admit that they have no legal or moral right to the Falkland Islands merely because they are 300-400 miles off their coast.
But MOST Argentinians rather stupidly and blindly think they do, despite the historical facts AND losing a war over them after they invaded them in 1981. Despite 99.5 percent of the Falkland Islanders wishing to remain British.
Do most Jews forgive and move on? Or do most bang on about the Holocaust as-though they personally suffered in it?
My experience is that most have a chip on their shoulder about it.
They would have Nuremberged an old man and forced him to admit to crimes he never comitted on top of those he did. What benefit would handing over a man to the Jews give to us. They've failed to be cooperative with us, we aren't helping them with their blood feuds.
You don't see the Armenians this vengeful.
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 04:54:31 AM
Yeah...no need for a fair trial or righteous judge to establish guilt. Touvier himself confessed to his war crime, that he killed 7 innocent Jews. If he was truly sorry for mass murder, he would have turned himself over to the police.
All war crimes that involve systematic murder, like his, require punishment under the law. Apoplectic, self-righteous Jewish Nazi-hunters don't negate that. So that is a red herring.
Yet the SSPX illegally harbored him in a priory for years. Is there one right-reasoning person here who can see how that might be wrong? Or at the very least cultish? I guess not.
Back to the points raised by the OP. He rightly has problems with all the pedo, homosexual, and otherwise scandalous priests. Including in the SSPX. Every Catholic should be sober about the clerical abuses, both in the novus ordo world and traddom, right? Sycophantic defense of horseshit in the Society, and other trad groups, only drives people away from the Church, like our OP who is about to throw in the towel, it seems.
But I guess that's good, to purify the trad elect? Lord help us.
You do know that a confessor can't ask you to turn yourself in as a condit in of your absolution.
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 04:54:31 AM
Yeah...no need for a fair trial or righteous judge to establish guilt. Touvier himself confessed to his war crime, that he killed 7 innocent Jews. If he was truly sorry for mass murder, he would have turned himself over to the police.
All war crimes that involve systematic murder, like his, require punishment under the law. Apoplectic, self-righteous Jewish Nazi-hunters don't negate that. So that is a red herring.
Yet the SSPX illegally harbored him in a priory for years. Is there one right-reasoning person here who can see how that might be wrong? Or at the very least cultish? I guess not.
Back to the points raised by the OP. He rightly has problems with all the pedo, homosexual, and otherwise scandalous priests. Including in the SSPX. Every Catholic should be sober about the clerical abuses, both in the novus ordo world and traddom, right? Sycophantic defense of horseshit in the Society, and other trad groups, only drives people away from the Church, like our OP who is about to throw in the towel, it seems.
But I guess that's good, to purify the trad elect? Lord help us.
And was his crime one against a law already in place when he committed the act, or one created ex post facto like those in Nuremberg.
Also
Sanctuary is literally something the Church has always done. Since forever.
I don't trust guilty pleas.
Many western nations have effective plea bargaining, some outright, some subtle (sentencing laws) where a non-guilty party pleads guilty due to the threat of a much higher sentence if they are found guilty. That's not justice, that is spread-betting with the next few decades of your life.
We can see how unjust western nations are today. Kill Islamic jihadists in one location and you are a western ally. Kill them in another location and you are labelled an enemy and part of the axis of evil.
Quote from: Greg on April 09, 2018, 06:47:04 AM
Of course not all of them.
I don't mind Argentinians who admit that they have no legal or moral right to the Falkland Islands merely because they are 300-400 miles off their coast.
But MOST Argentinians rather stupidly and blindly think they do, despite the historical facts AND losing a war over them after they invaded them in 1981. Despite 99.5 percent of the Falkland Islanders wishing to remain British.
Do most Jews forgive and move on? Or do most bang on about the Holocaust as-though they personally suffered in it?
My experience is that most have a chip on their shoulder about it.
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to
most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 08:37:53 AM
The order of SJC removed Phillips because of credible evidence. There was more than one witness over 3 years. The witnesses said it was consensual and not rape. So yes, he is guilty of homosexual relations. But there will not be a trial folks, because there are no anti-sodomy laws on the books anymore. So the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra doesn't apply here.
There is nothing more to consider. Why? Because my pastor at SJRL in 1999 had overwhelming support from me and my parish because we thought the allegations of sexual abuse were false. He was a conservative pastor and we didn't want to believe he was guilty. Eventually it was proven. My mom was angry, and she wouldn't say why. Only after she died did my uncle tell me she had witnessed the pastor's abuses. She used to work in the rectory.
Someday "Oakes Spalding" will grow up and use his real name instead of a pseudonym. Maybe he will accept reality if he witnesses the devious acts himself. People can wear a straight and narrow mask for a long, long time. My brother, two award-winning police office officers in our community (both eventually found to be notorious criminals), Corapi, Euteneur, Weakland, Law, Paul VI, Opus Dei, etc. They can fool you for decades. Not me any longer.
If there's no cross-examining of the witnesses, how do you know he actually did it? Because what he allegedly did was not illegal, he doesn't deserve his day in court to defend himself?
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
Because they didn't want revenge and their pound of flesh.
The Indians weren't chasing the British into the international courts over the Bengal famine.
Now South Africa are going the way of Zimbabwe throwing white farmers off their land, and look where that ends up.
I'm certainly not anti-Jewish. Just ask the people at Cathinfo
I can just understand and to some extent sympathize with why some people are.
Quote from: Greg on April 09, 2018, 08:01:42 AM
I'm certainly not anti-Jewish. Just ask the people at Cathinfo
I can just understand and to some extent sympathize with why some people are.
Didn't say you were.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
You need a different M.O., Beevis. Try to follow the analogies.
Here's another one. If a KKK leader had killed blacks, admitted publicly his crimes but repented, but was harbored at St Mary's (this is an analogy KK) hiding from the law, the craziness of black lives matter or the like would not even begin to justify that. And don't forget millions of innocent black slaves were killed in the slave trade, which is comparable to genocide, right?
He murdered 7 people, admitted to it even outside of court, and ran from the law. This isn't calculus.
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 07:05:59 AM
I watched a TV show yesterday afternoon; it may have been The History Channel. It was about Beate & Serge Klarsfeld, the flight of Nazi war criminals into Argentina and other countries. I heard and saw credible evidence from journalists who exposed Paul Touvier, a self-described "Catholic" who was a murderer and a Nazi operative working closely with Klaus Barbie. He was a known fugitive who was hid and protected by Marcel Lefebvre in his priory at Nice, France. This continued for decades. And when SS Captain Erich Priebke died without public remorse for his crimes against humanity, the SSPX gave him a full Catholic requiem mass!
Here's some background in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X
I was shocked and angry because:
1. I was misled by The Remnant Newspaper and other Catholic bloggers about the truth of Lefebvre's life. I thought he was a holy priest defending the church against modernism like St. Pius X. I was foolish to believe their rubbish that one day he might be canonized. Now I don't trust them and their propaganda.
2. Lefebvre and his cohorts knew Touvier was a fugitive and they spent considerable effort to thwart the police and investigative reporters. I don't buy their excuse that they were simply protecting a homeless man. More rubbish!
3. Anti-Semitism ran rampant at the SSPX priory in Nice. Now, I'm no fan of Rabbinical Judaism. I despise any cult that rejects Christ. However, I pray that the Jews and others accept Christ as Messiah one day. There is never any excuse for racial hatred, ever! It isn't Catholic.
4. The SSPX priory in Nice espoused far-right extremist viewpoints, including public Holocaust denials.
5. The SSPX is equally guilty as the Vatican in its protection of priest abusers today.
6. I've got nowhere to go if my if my local parish introduces gay nuptial blessings, women deacons or married priests. I'll have to practice my faith at home. I won't support modernists, anti-Semites, far right wackos or abusers.
7. This news comes while I'm still recovering from shock at my own parish, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, since Pastor Phillips was removed as a practicing homosexual. I don't trust anyone anymore. What are they hiding beneath their facade of piety?
Honestly, is there a single priest left standing that isn't a wacko, a Nazi sympathizer, a criminal or a pervert?
You're using the History Channel, wikipedia (and the SPLC) as your sources?! Why are you wasting our time with this? By the way, the SPLC has put the Remnant Newspaper on their list of evil trads too. You know that the "History" Channel airs anti-Christian documentaries before Christmas and Easter just about every year, right?
And according to wikipedia, Serge and Beate Klarsfeld worked with the Stasi (the East German [Communists] secret police). Nice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Klarsfeld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Klarsfeld)
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
You need a different M.O., Beevis. Try to follow the analogies.
Here's another one. If a KKK leader had killed blacks, admitted publicly his crimes but repented, but was harbored at St Mary's (this is an analogy KK) hiding from the law, the craziness of black lives matter or the like would not even begin to justify that. And don't forget millions of innocent black slaves were killed in the slave trade, which is comparable to genocide, right?
He murdered 7 people, admitted to it even outside of court, and ran from the law. This isn't calculus.
Who were the seven people he killed? What were there names? Why were they killed? How were they killed?
Your Kewl Kid's Klub comparison is not valid unless we were to put the US in a war time scenario where the Kewl Kid''s Klub holds a significant power in the government, Blacks are held as a potentially dangerous fifth column in the war, and there was precedent for ex post facto convictions of all who were involved in the power structure of the country during that war.
That and the Blacks having an internationa network seeking revenge for literally everyone who might have delivered mail to a slave owner, or helped with their accounting
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
You need a different M.O., Beevis. Try to follow the analogies.
Here's another one. If a KKK leader had killed blacks, admitted publicly his crimes but repented, but was harbored at St Mary's (this is an analogy KK) hiding from the law, the craziness of black lives matter or the like would not even begin to justify that. And don't forget millions of innocent black slaves were killed in the slave trade, which is comparable to genocide, right?
He murdered 7 people, admitted to it even outside of court, and ran from the law. This isn't calculus.
Who were the seven people he killed? What were there names? Why were they killed? How were they killed?
Your Kewl Kid's Klub comparison is not valid unless we were to put the US in a war time scenario where the Kewl Kid''s Klub holds a significant power in the government, Blacks are held as a potentially dangerous fifth column in the war, and there was precedent for ex post facto convictions of all who were involved in the power structure of the country during that war.
That and the Blacks having an internationa network seeking revenge for literally everyone who might have delivered mail to a slave owner, or helped with their accounting
7 innocent French Jews. Out of anger for one of his fellow Nazi's being killed the night before. Shot. I can see being skeptical about the history channel, but those are established facts by the French courts.
But it looks like questioning trads (sspx, etc) bout the Jews is a politically correct sacred cow. OK, whatever.
Touvier claims he was ordered to have 30 Jews killed, and ended up having only seven killed.
The details of this case seem a lot more nuanced than muh jewkillin nazi was harbored by sieg heiling sspx priests who were waiting for reanimated Hitler to rise up
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 10:38:03 AM
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
You need a different M.O., Beevis. Try to follow the analogies.
Here's another one. If a KKK leader had killed blacks, admitted publicly his crimes but repented, but was harbored at St Mary's (this is an analogy KK) hiding from the law, the craziness of black lives matter or the like would not even begin to justify that. And don't forget millions of innocent black slaves were killed in the slave trade, which is comparable to genocide, right?
He murdered 7 people, admitted to it even outside of court, and ran from the law. This isn't calculus.
Who were the seven people he killed? What were there names? Why were they killed? How were they killed?
Your Kewl Kid's Klub comparison is not valid unless we were to put the US in a war time scenario where the Kewl Kid''s Klub holds a significant power in the government, Blacks are held as a potentially dangerous fifth column in the war, and there was precedent for ex post facto convictions of all who were involved in the power structure of the country during that war.
That and the Blacks having an internationa network seeking revenge for literally everyone who might have delivered mail to a slave owner, or helped with their accounting
7 innocent French Jews. Out of anger for one of his fellow Nazi's being killed the night before. Shot. I can see being skeptical about the history channel, but those are established facts by the French courts.
But it looks like questioning trads (sspx, etc) bout the Jews is a politically correct sacred cow. OK, whatever.
You DO know it's far more damaging to ones reputation, livelihood, etc to question the Shoah and the jews than it is to attack catholic priests?
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
So, did the SSPX priori know about the accusations of Touvier at the time they had him?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 10:54:50 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 10:38:03 AM
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
You need a different M.O., Beevis. Try to follow the analogies.
Here's another one. If a KKK leader had killed blacks, admitted publicly his crimes but repented, but was harbored at St Mary's (this is an analogy KK) hiding from the law, the craziness of black lives matter or the like would not even begin to justify that. And don't forget millions of innocent black slaves were killed in the slave trade, which is comparable to genocide, right?
He murdered 7 people, admitted to it even outside of court, and ran from the law. This isn't calculus.
Who were the seven people he killed? What were there names? Why were they killed? How were they killed?
Your Kewl Kid's Klub comparison is not valid unless we were to put the US in a war time scenario where the Kewl Kid''s Klub holds a significant power in the government, Blacks are held as a potentially dangerous fifth column in the war, and there was precedent for ex post facto convictions of all who were involved in the power structure of the country during that war.
That and the Blacks having an internationa network seeking revenge for literally everyone who might have delivered mail to a slave owner, or helped with their accounting
7 innocent French Jews. Out of anger for one of his fellow Nazi's being killed the night before. Shot. I can see being skeptical about the history channel, but those are established facts by the French courts.
But it looks like questioning trads (sspx, etc) bout the Jews is a politically correct sacred cow. OK, whatever.
You DO know it's far more damaging to ones reputation, livelihood, etc to question the Shoah and the jews than it is to attack catholic priests?
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
So you have more a problem with Fellay's posture towards the Vatican, and how many vestments they use in their "pontifical" Masses (incidentally, that was a good point), than anti-semitism and other crazy abuses in the Society? Okay. Whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 01:10:54 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 10:54:50 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 10:38:03 AM
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
You need a different M.O., Beevis. Try to follow the analogies.
Here's another one. If a KKK leader had killed blacks, admitted publicly his crimes but repented, but was harbored at St Mary's (this is an analogy KK) hiding from the law, the craziness of black lives matter or the like would not even begin to justify that. And don't forget millions of innocent black slaves were killed in the slave trade, which is comparable to genocide, right?
He murdered 7 people, admitted to it even outside of court, and ran from the law. This isn't calculus.
Who were the seven people he killed? What were there names? Why were they killed? How were they killed?
Your Kewl Kid's Klub comparison is not valid unless we were to put the US in a war time scenario where the Kewl Kid''s Klub holds a significant power in the government, Blacks are held as a potentially dangerous fifth column in the war, and there was precedent for ex post facto convictions of all who were involved in the power structure of the country during that war.
That and the Blacks having an internationa network seeking revenge for literally everyone who might have delivered mail to a slave owner, or helped with their accounting
7 innocent French Jews. Out of anger for one of his fellow Nazi's being killed the night before. Shot. I can see being skeptical about the history channel, but those are established facts by the French courts.
But it looks like questioning trads (sspx, etc) bout the Jews is a politically correct sacred cow. OK, whatever.
You DO know it's far more damaging to ones reputation, livelihood, etc to question the Shoah and the jews than it is to attack catholic priests?
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
So you have more a problem with Fellay's posture towards the Vatican, and how many vestments they use in their "pontifical" Masses (incidentally, that was a good point), than anti-semitism and other crazy abuses in the Society? Okay. Whatever floats your boat.
I mean define anti-semitism. Just because you aren't going to cooperate in the jew's blood feuds, doesn't mean you have a racial hatred against the jew.
Read the Wikipedia article on Touvier. I don't see any hard evidence that he even committed the crimes he was accused of. Nazi hunting is sometimes more akin to witch hunting than it is to seeking justice.
"By 1966, implementation of his death sentence was barred based on a 20-year statute of limitations. Following this, attorneys for Touvier filed an application for a pardon. They requested that the lifetime ban on leaving the country and the confiscation of goods linked to the death penalty be lifted. In 1971, French President Georges Pompidou granted Touvier the pardon.
Pompidou's pardon caused a public outcry. This increased when it was revealed that most of the property which Touvier claimed as his own had allegedly been seized from deported Jews.
On July 3, 1973, Georges Glaeser filed a complaint against Touvier in the Lyon Court, charging him with crimes against humanity. There was no statute of limitations on such charges. Glaeser accused Touvier of ordering the execution of seven Jewish hostages at Rillieux-la-Pape near Lyon, on 29 June 1944. This was in retaliation for the murder of Philippe Henriot, the Vichy Government's Secretary of State for Information and Propaganda, which had occurred the previous evening . After being indicted, Touvier disappeared again. Years of legal maneuvering ensued through his lawyers until a warrant was issued for his arrest on November 27, 1981."
It's interesting how this accusation is made only after he was finally pardoned.
Really makes you think.
Most people also don't seem to understand that being associated with the French Vichy Government is not the same thing as being a Nazi.
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 07:56:47 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:45:16 AM
Understood. You think Mandela and Ghandi were morally superior to most of the Jews, because of their attitude about the Holocaust.
You could apply the same to any race that experience genocide, and still protests about it. But what baffles me is traditionalist obsession with the Jews, even to the point of outright hatred or anti-semitism for some of them It suggests they don't subscribe to the Christian moral code, but more a kind of social darwinism or ancient Roman code, while at the same time strictly abstaining from meat on Friday and not watching rated R movies.
You're so naive it's remarkable.
1) Does any other people protest over the genocide they experienced? Jews are the only one I hear about. To the exclusion of ... most others. The only one I can think of is the Armenian genocide, but no Jew works to right that error. Well, there's also the Ukrainian and Russian genocides, foisted upon those people by Jewish Communists, but that might be "Anti-Semitic"...
2) Why did the Jews flip shit over the Good Friday prayer in 2007? That alone says more than anything a trad will say.
You need a different M.O., Beevis. Try to follow the analogies.
Here's another one. If a KKK leader had killed blacks, admitted publicly his crimes but repented, but was harbored at St Mary's (this is an analogy KK) hiding from the law, the craziness of black lives matter or the like would not even begin to justify that. And don't forget millions of innocent black slaves were killed in the slave trade, which is comparable to genocide, right?
He murdered 7 people, admitted to it even outside of court, and ran from the law. This isn't calculus.
You do know that Jews were major brokers in the us slave trade, right?
I find your Freddy Flinstone world view to be fascinating, Heinrich. Truly. I'm curious, do you also doubt the fact the world is round? ;)
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 08, 2018, 05:33:33 PM
Christe Eleison,
SGG = St. Gertrude the Great
(Don't know myself what SJRL means.)
Thanks for your help, Miriam. I appreciate it.
God bless you :pray1:
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 05:38:33 PM
I find your Freddy Flinstone world view to be fascinating, Heinrich. Truly. I'm curious, do you also doubt the fact the world is round? ;)
Now Chris!!!!! Quit using my husband's alter ego to put people in their place. Really. Fred had his good points.
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 09, 2018, 06:56:09 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 05:38:33 PM
I find your Freddy Flinstone world view to be fascinating, Heinrich. Truly. I'm curious, do you also doubt the fact the world is round? ;)
Now Chris!!!!! Quit using my husband's alter ego to put people in their place. Really. Fred had his good points.
True. He could drive a car with his feet. Yabadabadoo.
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 07:05:08 PM
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 09, 2018, 06:56:09 PM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 05:38:33 PM
I find your Freddy Flinstone world view to be fascinating, Heinrich. Truly. I'm curious, do you also doubt the fact the world is round? ;)
Now Chris!!!!! Quit using my husband's alter ego to put people in their place. Really. Fred had his good points.
True. He could drive a car with his feet. Yabadabadoo.
And he had great hair. Never messy.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 08, 2018, 01:35:15 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
Why do Catholics foam at the mouth over anything regarding the Jews?
How can you trust a people who systematically cut baby penises
Or systematically undermine Western Civilization?
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 08, 2018, 01:35:15 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
Why do Catholics foam at the mouth over anything regarding the Jews?
How can you trust a people who systematically cut baby penises
Don't they also suck the blood off of them, or something?
Talmudism: Not even once.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 09, 2018, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 08, 2018, 01:35:15 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
Why do Catholics foam at the mouth over anything regarding the Jews?
How can you trust a people who systematically cut baby penises
Don't they also suck the blood off of them, or something?
Talmudism: Not even once.
Schlomo Shekelstein
"It ain't gay if you say no homo":
Gross Dude! :vomit:
I think the Society needs to make it's motto: Don't go away mad. Just go away.
Why does it seem that anyone leaving finds it necessary to come up with all this nonsense? "This one time, Father said he almost thought about maybe watching the Schindler's List movie! I told him I would turn him in and get him fired. I really would have thought about it too. I knew then that it was time to leave the SSPX." I swear that that actually came out of a rejected seminarian's mouth and not a 12 year olds. Good grief.
1. Here, from a Jewish source, is incontrovertible proof that Talmudic hatred of Gentiles and especially of Christians was the driving force of the horrible atrocities of the Soviet union - such hatred as the world had never seen before:
"Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined "terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.
All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet been fully opened
to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.
And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf." https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
2. Meanwhile, here was the Church fighting not only against the horror of Communism, but also opposing the Nazis - who though far less than the Communists were also evil; the commies and talmudists just simply bring up the Nazis to hide their own far worse crimes and genocidal holocaust of Christians estimated to be near 100 million - as for e.g. St. Maximillian Kolbe and Pope Pius XII did. At the same time wicked Talmudists were committing their genocide of Christians, Christ through His Vicar and Church stretched forth His hand to protect innocent Jews; Pope Pius XII has to be ranked among the greatest humanitarian heroes of the last century.
"In the most difficult hours which we Jews of Romania have passed through, the generous assistance of the Holy See . . . was decisive and salutary. It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme Pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews, sufferings which had been pointed out ot him by you after your visit to Transnistria. The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance." – Chief Rabbi Alexander Saffran of Bucharest, Romania, to Monsignor Andrea Cassulo, Papal Nuncio to Romania, April 7, 1944.
The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world." – Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog of Palestine, February 28, 1945. What is more is that Rabbi Herzog of Jerusalem, as well as the Rabbis of the Italian, United States, Romanian, and Hungarian Jewish communities came to Rome or sent messages thanking Pope Pius XII
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/gratitude.htm
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 09, 2018, 07:46:31 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 08, 2018, 01:35:15 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 08, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
Why do Catholics foam at the mouth over anything regarding the Jews?
How can you trust a people who systematically cut baby penises
Or systematically undermine Western Civilization?
What exactly is "Western Civilisation" as a real object?
Once upon a time we spoke of "Christendom", and that was ruined by the Refirmation, murdered by the Enlightenment, and buried over the subsequent centuries. Were Luther and Calvin Jews? Were the Protestant sects and secular leaders who plunged Christendom into bloody war, like the German princes, Jews? Were Descartes, Hobbes, Locke and Hume Jews? Were the French philosophes Jews? How about Darwin? Were the German Protestants who invented the "historical critical method" which destroyed the Bible Jews? Were the Christians who accepted all this and abandoned faith and morals Jews? Christendom destroyed itself, and "Western civilisation" is itself a term of post-Christian thought that now serves as an idol for the secular and pseudo-Christian right wing.
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 07:35:52 AM
Quote from: christulsa on April 09, 2018, 04:54:31 AM
Yeah...no need for a fair trial or righteous judge to establish guilt. Touvier himself confessed to his war crime, that he killed 7 innocent Jews. If he was truly sorry for mass murder, he would have turned himself over to the police.
All war crimes that involve systematic murder, like his, require punishment under the law. Apoplectic, self-righteous Jewish Nazi-hunters don't negate that. So that is a red herring.
Yet the SSPX illegally harbored him in a priory for years. Is there one right-reasoning person here who can see how that might be wrong? Or at the very least cultish? I guess not.
Back to the points raised by the OP. He rightly has problems with all the pedo, homosexual, and otherwise scandalous priests. Including in the SSPX. Every Catholic should be sober about the clerical abuses, both in the novus ordo world and traddom, right? Sycophantic defense of horseshit in the Society, and other trad groups, only drives people away from the Church, like our OP who is about to throw in the towel, it seems.
But I guess that's good, to purify the trad elect? Lord help us.
And was his crime one against a law already in place when he committed the act, or one created ex post facto like those in Nuremberg.
I'm pretty sure murder was a crime under French legislation at the time.
As it is, the argument is a canard. Murder is a crime against the natural law and divine commandment always in place, and any authority acts justly in prosecuting those guilty of it.
Quote from: dymphna17 on April 09, 2018, 08:38:31 PM
Gross Dude! :vomit:
I think the Society needs to make it's motto: Don't go away mad. Just go away.
Why does it seem that anyone leaving finds it necessary to come up with all this nonsense? "This one time, Father said he almost thought about maybe watching the Schindler's List movie! I told him I would turn him in and get him fired. I really would have thought about it too. I knew then that it was time to leave the SSPX." I swear that that actually came out of a rejected seminarian's mouth and not a 12 year olds. Good grief.
:huh:
-
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 12:29:41 PM
Priebke gave a public apology and renouncement of his sins, which included war crimes. He became Catholic and lived as a pious (NO) Catholic while under supervised incarceration. The scandal here was the refusal of the New Church to give him his rightful service. This is where the Society stepped in and did the Catholic, i.e. right thing.
Show me proof that this public repentance occurred. The Nazi hunters have said that they never met any who were captured and regretted their actions. I saw tape of 2 that were asked by reporters, to which they replied on camera, "I did what was necessary. It was okay to do it back then. We did what we had to do." Another one said, "I had to obey my military's orders."
Quote from: Sophia3 on April 08, 2018, 03:13:17 PM
I don't know about any of the things you are talking about, but I do know that the History Channel is full of garbage. I would find another credible source.
The problem is that you don't know. You only have your private opinion, and your own sources you think are credible (who aren't going to publish anything that might make the Catholic Church's scandals visible.)
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
Quote from: Matto on April 08, 2018, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 08, 2018, 05:33:33 PM
Christe Eleison,
SGG = St. Gertrude the Great
(Don't know myself what SJRL means.)
"In 2008, at SGG, my pastor advised me to accept my transsexual brother as God made him and said the Catholic church is moving toward acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle. My brother was not in sin as he is a child of God, and I shouldn't be judging him. He also said there's nothing wrong with gay marriage as long as it isn't consummated! I became physically and emotionally ill after speaking with him and had to stay home from work for a day. It took me a week to recover from the depression. At this same parish, an associate pastor in confessional told me to read a Buddhist book for my penance. I finally left this parish for SJC in Chicago around 2013."
Um. I know SGG means Saint Gertrude the Great, but are you sure she is not speaking about another group with a similar name? Because this is so scandalous that I don't believe it even possible that Father Cekada or Bishop Dolan or his priests would dare to say something so scandalous. And I do not think highly of them and I have read websites that "expose" them, but I think that this would be going too far because it seems they would have to keep up appearances, even if all the bad things people say about them are true.
I'm not naming the parishes I live near. None of my abbreviations refer to any Sedevacantist church. i don't belong to one.
Quote from: Larry on April 09, 2018, 01:47:21 PM
Read the Wikipedia article on Touvier. I don't see any hard evidence that he even committed the crimes he was accused of. Nazi hunting is sometimes more akin to witch hunting than it is to seeking justice.
Touvier died in prison. He admitted murdering civilians while in prison. So I guess his own admission of committing murder, trial and imprisonment isn't hard evidence for you? Where did you ever get the idea that catching witches was Beate Klarsfeld's goal.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/18/world/paul-touvier-war-criminal-is-dead-at-81.html
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 08:37:53 AM
The order of SJC removed Phillips because of credible evidence. There was more than one witness over 3 years. The witnesses said it was consensual and not rape. So yes, he is guilty of homosexual relations. But there will not be a trial folks, because there are no anti-sodomy laws on the books anymore. So the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra doesn't apply here.
There is nothing more to consider. Why? Because my pastor at SJRL in 1999 had overwhelming support from me and my parish because we thought the allegations of sexual abuse were false. He was a conservative pastor and we didn't want to believe he was guilty. Eventually it was proven. My mom was angry, and she wouldn't say why. Only after she died did my uncle tell me she had witnessed the pastor's abuses. She used to work in the rectory.
Someday "Oakes Spalding" will grow up and use his real name instead of a pseudonym. Maybe he will accept reality if he witnesses the devious acts himself. People can wear a straight and narrow mask for a long, long time. My brother, two award-winning police office officers in our community (both eventually found to be notorious criminals), Corapi, Euteneur, Weakland, Law, Paul VI, Opus Dei, etc. They can fool you for decades. Not me any longer.
If there's no cross-examining of the witnesses, how do you know he actually did it? Because what he allegedly did was not illegal, he doesn't deserve his day in court to defend himself?
Miles, Miles, Miles, consensual sodomy isn't illegal anymore. ***There is no cross-examining of witnesses or civil trial*** to be held. There is only the Canons Regular Order's decision to remove a man from ministry after their own investigation, and rightly so. GET IT?
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
He questioned the numbers and the methods of death.
Is this now a crime? Why? How?
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:55:37 AM
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 07:53:53 AM
If there's no cross-examining of the witnesses, how do you know he actually did it? Because what he allegedly did was not illegal, he doesn't deserve his day in court to defend himself?
Miles, Miles, Miles, consensual sodomy isn't illegal anymore. ***There is no cross-examining of witnesses or civil trial*** to be held. There is only the Canons Regular Order's decision to remove a man from ministry after their own investigation, and rightly so. GET IT?
Canons Regular didn't remove him, Cupich did.
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:45:44 AM
Touvier died in prison. He admitted murdering civilians while in prison. So I guess his own admission of committing murder, trial and imprisonment isn't hard evidence for you? Where did you ever get the idea that catching witches was Beate Klarsfeld's goal.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/18/world/paul-touvier-war-criminal-is-dead-at-81.html
Hyperbole.
Quote from: Matto on April 08, 2018, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 08, 2018, 05:33:33 PM
Christe Eleison,
SGG = St. Gertrude the Great
(Don't know myself what SJRL means.)
Um. I know SGG means Saint Gertrude the Great,
Apparently neither one of us "knew," because she said later it was not a sede parish/chapel.
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:55:37 AM
Quote from: MilesChristi on April 09, 2018, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 08:37:53 AM
The order of SJC removed Phillips because of credible evidence. There was more than one witness over 3 years. The witnesses said it was consensual and not rape. So yes, he is guilty of homosexual relations. But there will not be a trial folks, because there are no anti-sodomy laws on the books anymore. So the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra doesn't apply here.
There is nothing more to consider. Why? Because my pastor at SJRL in 1999 had overwhelming support from me and my parish because we thought the allegations of sexual abuse were false. He was a conservative pastor and we didn't want to believe he was guilty. Eventually it was proven. My mom was angry, and she wouldn't say why. Only after she died did my uncle tell me she had witnessed the pastor's abuses. She used to work in the rectory.
Someday "Oakes Spalding" will grow up and use his real name instead of a pseudonym. Maybe he will accept reality if he witnesses the devious acts himself. People can wear a straight and narrow mask for a long, long time. My brother, two award-winning police office officers in our community (both eventually found to be notorious criminals), Corapi, Euteneur, Weakland, Law, Paul VI, Opus Dei, etc. They can fool you for decades. Not me any longer.
If there's no cross-examining of the witnesses, how do you know he actually did it? Because what he allegedly did was not illegal, he doesn't deserve his day in court to defend himself?
Miles, Miles, Miles, consensual sodomy isn't illegal anymore. ***There is no cross-examining of witnesses or civil trial*** to be held. There is only the Canons Regular Order's decision to remove a man from ministry after their own investigation, and rightly so. GET IT?
Sure it's not illegal, I'm just asking how people know the witnesses aren't lying
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
From your own link: "Irving, who served time in Austria for his Holocaust denials, said: 'He is obviously a very intelligent man who did not realise the danger of talking to the press. He is not a Holocaust denier. Like me, he does not buy the whole package."
An example for you there was village where the number of Jews killed was given as 1500 and this is included as part pf the 6 million count. When this village count was investigated it was found that at the last census this village only had 600 Jews. Also for your information the number of 6 million has now been dropped to 4 million by the Jews themselves. There is a lot more to this then meets the eye. There are way to many things that don't add up but this is not to deny that there was not a genocide against the Jews because there clearly was.
Oy vey we've got an anti semite badthinker here!
Youre gonna make all trads look like they were members of the ss!
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
Quote from: St.Justin on April 12, 2018, 10:16:52 AM
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
From your own link: "Irving, who served time in Austria for his Holocaust denials, said: 'He is obviously a very intelligent man who did not realise the danger of talking to the press. He is not a Holocaust denier. Like me, he does not buy the whole package."
An example for you there was village where the number of Jews killed was given as 1500 and this is included as part pf the 6 million count. When this village count was investigated it was found that at the last census this village only had 600 Jews. Also for your information the number of 6 million has now been dropped to 4 million by the Jews themselves. There is a lot more to this then meets the eye. There are way to many things that don't add up but this is not to deny that there was not a genocide against the Jews because there clearly was.
Reposted. Taken from official sources.
How many were killed at Auschwitz?
Pick a number
http://rense.com/general62/auch.htm
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on April 12, 2018, 12:09:12 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 12, 2018, 10:16:52 AM
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
From your own link: "Irving, who served time in Austria for his Holocaust denials, said: 'He is obviously a very intelligent man who did not realise the danger of talking to the press. He is not a Holocaust denier. Like me, he does not buy the whole package."
An example for you there was village where the number of Jews killed was given as 1500 and this is included as part pf the 6 million count. When this village count was investigated it was found that at the last census this village only had 600 Jews. Also for your information the number of 6 million has now been dropped to 4 million by the Jews themselves. There is a lot more to this then meets the eye. There are way to many things that don't add up but this is not to deny that there was not a genocide against the Jews because there clearly was.
Reposted. Taken from official sources.
How many were killed at Auschwitz? Pick a number
http://rense.com/general62/auch.htm
This doesn't square with official German papers and documents. I don't know if the real truth will ever be known. Eye witnesses accounts don't square with the red cross accounts.
Indeed, St. Justin. Do any of the 'official' accounts agree with each other? A comparison also indicates they are wildly different.
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 07:21:19 AM
Carlee, it's not a problem of just one person. It appears rampant in the SSPX and traditional culture.
I'm not going to wade too far into this quagmire but, like, this is some top quality American boomer posting. What did you think France was just totally free of fascists? Prior to WW2 there were a crap ton of communists and fascists, this polarization was going on everywhere in Europe at the time. The Vichy government had relatively broad support from conservative elements of society that looked at what was going on in Russia as the only alternative. Pétain, the guy running Vichy, was HUGE hero in WW1, as well.
My point is that France wasn't remotely free of fascists, it had quite a few. The SS even recruited a not insignificant number of Frenchmen (all volunteers).
Further, because the communists were so anti-religion... guess what side a lot of practicing Catholics fell on? The Church had also been heavily trod on from since 1905, so there wasn't a whole lot of goodwill between Catholics and the Republic to begin with. And if you think that's bad, you probably don't want to get started with what was going on in Hungary and Croatia... All Catholics again.
These elements didn't just disappear after WW2. Even further, it was the Americans that caused the overwhelming majority of the damage France suffered during WW2, not the Germans. There are still quite a few people in France that look at WW2 from a waaaayyyy different perspective than you do. They just have to keep quite for obvious reasons and this time they didn't.
Anyhow, rest assured that traditionalist Catholicism in France is extremely reactionary, conservative, and just generally far-right wackos as you put it earlier. But they generally are looking 1789 not 1939 and dream of people like Saint Louis and Louis XVIII, not Pétain.
edit: clarity
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:45:44 AM
Quote from: Larry on April 09, 2018, 01:47:21 PM
Read the Wikipedia article on Touvier. I don't see any hard evidence that he even committed the crimes he was accused of. Nazi hunting is sometimes more akin to witch hunting than it is to seeking justice.
Touvier died in prison. He admitted murdering civilians while in prison. So I guess his own admission of committing murder, trial and imprisonment isn't hard evidence for you? Where did you ever get the idea that catching witches was Beate Klarsfeld's goal.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/18/world/paul-touvier-war-criminal-is-dead-at-81.html
Because many Nazi hunters are more interested in obtaining a scalp rather than making sure the scalp belongs to the correct head.
Frankly, a frightened old man can be made to say or do anything. I'm not saying Touvier isn't guilty, I'm saying that the actual evidence itself is far from conclusive. The fact that he was pardoned and then suddenly guilty again is something that should be a red flag for anyone who thinks we have all the facts. We also shouldn't make emotional attacks on the character of an Archbishop who basically saved the Western Liturgical Tradition based on biased reporting from the History Channel or the NY Times without a sober assessment of ALL of the facts.
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
So what? Is questioning some details of an historic event a mortal sin? What does this even have to do with the Catholic Faith?
I was going to mention Hungary. I'm glad my friend ABlaine beat me to it.
Quote from: Larry on April 12, 2018, 05:12:43 PM
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
So what? Is questioning some details of an historic event a mortal sin? What does this even have to do with the Catholic Faith?
It has to do with a Catholic Bishop being slammed for no good reason.
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:32:51 AM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 12:29:41 PM
Priebke gave a public apology and renouncement of his sins, which included war crimes. He became Catholic and lived as a pious (NO) Catholic while under supervised incarceration. The scandal here was the refusal of the New Church to give him his rightful service. This is where the Society stepped in and did the Catholic, i.e. right thing.
Show me proof that this public repentance occurred. The Nazi hunters have said that they never met any who were captured and regretted their actions. I saw tape of 2 that were asked by reporters, to which they replied on camera, "I did what was necessary. It was okay to do it back then. We did what we had to do." Another one said, "I had to obey my military's orders."
My source is from SSPX: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/priebke-funeral-clarifying-interview-2703
This thread is disgusting. Bravo to KK and others for standing up for Christ and His truth.
Quote from: Williamson1488 on April 13, 2018, 11:57:13 PM
This thread is disgusting. Bravo to KK and others for standing up for Christ and His truth.
Disgusting? Really? The thread is disgusting? Wrong, yes, in my opinion.
I am in disagreement with Lauermar. And feel the show she viewed was agenda driven. I could not begin to explain in a completely intelligent way why I strongly feel ABL was defamed, his good works not mentioned, his dedication to true worship, and his love for his church and it's members not applauded as an inspiring GOOD. Those things I mentioned have done more for our church than almost anyone of this century. So. I sincerely and positively doubt the aspersions cast upon him by the secular biased media. Or anyone for that matter. Someone can be WRONG in my book, but that doesn't necessarily make what they say, or even believe, "disgusting".
I save that word for a post I recently read in the singles section. And the introduction, meet and greet section. To me, that was unforgettably and unforgivably disgusting. Yes, I do believe THOSE posts were the MOST disgusting thing I have read on this forum. Those posts reflect on the author's state of mind. His 29 year old soul. I am no social justice warrior. But neither will I castigated anyone for their ancestry. Why? Because we are all made in the image and likeness of God. Some may not be fond of how inclusive this is. Our Catholic Catechism did not say only whites were made in His image and likeness.
The very man who posted that demented crap is the man calling Lauermar's, very unpopular post, disgusting. And why? Does anyone really believe he finds it DISGUSTING because he is outraged by the Archbishop's reputation having a dark cloud over it?????? And again, I believe wrongfully so. NO! He finds it disgusting for the very reason he said what he did in his posts. Remember, the posts where he was decided to be a troll. So, this troll is going to point out what is disgusting? Not to me. In my book wrong is wrong, but "disgusting" is entirely different. I've already pointed out what I have found to be disgusting.
Quote from: Williamson1488 on April 13, 2018, 11:57:13 PM
This thread is disgusting. Bravo to KK and others for standing up for Christ and His truth.
And yes Bravo for all that defend Archbishop Lefevre AND Christ and His church. Yes. As we should.
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta on April 08, 2018, 11:23:45 PM
How many were killed at Auschwitz?
Pick a number
http://rense.com/general62/auch.htm (http://rense.com/general62/auch.htm)
Quote"In the beginning was the Holocaust. We must therefore begin again. We must create a new Talmud and compile new midrashim, just as we did after the destruction of the Second Temple. We did so then in order to mark the new beginning: until then we lived one way; from then on nothing could be the same."
— Elie Wiesel, in "Jewish Values in the Post-Holocaust Future: A Symposium.'' Judaism, vol. 16 no. 3, 1967.
I haven't researched this in years, so I'm stunned at how much information has been scrubbed on the internet (i.e., (((David Cole)))).
Fixed it for you. That's right, David Cole, one of Bishop Williamson's sources for questioning the numbers was Jewish himself. Not only has a lot of David Cole's information been scrubbed from the internet, the Zionists also tried to kill him.
Check this out from the Times of Israel.
NY rabbi: 'Not even 1 million' Jews killed in Holocaust
31 December 2015
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-rabbi-not-even-1-million-jews-killed-in-holocaust/
Now I wonder if this New York rabbi will be charged, convicted, fined and dragged through the mud as a Holocaust denier like Bishop Williamson was for questioning the numbers? I highly doubt it.
I've always doubted the numbers. Not that it happened. And hated the ignoring of deaths of other, non jews. Plenty of Catholics, many polish, and others were murdered and suffered in those camps. It's always bothered me that they are rarely mentioned. Why? Because that suits someones agenda.Recent history is so twisted, it's hard to find a reliable source. Scrubbing of the Internet is going on all the time. So much gets pulled because it's decided politically incorrect.
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 17, 2018, 08:07:48 AM
I've always doubted the numbers. Not that it happened. And hated the ignoring of deaths of other, non jews. Plenty of Catholics, many polish, and others were murdered and suffered in those camps. It's always bothered me that they are rarely mentioned. Why? Because that suits someones agenda.Recent history is so twisted, it's hard to find a reliable source. Scrubbing of the Internet is going on all the time. So much gets pulled because it's decided politically incorrect.
This post could likely get you thrown in jail if you were Canadian or in some European places.
It should be questionable why on "Holocaust Remembrance Day" the only stat dragged out is the holy six million. No mention of the other 7 million who (allegedly) perished. Nor is there mention of the millions dead from war.
Isn't there something about Jewish lies and fables in the NT. Shouldn't we take that seriously?
Quote from: Carleendiane on April 17, 2018, 08:07:48 AM
I've always doubted the numbers. Not that it happened. And hated the ignoring of deaths of other, non jews. Plenty of Catholics, many polish, and others were murdered and suffered in those camps. It's always bothered me that they are rarely mentioned. Why? Because that suits someones agenda.Recent history is so twisted, it's hard to find a reliable source. Scrubbing of the Internet is going on all the time. So much gets pulled because it's decided politically incorrect.
I've never doubted the numbers, but I am disappointed that there is so little attention paid to the 5 million other victims of the Nazis - the bulk of whom were, in fact, Catholic Poles. (One might also note that ++Lefebvre's own father was sent to a camp by the Nazis.)
If you go to Auschwitz, the Polish camp staff have for some years made some effort to rectify the imbalance. Something like 1/6 of the prewar Polish population was killed during the war, which is a staggering number. Obviously, however, most Americans and Europeans will not have the chance to visit Auschwitz.
That's because everyone else got on with their life. The Jews don't forget or let anyone else forget either.
Quote from: Greg on July 06, 2018, 12:55:16 PM
That's because everyone else got on with their life. The Jews don't forget or let anyone else forget either.
In fairness, Eastern Europe is a part of the world with long memories, and that includes Catholic Poles, not just Jews. Certainly that was my experience when I lived there.
I don't dispute that the Shoah has engendered something of a cottage industry.
To get back to @Lauermer's original post: I don't think it's fair to hold the Touvier episode, whatever version of it you accept (and I would, like others here, be reluctant to accept a History Channel's documentary's account at face value), against the SSPX in toto as it exists today, let alone the local SSPX community, if you have one - and I say that as someone quite outside the Society's realm.
The Society in its first years in France inevitably found much of its fertile ground in the remnants of the old French Right, which was still profoundly shaped by its battle against the legacy of the Revolution, the latest chapter of which was Vichy and the postwar reaction against Vichy. For a generation for whom the Dreyfus Affair was still just within living memory, this created a complex reaction against the liberal milieu which defined postwar France and the postwar Church, and this included certain elements, in certain places, which extended sympathies for Vichy to....well, men like Touvier. Or at least, an animus against the sort of people who hated Touvier, which may have been enough for the SSPX clergy in Nice.
Anyway, that's another country, and over a generation ago. To the extent that any of that element endured in the Society, I think much of it went with Williamson into the Resistance, or the splinters which float in its orbit. Which, to be honest, is just about the best thing that could have happened to the Society in North America. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, but even great men can make prudential mistakes; and I think Dom Calvet's fear that Williamson was a bad choice in his group of bishops was amply borne out, one which the need for an English-speaking bishop could not really justify. It goes beyond his views on the Holocaust, which on their face can be nothing worse than a misinterpretation of data (which is not a sin as such), to a general pattern of behavior, attested to by numerous SSPX seminarians and priests both in public and private. He seems to have had a deep-seated animus that went beyond mere theological concerns about Dual Covenant theory and related post-conciliar derangements.
Visit the Society if it's there to be visited, and judge it on its own terms - and not what happened or did not happen in Nice over 30 years ago.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
The Society in its first years in France inevitably found much of its fertile ground in the remnants of the old French Right, which was still profoundly shaped by its battle against the legacy of the Revolution, the latest chapter of which was Vichy and the postwar reaction against Vichy.
So in other words, when the traditional Catholic movement was in its infancy, the "good soil that returned fruit many-fold" was found among the reactionary French who admired Marshall Petain and despised Leon Blum. Among modern liberals who believe the standard model of Allied history, on the other hand, was found rocky soil, choked with weeds.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
To the extent that any of that element endured in the Society, I think much of it went with Williamson into the Resistance, or the splinters which float in its orbit.
It seems highly unlikely that the spirit of French reactionary resistance should have followed an Englishman across the Channel. What I hear from friends in France is directly contrary to this assertion.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
Which, to be honest, is just about the best thing that could have happened to the Society in North America.
Oh yes, best that we become just like everyone else, and nothing at all like our founder.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, but even great men can make prudential mistakes;
Archbishop Lefebvre offered Mass at the grave of Marshall Petain every year up to his death. So the incident with Paul Touvier was not a one time thing. It was part of his nature. The part that made him stand up for the Catholic Faith when all the world was against him.
In his own book, "The Little Story of My Long Life," Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he supported the French reactionary movement always, and that he held an undying anger against Pope Pius XI, amongst others, on that account. If he was a great man, then this is what made him great, and it cannot be brushed away in such a cavalier fashion.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
to a general pattern of behavior, attested to by numerous SSPX seminarians and priests both in public and private. He seems to have had a deep-seated animus that went beyond mere theological concerns about Dual Covenant theory and related post-conciliar derangements.
Speaking of a "pattern of behavior," a person who has only posted here a couple dozen times is posting unsubstantiated gossip, backbiting and detraction about a traditional Catholic bishop.
If you have a quote, state it. If you have a source, say his name. But please avoid this effeminate tittle-tattle regarding "what's whispered by seminarians."
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
Visit the Society if it's there to be visited, and judge it on its own terms - and not what happened or did not happen in Nice over 30 years ago.
What happened, or did not happen, in Nice over 30 years ago is what gives the Society its integrity and its authenticity. If it is now to turn its back on its origins and make peace with the world, then the Society will become just one more group of men playing dress-up.
It has been not just 30 years but closer to 2,000 years since the martyrs gave themselves to be "wheat ground by the teeth of lions." Yet still we cling to that precious legacy, for without it our Church becomes little more than a playground for dilettantes.
If we in the traditional Catholic movement are to turn our backs so quickly on the fore-fathers who gave us what we have today, then we will deserve what happens when God turns His back on us.
To be fair, Maximilian, even the Apostles hid "for fear of the Jews".
So it's not hard to see why our brethren would do the same, or be inclined to it.
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
Clau Clau and I were in Ridgefield, CT. exactly 31 years ago when Fr. Williamson made such remarks about the Jews. He's been at it as long as anyone can remember.
I think he enjoys the controversy, like Trump.
Unlike Trump he cannot lead men.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
The Society in its first years in France inevitably found much of its fertile ground in the remnants of the old French Right, which was still profoundly shaped by its battle against the legacy of the Revolution, the latest chapter of which was Vichy and the postwar reaction against Vichy.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 06, 2018, 08:44:23 PM
In his own book, "The Little Story of My Long Life," Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he supported the French reactionary movement always, and that he held an undying anger against Pope Pius XI, amongst others, on that account. If he was a great man, then this is what made him great, and it cannot be brushed away in such a cavalier fashion.
I get the impression that this is what has poisoned Traditional Catholicism from the start; though it's only an impression, it's one that's being building up in me slowly through observation. Obviously the complex phenomenon we call "Traditional Catholicism" is made up multiple influences, some good and some bad, but this particular influence seems likely to me to have have been the worst overall. I think the Neo-Modernists that spearheaded Vatican II and its aftermath are more afraid of this than they are of Thomism or the Latin Mass, viz. reactionary politics, and generally a spirit of unappeasable opposition to the modern world. I myself have deep sympathies with reactionary politics, monarchism, and every form of opposition to liberalism, but I do sympathise with the Neo-Modernists in their project to find a way to preach the faith to the modern world. Clearly, they have utterly failed at this, because they surrendered far too much to the modern world and were far too naive and trusting in its apparent goodness - but there's no need to go to the opposite extreme and condemn the modern world totally, dig your heels in, and demand a return to pre-industrial and feudal civilisation without compromise.
Leo XIII and Pius XI were "liberalisers" in opening up to the modern world on the political field (and were other modern popes?), but this - excuse me - "Lefebvrite" spirit is even more doggedly opposed to the modern world than were the pre-conciliar popes! It's not so much that I would like Lefebvre & gang to abandon their political views; it's just that, while I think they're welcome to them as private gentlemen, I don't think they're so entitled to them as priests / pastors of Christ's Church. By that I mean that they shouldn't try to confine Catholicism to one particular culture / civilisation, and let political differences play too great a part in the preaching of the gospel. It must play a part, but just not an essential one.
The Apostles & Church Fathers may have advocated changes in politics, but they didn't let these things get in the way of their vocation to preach the gospel & kingdom of Christ. In other words, why antagonise your liberal neighbours with the rhetoric of reactionary politics if it risks repulsing them and putting them off the relevant message of the gospel? Yes liberalism is wrong, and we hope that any genuine Catholic would shed his liberal views over time, but there's no need to put an "ANTI-LIBERAL" banner on the front of the church and scare them off. This is where I'd borrow St. Paul's phrase of becoming "all things to all men". That doesn't mean pretending that liberalism is true or good, it just means not being a fierce lion for the French monarchy if it risks scaring the poor, lost, liberal sheep away. You're a bishop, a priest, a preacher of Christ's Church - not one of King Louis' knight-at-arms.
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 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.
Maxmilian wants the SSPX to keep a fighting spirit and not devolve into "men playing dress-up", but the problem is that the reactionary battle strategy has turned out to be a failure, because the modern world has responded: "You don't want us? We don't want you either." It's not been a very fruitful conversation or evangelical effort. What Traditional Catholicism really needs is a man to rally behind - like Abp. Lefebvre - but one whose also been graced by God with the power to preach to the modern world and convict its conscience without condemning it, leading it to repentance without making it lose heart. Just condemning it as evil is not the Christian spirit. There has to be a middle-ground between "razing the bastions" and "building them higher". Individual priests here and there in their parishes may be doing alright preaching to their flock, but the Church has yet to find its great modern preacher who will teach it how to preach to the modern world, to give all of our priests the weapon to truly fight and conquer it for Christ. The Modernists have seemingly anointed JPII as that great modern preacher, but we know better.
Don't take too great offence to these statements, because they are tentative and based more on impression than on long experience.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 06, 2018, 08:44:23 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
The Society in its first years in France inevitably found much of its fertile ground in the remnants of the old French Right, which was still profoundly shaped by its battle against the legacy of the Revolution, the latest chapter of which was Vichy and the postwar reaction against Vichy.
So in other words, when the traditional Catholic movement was in its infancy, the "good soil that returned fruit many-fold" was found among the reactionary French who admired Marshall Petain and despised Leon Blum. Among modern liberals who believe the standard model of Allied history, on the other hand, was found rocky soil, choked with weeds.
If it wasn't clear, I wasn't condemning Petain, or offering support for those in France who did.
My sympathies are for the old French Right. I also think that even Paul Touvier, assuming he was a repentant soul (and I am willing to assume that) deserved a requiem Mass - even if I may have my doubts about the motivations of some in the Nice SSPX community.
QuoteIt seems highly unlikely that the spirit of French reactionary resistance should have followed an Englishman across the Channel. What I hear from friends in France is directly contrary to this assertion.
And I did not mean to suggest that the Resistance in France followed Williamson out, though I can see how it might seem that I did. Rather, the SSPX Resistance in France is a distinct milieu, with its own leadership - they were never attached to the Mad Englishman, who, so far as I can tell, never had a following in France (only England, North America, and Argentina). They simply drifted out of the Society around the same time, under their own steam.
QuoteOh yes, best that we become just like everyone else, and nothing at all like our founder.
Right. Because ONLY Williamson is the key to staying just like Lefebvre. Who, as we all know, was fond of regular denunciations of "The Sound of Music" and girls going to college.
QuoteArchbishop Lefebvre offered Mass at the grave of Marshall Petain every year up to his death. So the incident with Paul Touvier was not a one time thing. It was part of his nature. The part that made him stand up for the Catholic Faith when all the world was against him.
In his own book, "The Little Story of My Long Life," Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he supported the French reactionary movement always, and that he held an undying anger against Pope Pius XI, amongst others, on that account. If he was a great man, then this is what made him great, and it cannot be brushed away in such a cavalier fashion.
For what it's worth, I think Pius XI's condemnation of Action Francais (though not of Mauras's works, which had already been investigated in 1914-15, and found wanting) was a mistake, however well intended (and badly misinformed); but I also don't think Paul Touvier deserves to be conflated with Marshal Petain. Touvier was a Nazi collaborator and a war criminal who killed innocent civilians. Marshal Petain was neither of these things. Vichy is one thing; the Third Reich is another. And Lefebvre was dead by the time of Touvier's death. We can't know what he would have done or advised in the case of Touvier.
QuoteSpeaking of a "pattern of behavior," a person who has only posted here a couple dozen times is posting unsubstantiated gossip, backbiting and detraction about a traditional Catholic bishop.
If you have a quote, state it. If you have a source, say his name. But please avoid this effeminate tittle-tattle regarding "what's whispered by seminarians."
Joseph Rizzo and Daniel Oppenheimer are both publicly on the record, and their comments are not hard to find. "Oppenheimer, I don't like your name. If you keep it up, there's a gas chamber waiting for you at the boathouse.'"
Seriously. Defending tradition against the modernists does not require embracing
this viciousness. Williamson is a deeply troubled man, and he had no business ever being ordained a bishop.
And if there's a requirement for a minimum number of posts here to be able to make certain comments, then a moderator needs to inform me, or ban me right now. If you are NOT a moderator, sir, you have no business making threats like this. At all.
QuoteWhat happened, or did not happen, in Nice over 30 years ago is what gives the Society its integrity and its authenticity. If it is now to turn its back on its origins and make peace with the world, then the Society will become just one more group of men playing dress-up.
Why are we defending the Touvier funeral Mass? Seriously, why? What is our motivation? I'm asking a sincere question.
If the idea is that a repentant Catholic, repentant for even the most horrible crimes, has a right to a Mass at his death, no matter how unpopular that might be with the powers of the world - I have no problem with that, and I'm fairly confident most here feel the same way.
If the idea is that we're defending something *else* about Touvier and what he stood for, and that something more in any way implicates the Holocaust or the Third Reich, then we have a problem. The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
Quote from: John Lamb on July 07, 2018, 06:56:17 AM
Leo XIII and Pius XI were "liberalisers" in opening up to the modern world on the political field (and were other modern popes?), but this - excuse me - "Lefebvrite" spirit is even more doggedly opposed to the modern world than were the pre-conciliar popes! It's not so much that I would like Lefebvre & gang to abandon their political views; it's just that, while I think they're welcome to them as private gentlemen, I don't think they're so entitled to them as priests / pastors of Christ's Church. By that I mean that they shouldn't try to confine Catholicism to one particular culture / civilisation, and let political differences play too great a part in the preaching of the gospel. It must play a part, but just not an essential one.
I think this is a valuable point.
While I myself am a determined illiberal - reactionary in some ways myself - I do think there is a danger in attaching the true faith and the fight to defend it too closely to any particular political moment or movement. I don't think Archbp. Lefebvre was wrong to find something admirable in the character of Marshal Petain, a widely misunderstood man placed in an extraordinarily difficult position thanks to the enormous failures of the leadership of the Third Republic in its final years; but there's also nothing in Church teaching, pre-1958, which
requires a traditional Catholic, let alone a traditional French Catholic, to support Petain or Vichy per se; or even to support, say, a Bourbon legitimist restoration.
Likewise, it is a noble and even necessary thing to publicly oppose grave evils which the present French Republic might perpetrate; but it's far less evident that the witness of Catholic tradition in France requires embracing instead previous particular regimes or persons (however admirable some might be in certain respects, canonized saints like St. Louis notwithstanding), and that doing so even risks distracting from the true mission of the Church at this hour. And that mission is to save souls by bringing them to the true faith.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on July 06, 2018, 08:44:23 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
The Society in its first years in France inevitably found much of its fertile ground in the remnants of the old French Right, which was still profoundly shaped by its battle against the legacy of the Revolution, the latest chapter of which was Vichy and the postwar reaction against Vichy.
So in other words, when the traditional Catholic movement was in its infancy, the "good soil that returned fruit many-fold" was found among the reactionary French who admired Marshall Petain and despised Leon Blum. Among modern liberals who believe the standard model of Allied history, on the other hand, was found rocky soil, choked with weeds.
If it wasn't clear, I wasn't condemning Petain, or offering support for those in France who did.
My sympathies are for the old French Right. I also think that even Paul Touvier, assuming he was a repentant soul (and I am willing to assume that) deserved a requiem Mass - even if I may have my doubts about the motivations of some in the Nice SSPX community.
Okay. Good.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
QuoteIt seems highly unlikely that the spirit of French reactionary resistance should have followed an Englishman across the Channel. What I hear from friends in France is directly contrary to this assertion.
And I did not mean to suggest that the Resistance in France followed Williamson out, though I can see how it might seem that I did. Rather, the SSPX Resistance in France is a distinct milieu, with its own leadership - they were never attached to the Mad Englishman, who, so far as I can tell, never had a following in France (only England, North America, and Argentina). They simply drifted out of the Society around the same time, under their own steam.
Okay, I'm glad you clarified. However:
1. The spirit of the resistance is still very strong in France.
2. There is mutual support between them and Bishop Williamson.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Right. Because ONLY Williamson is the key to staying just like Lefebvre. Who, as we all know, was fond of regular denunciations of "The Sound of Music" and girls going to college.
Archbishop Lefebvre was convicted and fined in France for "stirring racial hatred." So it's incorrect to portray Bishop Williamson as out of the SSPX mainstream.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
QuoteArchbishop Lefebvre offered Mass at the grave of Marshall Petain every year up to his death. So the incident with Paul Touvier was not a one time thing. It was part of his nature. The part that made him stand up for the Catholic Faith when all the world was against him.
In his own book, "The Little Story of My Long Life," Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he supported the French reactionary movement always, and that he held an undying anger against Pope Pius XI, amongst others, on that account. If he was a great man, then this is what made him great, and it cannot be brushed away in such a cavalier fashion.
For what it's worth, I think Pius XI's condemnation of Action Francais was a serious mistake, however well intended (and badly misinformed); but I also don't think Paul Touvier deserves to be conflated with Marshal Petain. Touvier was a Nazi collaborator and a war criminal who killed innocent civilians. Marshal Petain was neither of these things. Vichy is one thing; the Third Reich is another. And Lefebvre was dead by the time of Touvier's death. We can't know what he would have done or advised in the case of Touvier.
You're trying to make distinctions without a difference. The SSPX supported Touvier both before the death of Archbishop Lefebvre and also long afterwards.
The "Touvier" case is just one incident symbolizing a continuous pattern throughout the early decades of the SSPX. If you want a convenient label, we can call it "fascist." Traditional Catholics supported and defended all the Catholic leaders who are given that label:
Eamon de Valera
António de Oliveira Salazar
Francisco Franco
Benito Mussolini
Marshal Petain
Maurice Duplessis
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Joseph Rizzo and Daniel Oppenheimer are both publicly on the record, and their comments are not hard to find. "Oppenheimer, I don't like your name. If you keep it up, there's a gas chamber waiting for you at the boathouse.'"
This is still gossip, and still unworthy.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Seriously. Defending tradition against the modernists does not require embracing this viciousness.
Sins of the tongue are vicious. Spreading rumors based on gossip is vicious. Defending the traditional cause against all attacks does require acknowledging that no human is perfect, and so there will always be good excuses to abandon our leaders as soon as trouble stirs if we want to find any reason to look the way while our comrades are being attacked. If one's loyalty is so weak that gossip of seminarians can break it, then the group with such members has no chance for survival.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Williamson is a deeply troubled man, and he had no business ever being ordained a bishop.
So now you are a psychiatrist? This is -- at best -- rash judgment.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
And if there's a requirement for a minimum number of posts here to be able to make certain comments, then a moderator needs to inform me, or ban me right now. If you are NOT a moderator, sir, you have no business making threats like this. At all.
It's called "humility." A quality that is necessary for a newby.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Why are we defending the Touvier funeral Mass? Seriously, why? What is our motivation? I'm asking a sincere question.
It's not just a funeral Mass. The SSPX gave him residence for many years at their priory, and then sat with him in court during his trial.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
If the idea is that we're defending something *else* about Touvier and what he stood for, and that something more in any way implicates the Holocaust or the Third Reich, then we have a problem. The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
The Allied side of the war was fighting for the preservation of the most evil government ever to exist: the communist Soviet Union. The means that they used in pursuit of that goal involved the fire-bombing of countless civilians. So to act as if you are morally superior by posturing as "anti-Nazi" does not win you any virtue-signaling points in my book.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
Could the Nazis have honestly done it any more effectively than the Churchmen themselves in these last 50 years?
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on July 06, 2018, 08:44:23 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 06, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
The Society in its first years in France inevitably found much of its fertile ground in the remnants of the old French Right, which was still profoundly shaped by its battle against the legacy of the Revolution, the latest chapter of which was Vichy and the postwar reaction against Vichy.
So in other words, when the traditional Catholic movement was in its infancy, the "good soil that returned fruit many-fold" was found among the reactionary French who admired Marshall Petain and despised Leon Blum. Among modern liberals who believe the standard model of Allied history, on the other hand, was found rocky soil, choked with weeds.
If it wasn't clear, I wasn't condemning Petain, or offering support for those in France who did.
My sympathies are for the old French Right. I also think that even Paul Touvier, assuming he was a repentant soul (and I am willing to assume that) deserved a requiem Mass - even if I may have my doubts about the motivations of some in the Nice SSPX community.
QuoteIt seems highly unlikely that the spirit of French reactionary resistance should have followed an Englishman across the Channel. What I hear from friends in France is directly contrary to this assertion.
And I did not mean to suggest that the Resistance in France followed Williamson out, though I can see how it might seem that I did. Rather, the SSPX Resistance in France is a distinct milieu, with its own leadership - they were never attached to the Mad Englishman, who, so far as I can tell, never had a following in France (only England, North America, and Argentina). They simply drifted out of the Society around the same time, under their own steam.
QuoteOh yes, best that we become just like everyone else, and nothing at all like our founder.
Right. Because ONLY Williamson is the key to staying just like Lefebvre. Who, as we all know, was fond of regular denunciations of "The Sound of Music" and girls going to college.
QuoteArchbishop Lefebvre offered Mass at the grave of Marshall Petain every year up to his death. So the incident with Paul Touvier was not a one time thing. It was part of his nature. The part that made him stand up for the Catholic Faith when all the world was against him.
In his own book, "The Little Story of My Long Life," Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he supported the French reactionary movement always, and that he held an undying anger against Pope Pius XI, amongst others, on that account. If he was a great man, then this is what made him great, and it cannot be brushed away in such a cavalier fashion.
For what it's worth, I think Pius XI's condemnation of Action Francais (though not of Mauras's works, which had already been investigated in 1914-15, and found wanting) was a mistake, however well intended (and badly misinformed); but I also don't think Paul Touvier deserves to be conflated with Marshal Petain. Touvier was a Nazi collaborator and a war criminal who killed innocent civilians. Marshal Petain was neither of these things. Vichy is one thing; the Third Reich is another. And Lefebvre was dead by the time of Touvier's death. We can't know what he would have done or advised in the case of Touvier.
QuoteSpeaking of a "pattern of behavior," a person who has only posted here a couple dozen times is posting unsubstantiated gossip, backbiting and detraction about a traditional Catholic bishop.
If you have a quote, state it. If you have a source, say his name. But please avoid this effeminate tittle-tattle regarding "what's whispered by seminarians."
Joseph Rizzo and Daniel Oppenheimer are both publicly on the record, and their comments are not hard to find. "Oppenheimer, I don't like your name. If you keep it up, there's a gas chamber waiting for you at the boathouse.'"
Seriously. Defending tradition against the modernists does not require embracing this viciousness. Williamson is a deeply troubled man, and he had no business ever being ordained a bishop.
And if there's a requirement for a minimum number of posts here to be able to make certain comments, then a moderator needs to inform me, or ban me right now. If you are NOT a moderator, sir, you have no business making threats like this. At all.
QuoteWhat happened, or did not happen, in Nice over 30 years ago is what gives the Society its integrity and its authenticity. If it is now to turn its back on its origins and make peace with the world, then the Society will become just one more group of men playing dress-up.
Why are we defending the Touvier funeral Mass? Seriously, why? What is our motivation? I'm asking a sincere question.
If the idea is that a repentant Catholic, repentant for even the most horrible crimes, has a right to a Mass at his death, no matter how unpopular that might be with the powers of the world - I have no problem with that, and I'm fairly confident most here feel the same way.
If the idea is that we're defending something *else* about Touvier and what he stood for, and that something more in any way implicates the Holocaust or the Third Reich, then we have a problem. The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Quote from: St.Justin on April 13, 2018, 11:54:45 AM
Quote from: Larry on April 12, 2018, 05:12:43 PM
Quote from: lauermar on April 12, 2018, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 08, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on April 08, 2018, 04:14:14 PM
Holocaust "denial" is not a sin.
The one thing I notice is that anyone who questions the numbers or methods of killing the Jews is considered a Holocaust denier much like all white people are racist these days. I am not defending Bishop Williamson but I am not aware that he ever denied the Holocaust.
Then please be informed, so that you don't mislead others. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html
So what? Is questioning some details of an historic event a mortal sin? What does this even have to do with the Catholic Faith?
It has to do with a Catholic Bishop being slammed for no good reason.
I think that should be a Catholic Bishop getting himself slammed for no good reason.
It's quite funny to watch how easily a people can be duped. Bp. Williamson has very little support in England. Case in point, when he appealed for the 400K for his new pad in Kent less than 1% came from his U.K. followers. The bulk came from the US.
Ah yes, a bit of eccentricity, a British accent, and an American following already overdosed on Downtown Abbey and voila! Have you ever asked yourself why he commands such a poor following in English speaking (as opposed to American speaking) countries?
True, he's a brilliant orator. You could listen to softy spoken Bp. de Galaretta who gets all Thomistic and bores, or the dulcet tones of the practical Bp. Fellay, but no, no one entertains better than Bp. Williamson, even though he talks complete crap at times. Well, they say play to you strengths and he certainly does when he speak.
The reality is: he's a theological lightweight who makes up for his deficiencies in conspiracy theories and the like. Neither has he the aptitude of anything remotely approaching that of a Canon Lawyer. He's just a danger to the Faith as a full blooded N.O. Prelate.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on July 07, 2018, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
Could the Nazis have honestly done it any more effectively than the Churchmen themselves in these last 50 years?
Sadly, it's a fair question to ask.
In answer to the OP, which deserves a more detailed explanation, but District Superiors are given a great deal of autonomy especially in the beginning, and at that time 24hr news and the internet was still in its infancy, but yes maybe the Society were naive at the time. But I'll quote from the letter of Fr. Pfluger, which Williamson himself released thinking it would garner him support and sympathy, which admits some lapses:
Your scorn of women, your hatred of Jews, your lack of measure were always there, only we paid no attention. We were too busy defending the Faith, rescuing the Mass, battling with modernists in the Church, to pick up on these repulsive aspects of your behavior. You were the English gentleman, eccentric for sure, but cultured, unconventional, charming. Of course the doubts grew as time went on. How often you tripped up and let yourself be influenced by strange people and ideas (I think for instance of Fr. Urrutigoity, or your notion of the Tridentine seminary being "out-of-date"). But we pushed these doubts to one side. We rather felt than consciously knew that something was not quite right. Only in 2009 did we begin to think things over and check them out. At which point we realized how deep the problem ran – a veritable abyss ! Not to say that we were in no way responsible. A few months ago, a District Superior said to me who is not much younger than yourself, "The crazy ideas of Bishop Williamson were familiar to us, and we knew all about them."
Quote from: matt on July 07, 2018, 04:52:03 PM
It's quite funny to watch how easily a people can be duped. Bp. Williamson has very little support in England. Case in point, when he appealed for the 400K for his new pad in Kent less than 1% came from his U.K. followers. The bulk came from the US.
Ah yes, a bit of eccentricity, a British accent, and an American following already overdosed on Downtown Abbey and voila! Have you ever asked yourself why he commands such a poor following in English speaking (as opposed to American speaking) countries?
True, he's a brilliant orator. You could listen to softy spoken Bp. de Galaretta who gets all Thomistic and bores, or the dulcet tones of the practical Bp. Fellay, but no, no one entertains better than Bp. Williamson, even though he talks complete crap at times. Well, they say play to you strengths and he certainly does when he speak.
The reality is: he's a theological lightweight who makes up for his deficiencies in conspiracy theories and the like. Neither has he the aptitude of anything remotely approaching that of a Canon Lawyer. He's just a danger to the Faith as a full blooded N.O. Prelate.
I did criticize Archbp. Lefebvre for so badly misjudging Williamson, but I should be fair: batting .750 in your episcopal choices isn't actually all that bad. (The language barrier may have been partly to blame.)
It's certainly a better batting average than any conciliar pope. Heck - given what we know now, it's better than Pius XII managed, too.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 05:22:58 PM
Quote from: matt on July 07, 2018, 04:52:03 PM
It's quite funny to watch how easily a people can be duped. Bp. Williamson has very little support in England. Case in point, when he appealed for the 400K for his new pad in Kent less than 1% came from his U.K. followers. The bulk came from the US.
Ah yes, a bit of eccentricity, a British accent, and an American following already overdosed on Downtown Abbey and voila! Have you ever asked yourself why he commands such a poor following in English speaking (as opposed to American speaking) countries?
True, he's a brilliant orator. You could listen to softy spoken Bp. de Galaretta who gets all Thomistic and bores, or the dulcet tones of the practical Bp. Fellay, but no, no one entertains better than Bp. Williamson, even though he talks complete crap at times. Well, they say play to you strengths and he certainly does when he speak.
The reality is: he's a theological lightweight who makes up for his deficiencies in conspiracy theories and the like. Neither has he the aptitude of anything remotely approaching that of a Canon Lawyer. He's just a danger to the Faith as a full blooded N.O. Prelate.
I did criticize Archbp. Lefebvre for so badly misjudging Williamson, but I should be fair: batting .750 in your episcopal choices isn't actually all that bad. (The language barrier may have been partly to blame.)
It's certainly a better batting average than any conciliar pope. Heck - given what we know now, it's better than Pius XII managed, too.
Well, as I understand it, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, the Archbishop sent a list of candidates to Rome. Rome rejected the list - for whatever reason - and the Archbishop sent a second list. Realising that Rome would not play ball, the Archbishop went ahead with consecrations of all the nominees on this second list.
So, it's .75 of his second eleven, which makes an even better batting average!
Quote from: Maximilian on July 07, 2018, 03:33:17 PM
Okay. Good.
[snip]
1.
Archbishop Lefebvre was convicted and fined in France for "stirring racial hatred." So it's incorrect to portray Bishop Williamson as out of the SSPX mainstream. I hold no position whatsoever in the FSSPX, so it's not necessary for
me to say that +Williamson is out of the SSPX mainstream. It is the
SSPX itself which has made this conclusion by expelling him.
Is the number of clergy, chapels, and laity who followed him out of the Society anything further to judge by? Because if it is, his following appears to be considerably smaller than some thought. Doubtless you can find . . . the odd Williamsonite here and there in official Society chapels or Mass locations as they might lack any other option for their Mass obligation, but...perhaps it's best I let Society regulars here speak to that question. Because some already have, if I'm not mistaken.
2.
The SSPX supported Touvier both before the death of Archbishop Lefebvre and also long afterwards. And yet this is not quite so clear, not least because we first have to determine what is meant by "support." Econe at the time said they had no "link" to Touvier, and that the permission for him to stay at the chapel in Nice was ""an act of charity to a homeless man." Now, no doubt one or more clergy and laity there had sympathy for Touvier that went beyond such minimal Christian charity for a stranger; but it might be instructive that the Society felt it necessary to publicly deny any more serious connection or support for Touvier.
It may or may not also be worth noting that the FSSPX priest who celebrated the Mass, Fr. Laguérie, has condemned Bishop Williamson publicly over his comments on the Holocaust.
3. Regarding traditionalist support for (your term)
fascist regimes. Obviously there's considerable and well known history on this point, though I'm unclear if you're being merely descriptive or prescriptive here. Many traditional Catholics in those days *did* support those regimes; some out of genuine enthusiasm, some because the alternative(s) were unthinkable. After all, it wasn't like there were any Habsburg governments left around to support. If I had been a Catholic Spaniard in 1936, there really wouldn't be much to think about – fight for the Nationalists, or let the thugs who butchered the Martyrs of Turon come to power. But again, my point with the early SSPX was descriptive, not an indictment; French history was complex and not easily understood by outsiders; whatever one thinks of Vichy or Petain or the Le Pens, for many conservative Catholic Frenchmen, what was underway was an extension of a struggle that had been underwaysince 1789. It's not a surprise that many would be drawn to the FSSPX as soon as it appeared on the scene.
4. I'm not going to retreat on the allegations regarding +Williamson's toxic and comments and behavior toward certain seminarians and, well, women. As Greg says above, the testimonies on this point are widespread, from reputable sources, if his Winona letters were not bad enough. If this is gossip, then a wide array of people in the Society stand guilty of it.
4.
The Allied side of the war was fighting for the preservation of the most evil government ever to exist: the communist Soviet Union. I have no brief for the USSR, and I find its inclusion in the WW2 United Nations deeply regrettable. But for all that (and all those dubious bits in the Atlantic Charter), I'm not sure it's fair to describe the American and British war efforts as directed to the "preservation" of the Soviet Union. The war effort was directed to the destruction of Nazi Germany. "If Hitler invaded hell," Churchill famously said, "I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." It's easy to be scandalized by that, but it also ought to be illustrative of the monomania that Churchill (and Roosevelt) had regarding the Nazi regime.
And I don't virtue signal. I think I've got a pretty fair bead on the crowd here by now. What would it gain me?
5. Finally: My "newbie" status. I don't know what qualifies for that. Nothing in the way of expectations in this vein is provided on the forum. For the record, I registered here two years ago (though I have lurked for 5 years or so), and have been commenting sporadically since that time. For whatever it's worth.
Quote from: matt on July 07, 2018, 06:24:58 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 05:22:58 PM
Quote from: matt on July 07, 2018, 04:52:03 PM
It's quite funny to watch how easily a people can be duped. Bp. Williamson has very little support in England. Case in point, when he appealed for the 400K for his new pad in Kent less than 1% came from his U.K. followers. The bulk came from the US.
Ah yes, a bit of eccentricity, a British accent, and an American following already overdosed on Downtown Abbey and voila! Have you ever asked yourself why he commands such a poor following in English speaking (as opposed to American speaking) countries?
True, he's a brilliant orator. You could listen to softy spoken Bp. de Galaretta who gets all Thomistic and bores, or the dulcet tones of the practical Bp. Fellay, but no, no one entertains better than Bp. Williamson, even though he talks complete crap at times. Well, they say play to you strengths and he certainly does when he speak.
The reality is: he's a theological lightweight who makes up for his deficiencies in conspiracy theories and the like. Neither has he the aptitude of anything remotely approaching that of a Canon Lawyer. He's just a danger to the Faith as a full blooded N.O. Prelate.
I did criticize Archbp. Lefebvre for so badly misjudging Williamson, but I should be fair: batting .750 in your episcopal choices isn't actually all that bad. (The language barrier may have been partly to blame.)
It's certainly a better batting average than any conciliar pope. Heck - given what we know now, it's better than Pius XII managed, too.
Well, as I understand it, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, the Archbishop sent a list of candidates to Rome. Rome rejected the list - for whatever reason - and the Archbishop sent a second list. Realising that Rome would not play ball, the Archbishop went ahead with consecrations of all the nominees on this second list.
So, it's .75 of his second eleven, which makes an even better batting average!
LOL
Part of the problem seems to have been Lefebvre's scheme for the FSSPX's leadership after his death. He seems to have had an "A Team" of priests he wanted to see in formal leadership positions - men like Schmidberger, Aulagnier, etc. (and of course Schmidberger duly became Superior General even before his death) - and he had a "B Team" which he would employ as bishops dedicated solely to providing necessary sacraments. They would not have ordinary jurisdiction (which has always been true), would not exercise formal leadership per se, so he may have felt less pressure on this point. It was unexpected that a bishop would come to be Superior General, and hold the position for so long, eventually blurring the line (arguably), at least de facto, between administrative leadership and episcopal orders in the Society.
The easy assumption, made by many early on, is that since Wojtylian Rome rejected the list, they *must* all be good men, blocked simply because Rome did not really want to give Econe a bishop. But even if the latter motivation was at work (and I think it was, for at least some in JPII's inner circle, if indeed not the Pope himself), it doesn't mean that there might not have been genuine reasons to object to one of them.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
it's not necessary for me to say that +Williamson is out of the SSPX mainstream. It is the SSPX itself which has made this conclusion by expelling him.
We're talking apples and oranges here. Of course everyone knows the SSPX expelled Bishop Williamson in 2012. The question being debated is which side of the debate in 2012 is representative of the original SSPX for its first 30 years?
People can and have made arguments on both sides of that question. It is disingenuous, however, to pretend that the events of 2012 determine what was the mainstream of the SSPX in 1980, for example.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
Is the number of clergy, chapels, and laity who followed him out of the Society anything further to judge by? Because if it is, his following appears to be considerably smaller than some thought.
I'm not sure who these "some" are, but the number was considerably larger than I anticipated. To mention one example with which I am familiar, Fr. Ringrose's chapel in VA near DC , St. Athanasius, is a prominent location with a large congregation and a history going back to the beginning of the traditional Catholic movement. They followed Bishop Williamson out of the SSPX. So its not just a few nutters living in their parents' basement.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
3. Regarding traditionalist support for (your term) fascist regimes. Obviously there's considerable and well known history on this point, though I'm unclear if you're being merely descriptive or prescriptive here. Many traditional Catholics in those days *did* support those regimes; some out of genuine enthusiasm, some because the alternative(s) were unthinkable.
As far as history goes, I was being merely descriptive. As far as the present day, however, I do believe that if we turn our backs on the beliefs of the forefathers who founded the movement, that will be the death knell both on a personal basis for our souls, and on the possibility of success for the movement.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
After all, it wasn't like there were any Habsburg governments left around to support.
The National Front in France was almost entirely a traditional Catholic movement. "Fascist" and "anti-semitic" were some of the kinder terms used to describe the party. One either had the courage to support the FN no matter how unpopular it was, or else one succumbed to the tide.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
for many conservative Catholic Frenchmen, what was underway was an extension of a struggle that had been underwaysince 1789. It's not a surprise that many would be drawn to the FSSPX as soon as it appeared on the scene.
Right. And they were correct.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
If this is gossip, then a wide array of people in the Society stand guilty of it.
True. And a very weak justification for one's own behavior.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
I'm not sure it's fair to describe the American and British war efforts as directed to the "preservation" of the Soviet Union. The war effort was directed to the destruction of Nazi Germany.
Only after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He was safe as long as he remained allied with the Soviet Union.
It's a mistake to think of the Soviet Union as a "member" of the Allies. It was all about the Soviet Union, only about the Soviet Union.
One can judge from the Yalta Conference that decided the future of the post-war world, which one was the tail and which one was the dog. Stalin was the one calling the shots.
Some historians pretend that they are "shocked, shocked" by this "unforeseen" outcome. But the reality was always that the war was being fought on behalf of the interests of the Soviet Union, and the ultimate outcome which witnessed all of Eastern Europe fall under the Iron Curtain was entirely foreseeable. Even if not everyone could see it at the time, with the benefit of hindsight it should be evident to everyone today.
Williamson must be doing something right or be on the verge of doing something really right to warrant these old style attacks.
I looked at this thread and thought I was reading the "Envoy Magazine" or "Peter's Net" or "Catholic Answers" or the "Lidless Eye Inquisition" forums and blogs from about 2003.
It's interesting how the same smears and arrogant malice come back in the same way and how they carry over to other areas. While reading I noticed the similarities. I was also recently discussing the Sharyl Attkison book "The Smear" with some people who've read it.
Just as there are "Never Trumpers" there are "Never Williamsoners" who engage in the same dishonest tactics in order to separate and isolate their targets. (The Alinsky tactic)
The lie that Williamson hates Jews is akin to calling Trump a "racist." Trump can make a 100% true statement about a region a phenomenon or a trend and it's conflated by deliberate ignorance into a straw man used to attack him.
Williamson points out the 100% truth that modern Judaism is opposed to Catholicism. He also points that out about Protestantism, but Protestants don't claim to be a race as well as a unified religion. He also points that out about Freemasonry, Communism and any other number of philosophies and cults that actually are undeniably opposed to Catholicism. When he speaks the religion of modern Judaism, he's accused of race hatred. But as with Trump, when you dig down, you see the context and the undeniable facts of what he's really addressing and not the straw man argument being presented.
Williamson if anything gives too much benefit to Jews as a race and their call to become Catholic. "They are very good Catholics when they truly convert and they are coming home to the Church in a way that gentile converts can never understand." It's a nice sentiment, when he says, "..it's in their blood" but I take it, he means that in the sense of cultural remnants and not actually a genetic disposition.
Years ago, in debates I used to attribute quotes concerning Jews to Williamson that were really the quotes of saints like Chrysostom and people would bring all sorts of hell down condemning Williamson. Then I would disclose the real source and watch them squirm and try to rationalize their way out of the corner they'd painted themselves into.
(Incidentally, I picked up that idea from the music students of Franz Liszt. A campaign of smears and constant trashing had been launched against him for decades by the Brahms/Schumann advocates in elite music society. Liszt was treated with total contempt to the point where he told his students not to play his compositions for fear they would damage their careers. The students instead did things like performing some of his songs and labeling them as posthumous Schubert and receiving great ovations. Only afterwards would they reveal that they were compositions of Liszt's. )
To make a dishonest statement bringing up the "Sound of Music" while ignoring the substance of Williamson's argument is either an effort at smearing out of pure malice or it's a colossal episode of ignorance. It's the Trump equivalent of the "Fake news" like the claim that Trump was going to pay for people's legal fees if they attacked protestors at his rallies back doing the campaign.
Trump of course, has a method of firing back by turning it around on his opponents. Using that method in defense of Williamson, it can be said if you defend the Sound of Music while pretending you understand Williamson's point about it, you ipso facto must be defending pornography.
If you disagree with Williamson about the state of modern Universities and the effect on the young, and you think girls should be going to College, you must advocate for every perverse teaching, liberalization and sexual experimentation as well as any debauched lifestyle.
The difference between Trump and Williamson is Trump and the media fight on the same ground. Williamson (rightly so) refuses to confront the media and the enemies of the Church on their ground and instead sticks to his own ground.
The funny thing is, Williamson was treated like garbage years ago for holding opinion after opinion concerning society and the trajectory it was going in. He was lampooned when he warned about the "blurring of genders" and the people who are up in arms about it today are the people that called Williamson a "loon" back in the day. That's like calling your doctor a "quack" because he told you, "...a steady diet of that processed, unhealthy food is going to make you sick and run you down, you may eventually have a cardiac event and die." Nowadays, I have been saying to relatives, that it's amazing how Williamson was trashed for stating that the nonsense we are facing today is exactly what he warned about. Now, you have MGTOW and being "red-pilled" and "blue-pilled" and "being woke" along with every other element in society either desperately trying to regain its moorings or more ferociously trying to tear society down.
It wasn't too long ago that Williamson quoted a section of Romano Amerio's Iota Unum in which Amerio predicted that eventually the forces put into play will make communication impossible between the members of the larger society because the radicals would become so unhinged. Amerio saw it coming, but since nobody reads him, they'll attack Williamson just like they attacked him for quoting St. Thomas, or John Henry Newman or the Red Cross from the end of WWII.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 07, 2018, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
it's not necessary for me to say that +Williamson is out of the SSPX mainstream. It is the SSPX itself which has made this conclusion by expelling him.
We're talking apples and oranges here. Of course everyone knows the SSPX expelled Bishop Williamson in 2012. The question being debated is which side of the debate in 2012 is representative of the original SSPX for its first 30 years?
People can and have made arguments on both sides of that question. It is disingenuous, however, to pretend that the events of 2012 determine what was the mainstream of the SSPX in 1980, for example.
It's not an unfair point to make. I'm just not sure that 2012 has *no* value in answering the question. Society clergy and laity had the chance to go with Williamson, or register their discontent to Fellay more forcefully; yet relatively few did. Quite a fair number of whom, at any rate, had memories of Society as it had been ca. 1970-2000 or even 1970-88.
But the more substantive concern I would register is that the Society, such as it was, was considerably more inchoate in those early years than we tend to appreciate today. It was diverse not only from country to country (you can still see a marked difference between the SSPX in France and Germany today, for that matter), but also by milieu - quite a few affiliated clergy were independent diocesan priests, who had a range of views on the Council and the post-conciliar Church, and even, come to that, which liturgical books to use. And if we even just restrict the analysis to ++Lefebvre, we find that even he was a moving target (which is not a criticism, just an observation). Just last month we saw Benelli's transcript of the Paul VI meeting in 1976, wherein the archbishop's demands are quite modest: "I have a request for you. Would it not be possible to order bishops to grant in churches a chapel where people can come pray as before the Council? Today, everyone is allowed everything; why not allow us something, too?" This is some considerable distance from the "No deals with Modernist Rome" stance which Williamson avows today, or for that matter, the harder line ++Lefebvre took in his final years. The situation of the Church has changed, of course, but as such it still complicates the answer to the question of who is more representative of the original SSPX for its first 30 years.
Everyone wants to claim the mantel of Lefebvre. Even the priories of the Institut du Bon Pasteur still have his portraits up by the front doors! I am not sure *any* milieu perfectly captures it. I *am* struck by the fact that so few of the surviving early colleagues of the archbishop - wherever they might be now - are in the Williamson camp, if not indeed hostile to it. People can reconcile that with a narrative that most have abandoned the true cause, and obviously Williamsonites do exactly this; but it makes it harder to deny the plausibility that there's another, very different narrative which can be offered.
P.S. I'm familiar with St. Athanasius in McLean, by the way, since I live about 40 minutes from there - some fine people there, including Fr. Ringrose. It was always an independent chapel, rather than "formally" Society, and Fr Ringrose owns the property, at last check; I sense that Fr Ringrose has had....well, what may well be sedeprivationist views for a long time, as he omits the papal name from the Canon. So I was not surprised when they opted to have their sacraments from the Williamson line when the break came.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
5. Finally: My "newbie" status. I don't know what qualifies for that. Nothing in the way of expectations in this vein is provided on the forum. For the record, I registered here two years ago (though I have lurked for 5 years or so), and have been commenting sporadically since that time. For whatever it's worth.
Welcome! Honored to have you here.
We assist at the SSPX DC Mission in the catacombs. (Everly Funeral)
Quote from: John Lamb on July 07, 2018, 06:56:17 AM
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 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.
Maxmilian wants the SSPX to keep a fighting spirit and not devolve into "men playing dress-up", but the problem is that the reactionary battle strategy has turned out to be a failure, because the modern world has responded: "You don't want us? We don't want you either." It's not been a very fruitful conversation or evangelical effort. What Traditional Catholicism really needs is a man to rally behind - like Abp. Lefebvre - but one whose also been graced by God with the power to preach to the modern world and convict its conscience without condemning it, leading it to repentance without making it lose heart. Just condemning it as evil is not the Christian spirit. There has to be a middle-ground between "razing the bastions" and "building them higher". Individual priests here and there in their parishes may be doing alright preaching to their flock, but the Church has yet to find its great modern preacher who will teach it how to preach to the modern world, to give all of our priests the weapon to truly fight and conquer it for Christ. The Modernists have seemingly anointed JPII as that great modern preacher, but we know better.
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
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. 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).
So, even if we abandon "reactionary battle strategy", our chances of converting this culture and society to the Gospel are, on human level, dismal (it would take a miraculous mass conversion like that in Mexico). At the same time, by abandoning reactionary strategy we risk dissolving Traditional Catholicism in acidic environment of post-Christian world and slowly liberalizing it, turning it into Novus Ordo "High Church" with Latin Mass. Therefore, I think that maintaining a "reactionary battle strategy" is the best thing we can do for now.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 07, 2018, 07:52:05 PM
Only after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He was safe as long as he remained allied with the Soviet Union.
What do you mean?
England and France had already declared war on Germany the very minute the Germans invaded Poland in September 1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the Germans and the Soviets was only broken in June 1941 when Operation Barbarossa kicked in.
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 07:05:59 AM
3. Anti-Semitism ran rampant at the SSPX priory in Nice. Now, I'm no fan of Rabbinical Judaism. I despise any cult that rejects Christ. However, I pray that the Jews and others accept Christ as Messiah one day. There is never any excuse for racial hatred, ever! It isn't Catholic.
You're assuming the hatred is based on race. It could very well be just based on religion and culture.
But let me tell you that if you're that shocked at the SSPX priory in Nice, you obviously haven't read much about Christian history. Jews have been a sorry lot under Christian rulers down the ages.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on July 07, 2018, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
Could the Nazis have honestly done it any more effectively than the Churchmen themselves in these last 50 years?
So many Polish priests were murdered by the Germans, yet the Mass was not suppressed. V2 orthopraxis has indeed been a bigger enemy to Catholicism than Nazism and Stalinism.
Quote from: Prayerful on July 12, 2018, 11:14:04 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on July 07, 2018, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
Could the Nazis have honestly done it any more effectively than the Churchmen themselves in these last 50 years?
So many Polish priests were murdered by the Germans, yet the Mass was not suppressed. V2 orthopraxis has indeed been a bigger enemy to Catholicism than Nazism and Stalinism.
Here we see how internal enemies can be enormously devastating to the faith - precisely because the wolves are disguised as shepherds. We see the disastrous results all around us, every day.
But one important thing about the Nazi oppression: They were interrupted in their work by a few million pugnacious Allied and Russian soldiers. Had the Reich been able to consolidate its control over Poland and other regions it ruled directly...
It is instructive to consider the fate of Tudor and Stuart England. An early modern European state, it lacked the technology and organizational methods of modern dictatorships. Yet it was potent enough to effectively exterminate the faith from English society within three generations (mostly within the reign of Elizabeth). A small recusant rump, amounting to about 5% or so of the population (a little higher in the north, lower in the home counties) survived, adrift in a vast sea of ferociously hostile Protestants; but sacraments could only be had sporadically from foreign-based priests, under high risk conditions. For all intents and purposes, Catholicism ceased to exist in England by the end of James I's reign. This does not fill me with confidence about the prospects of the Church under a Hitler with the leisure of a good two solid decades to do the sort of repression he discusses in his Table Talk transcripts.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 12, 2018, 05:48:47 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on July 07, 2018, 07:52:05 PM
Only after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He was safe as long as he remained allied with the Soviet Union.
England and France had already declared war on Germany the very minute the Germans invaded Poland in September 1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the Germans and the Soviets was only broken in June 1941 when Operation Barbarossa kicked in.
Yes, that's what is know as the "Phoney War." Also known as the "sitzkrieg," or in French, the "drole de guerre" or "joke war."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
No offensive actions were launched against Germany by the Allies as long as they were in a treaty with the Soviet Union.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 13, 2018, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 12, 2018, 05:48:47 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on July 07, 2018, 07:52:05 PM
Only after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He was safe as long as he remained allied with the Soviet Union.
England and France had already declared war on Germany the very minute the Germans invaded Poland in September 1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the Germans and the Soviets was only broken in June 1941 when Operation Barbarossa kicked in.
Yes, that's what is know as the "Phoney War." Also known as the "sitzkrieg," or in French, the "drole de guerre" or "joke war."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
No offensive actions were launched against Germany by the Allies as long as they were in a treaty with the Soviet Union.
This period ended a year before Germany invaded the USSR.
I don't think that theory really holds water, Maximilian.
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 12, 2018, 07:06:27 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on July 12, 2018, 11:14:04 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on July 07, 2018, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Malcolm on July 07, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
The Nazi regime was one of the worst enemies the Church has ever faced, and had it won the war, it would have exterminated the faith from Europe. Rejection of the Revolution and its foul fruits does not require embracing that.
Could the Nazis have honestly done it any more effectively than the Churchmen themselves in these last 50 years?
So many Polish priests were murdered by the Germans, yet the Mass was not suppressed. V2 orthopraxis has indeed been a bigger enemy to Catholicism than Nazism and Stalinism.
Here we see how internal enemies can be enormously devastating to the faith - precisely because the wolves are disguised as shepherds. We see the disastrous results all around us, every day.
But one important thing about the Nazi oppression: They were interrupted in their work by a few million pugnacious Allied and Russian soldiers. Had the Reich been able to consolidate its control over Poland and other regions it ruled directly...
It is instructive to consider the fate of Tudor and Stuart England. An early modern European state, it lacked the technology and organizational methods of modern dictatorships. Yet it was potent enough to effectively exterminate the faith from English society within three generations (mostly within the reign of Elizabeth). A small recusant rump, amounting to about 5% or so of the population (a little higher in the north, lower in the home counties) survived, adrift in a vast sea of ferociously hostile Protestants; but sacraments could only be had sporadically from foreign-based priests, under high risk conditions. For all intents and purposes, Catholicism ceased to exist in England by the end of James I's reign. This does not fill me with confidence about the prospects of the Church under a Hitler with the leisure of a good two solid decades to do the sort of repression he discusses in his Table Talk transcripts.
Charles I was married to a Catholic who had a chapel in London and he largely avoided identifying as Protestant, an Anglican who would consider himself Catholic in the sense of holding to an order of bishops and a set of theological positions which blur or even reject certain Protestant errors. Off topic a little: the only Irish Anglican church dedicated to the King, Hollymount, Co. Mayo, was deconsecrated in 1959, and the chapel of the Royal Hospital Kilmainham is just a museum piece. My point is that between schismatics (those who were Catholic in attitude but attended Protestant services to avoid fines), Anglicans who did not strictly identify as Protestant and a remnant of Catholics, there was surely more than 5%.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 12, 2018, 05:53:09 AM
Quote from: lauermar on April 08, 2018, 07:05:59 AM
3. Anti-Semitism ran rampant at the SSPX priory in Nice. Now, I'm no fan of Rabbinical Judaism. I despise any cult that rejects Christ. However, I pray that the Jews and others accept Christ as Messiah one day. There is never any excuse for racial hatred, ever! It isn't Catholic.
You're assuming the hatred is based on race. It could very well be just based on religion and culture.
But let me tell you that if you're that shocked at the SSPX priory in Nice, you obviously haven't read much about Christian history. Jews have been a sorry lot under Christian rulers down the ages.
And vice versa---ever since the death of Christ and the start of the early church, according to my book "Church History" by Fr. John Laux, M.A.,Tan Books. Never assume that somebody hasn't read church history.
Catholics aren't supposed to be hiding notorious war criminals from just punishment by authorities. We are expected to encourage a criminal to turn himself in. We are to model ourselves after Christ.
The Jews allied with the pagans to persecute early Christians in the years right after Christ's death, according to that book.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 12, 2018, 05:53:09 AM
But let me tell you that if you're that shocked at the SSPX priory in Nice, you obviously haven't read much about Christian history. Jews have been a sorry lot under Christian rulers down the ages.
At least that's what Christians thought, before the Islamic and sub-Saharan savages arrived.
Personally, I like the Jews.
Quote from: Greg on August 07, 2018, 01:59:47 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 12, 2018, 05:53:09 AM
But let me tell you that if you're that shocked at the SSPX priory in Nice, you obviously haven't read much about Christian history. Jews have been a sorry lot under Christian rulers down the ages.
At least that's what Christians thought, before the Islamic and sub-Saharan savages arrived.
Personally, I like the Jews.
Porn, abortion, homo marriage, fractional reserve banking, the opiod crisis, cultural marxism, etc. Oh, so civil, such progress! Quick, I have too much philosemitism on me. It is covering me like white phosphate on an innocent Palestinian child!
In 15th century Spain you wouldn't. They were on the verge of wrecking Christian Iberia. Viva Isabella!
Or in the Baltics when the Soviets arrived, rating out priests. Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, etc. What is not to love?
The Jews were blessed by God with intelligence and money to lead the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but sadly they did not follow the plan of God as He had willed. There are those among them who are influential and powerful today causing havoc to the Church and the world because of the weakness of good Catholics. One can blame the Jews, but Catholics are more at fault in allowing the chaos we see today. The Church will be restored someday, and the Jews will convert eventually though. We must not lose hope.
Quote from: Heinrich on August 07, 2018, 10:47:31 AM
In 15th century Spain you wouldn't. They were on the verge of wrecking Christian Iberia. Viva Isabella!
Catholic clergy have done a far better wrecking job in the 20th Century. And not just in Spain but
the entire world.
Not just raping children and sodomizing teenagers but
issuing instructions to cover it up for decades and move the abusers around.I can't credibly see how one can blame the Jews for that. Well, not without some wacko conspiracy theory for which there is no proof.
Thanks to raping and sodomizing children the Church has damaged itself for eons, and we are not even necessarily at the end of it yet. Given that the teen victims don't sum up the courage to complain until they are in the 40s who knows how many more scandals are yet to come out. We might have scandals coming out of the woodwork for another decade.
The Jews weren't directing the seminary intake for the last 100 years. Catholics were. Belgian, Irish and Australian alike.
Quote from: Greg on August 07, 2018, 02:16:22 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on August 07, 2018, 10:47:31 AM
In 15th century Spain you wouldn't. They were on the verge of wrecking Christian Iberia. Viva Isabella!
Catholic clergy have done a far better wrecking job in the 20th Century. And not just in Spain but the entire world.
Not just raping children and sodomizing teenagers but issuing instructions to cover it up for decades and move the abusers around.
I can't credibly see how one can blame the Jews for that. Well, not without some wacko conspiracy theory for which there is no proof.
Thanks to raping and sodomizing children the Church has damaged itself for eons, and we are not even necessarily at the end of it yet. Given that the teen victims don't sum up the courage to complain until they are in the 40s who knows how many more scandals are yet to come out. We might have scandals coming out of the woodwork for another decade.
The Jews weren't directing the seminary intake for the last 100 years. Catholics were. Belgian, Irish and Australian alike.
Not Jews, not Catholics. Homosexuals are to blame. They knew what they were when they entered the seminaries. They didn't go in to build up the Church nor save souls. They went in to tear apart and find victims. It's probably the greatest Trojan Horse attack in history.
Catholic homosexuals.
Jewish, Muslim and Buddist homosexuals were not applying for seminary places.
Also, the clerics who covered it up for decades and threatened politicans with the loss of the Catholic vote, to avoid exposure, where not all homos but they were all Catholics.
Quote from: Greg on April 08, 2018, 06:48:14 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: John Lamb on July 07, 2018, 06:56:17 AM
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.
QuoteBut 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:
Quote from: Arvinger on July 12, 2018, 03:24:57 AM
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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteSo, 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.
Quote from: lauermar on August 06, 2018, 06:33:19 PM
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.
QuoteIt 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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 19, 2018, 06:48:47 PM
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.
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on August 19, 2018, 09:55:54 PM
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").
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteHence, 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.
QuotePope 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.
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.
Quote from: John Lamb on August 20, 2018, 07:51:28 AM
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?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 20, 2018, 10:21:03 AM
This essentially says, the world lacks faith because it lacks faith.
It's more like the world lacks faith because we lack faith.
Quote
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.
Quote from: John Lamb on August 20, 2018, 10:18:38 AM
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.
QuoteThere 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.
QuoteGeocentrism was never part of the papal magisterium
False. The Holy Office is delegated Magisterial authority by the Pope.
Quoteteaching 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.
Quote...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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 20, 2018, 10:47:25 AM
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"?
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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 20, 2018, 10:47:25 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on August 20, 2018, 10:18:38 AM
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.
QuoteThere 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.
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.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on August 20, 2018, 03:43:16 PM
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.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 20, 2018, 04:22:49 PM
The NT calls the Church the "Pillar and Foundation of Truth."
And the Church is our pillar, inasmuch as it holds fast to God's word. The same way the Synagogue was.
God's word, though, is and always will be the definitive criterion of truth.
Check Irenaeus in his famous treatise
Against Heresies (3.1.1.) who unambiguously proclaims this empowering truth:
"We have learned from no others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures to be be the ground and pillar of our faith."Against a typical objection raised by those who would rather place their trust in men, rather than God, Irenaeus criticizes those who
"...accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition" (3.2.1). This shows clearly that he not only believed in the perspicuity of Scripture, but also the sufficiency of the literal hermeneutic, apart from tradition, to understand what the Scriptures are teaching. This is the exact same paradigm of the Old Testament.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 20, 2018, 04:22:49 PM
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.
The OT Church was a God given authority that commanded obedience of individuals, the same way the NT Church is. But it certainly wasn't infallible. Christ, quoting God's word time and again, corrected them many a time all throughout the Gospels. The NT Church is is no superior position to the OT Church, except in the content of its teaching. The claim to infallibility is spurious.
QuoteIf 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).
Okay so does a bishop have authority of himself to teach his flock? Is his teaching authoritative or not? Yes it is, unless you reject Church teaching. Ah but his authoritative teaching does not need "in and of itself be obeyed merely because it is Magisterium"/authoritative if it is false/dangerous. But how do you determine the bishops authoritative teaching is wrong? You go to a higher authority. Note that does not make you the authority. Otherwise, if a bishop teaches against scripture you couldn't contradict him unless the Pope did or something.
Hence, we see there is a type of authority which is true authority but can be wrong and may be contradicted by a higher authority. Furthermore, that higher authority can be appealed to by you without making yourself the authority.
QuoteYou 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.
Well, there are true authorities in the Church which are given the benefit of the doubt unless evidence to the contrary comes out. This is a fact. Now, if we are talking about an infallible authority then obviously it must be obeyed and you can't appeal to another authority, even an infallible one.
QuoteIf 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.
Okay, so I don't deny but distinguish the premise: I disagree with you what "Magisterium" is here. I think it's just infallible teaching at least with regards to doctrine. We can put laws to the side right now for simplicity. I think it's just the Extraordinary or Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Explain WHY the Pope must always teach when he teaches authoritatively as Magisterium as you term it. Why can't he teach with a lower authority? Don't say that if he taught with a lower authority then we could disagree with him and would be final authorities. That's stupid because he could just not teach at all (and we could appeal to Tradition without being final authorities against heretics) but the Church would still be an infallible means of salvation. In fact most people never heard of current papal teaching back in the day, except when there was an Ecumenical Council or something. Furthermore, though you don't deny it, the Church is a means of salvation for many other reasons besides papal teaching. So I would say not all papal teaching is an infallible means to salvation but only if it's infallible. Now, the idea of infallibly safe teaching is fine but I don't see a priori way all papal teaching must fall under that category for the CHURCH to be an infallible means of salvation. You will have a hard time proving it with Tradition and Scripture.
QuoteBut 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.
So do you admit your understanding of authority means that all authority is void except for current papal teaching? Yes, Augustine can be questioned. But not a consensus of Church Fathers etc (see Vatican I). Sometimes scripture is unclear which is why we need an authority to interpret it (Tradition and Church). However sometimes it is clear.
QuoteBut 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.
Hm geocentrism isn't a problem for me unless it's false and an infallible authority taught it. But... if that happened then it's a problem for you too since you believe in the same infallible modes of Church teaching and so on that I believe. You just happen to add the notion of infallibly safe stuff and so forth. I suppose older generations of Catholics would never think such high authorities could be wrong, but they thought that in a similar way in which no one thought the Great Western schism was possible. Aka just speculation.
EENS isn't much of a problem in my opinion. Again, only if an "infallible" authority got it wrong would it be a problem for me. But then it would be a problem for you as well.
I don't know much about the usury problem. Again though, the problem for me is only insurmountable if an infallible authority is wrong....which would be for you too.
I suppose you are also saying understanding of doctrine can change. Okay but see Vatican I:
QuoteWe, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
QuoteSo our understanding of EENS is different than it was before, contrary to the Church's assertion that Her understanding of dogmas cannot change.
Do you mean deepened or contradiction??? Some of what your saying almost makes it sound like you don't think infallible teaching is infallible. By Church do you mean the authority which is infallible or infallibly safe?
Okay so summarizing my counter argument:
1. There are true authorities in the Church which can contradict infallible authorities.
2. An inferior can contradict a superior on the basses of an higher authority without becoming his own authority.
3. There has been given no compelling argument given for why the Pope can never speak to the Church with an authority less than previous Pope's, Tradition, or Scripture authority. (Can't he speak like a bishop does in his diocese? But his just happens to be the whole world in a way)
4. There is evidence of contradiction between certain levels of Papal magisterium and infallible authority.
5. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that a Pope can speak authoritatively in such a way that higher authorities may be appealed to.
I suppose another issue to be discussed is that you seem to say the Magisterium as you term it is the sole final authority, while I would say Scripture, Tradition, and infallible Magisterium are all in a sense final authorities which never contradict each other but fill in where the other lacks support. None of them contradict each other. But I can in fact appeal to Scripture to contradict my bishop just like I could appeal to papal teaching or Tradition. And if I'm right on a Pope being able to speak in a way analogous to another bishop, then I could appeal to another final authority since he himself is not acting as a final authority.
QuoteThere'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.
At least try to understand why trans are skeptical of this kind of talk. To a certain extent I would agree with it. But through baptism haven't we all been brought into the faith? And in our youth and into adulthood if we kept the faith what kind of experience did we have? So, at the very least true faith won't yield mystical experiences necessarily if that's what your getting at. Certainly if you grow in faith and charity you will experience the gifts of the Holy Ghost and so on. In fact I wouldn't hesitate to say that I have experienced the Holy Ghost moving me to pray and indeed the consolidations of mental prayer are sweet.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on August 20, 2018, 03:43:16 PM
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.
This is heresy. The pope is indeed infallible when he meets the conditions defined by Vatican I. The papacy has a stunningly perfect record for condemning / avoiding heresy down the ages.
Compare it with the See of Constantinople:
QuoteThe See of Constantinople . . . has a long history of heterodoxy, and she extended her patriarchal jurisdiction via gross caesaropapism. The see was polluted by three Arians (Eusebios, Eudoxios, Demophilos), one Semi-Arian (Macedonios I), one Nestorian (Nestorios), five Monophysites (Acacios, Phravitas, Euphemios, Timothy I, Anthimos), six Monothelites (Sergios I, Pyrrhos, Paul II, Peter, John VI), and seven Iconoclasts (Anastasios, Constantine II, Nicetas I, Paul IV, Theodotos I Cassiteras, Anthony I Kassymatas, John VII Lecanomantos), one Calvinist (Cyril I Lukaris)–though some idiosyncratic commentators dispute the charge of Calvinism against the latter, who was murdered after he occupied the throne seven times—and one Freemason who declared Anglican orders to be valid (Meletios IV Metaxakis). The other three sees have similar records, and they often servilely followed the policy of Constantinople. By the standards of the Orthodox themselves, the see has had even more heretical patriarchs: one anti-Palamite (John XIV Kalekas) and more than five Catholics (John XI Bekkos, Joseph II, Metrophanes II, Gregory III Mammas, Cyril II Kontares, and many others, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry "Greek Church"). Many of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were not merely desirous of reunion with the Catholic Church, but confessed the dogmas of the Catholic Church to be true.
Name one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".
Vetus Ordo is a Calvinist of sorts so he'll consider justification through faith and works heretical I'm sure.
Quote from: John Lamb on August 21, 2018, 01:08:13 AMName one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".
Modernism.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 21, 2018, 08:45:09 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on August 21, 2018, 01:08:13 AMName one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".
Modernism.
Also, people who a priori believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church will define any of its teachings as "orthodox" and anything opposed to those teachings as "heterodox."
The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 21, 2018, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 21, 2018, 08:45:09 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on August 21, 2018, 01:08:13 AMName one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".
Modernism.
Also, people who a priori believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church will define any of its teachings as "orthodox" and anything opposed to those teachings as "heterodox."
The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).
No one makes that argument. Some might say that the consistent teaching or orthodoxy of Rome is a testament to her claims, but that's only probabilistic. The main argument or reason for thinking the Church is infallible is that God revealed it and founded it. Obviously we would then need to look at that claim and part of it is faith which has a subjective component. Ultimately we can only use highly good probabilistic objective arguments for the faith for those who don't believe. Denying things like the Resurrection, shrowd of Turin, our Lady of Guadalupe, and our Lady of Fatima seems to me to be intellectually dishonest once all of the evidence is put on the table.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 21, 2018, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 21, 2018, 08:45:09 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on August 21, 2018, 01:08:13 AMName one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".
Modernism.
Also, people who a priori believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church will define any of its teachings as "orthodox" and anything opposed to those teachings as "heterodox."
The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).
Obviously.
There's no real mechanism to verify any teaching other than Rome approving of it or not. The entire epistemological system depends exclusively on Rome's official pronouncements and practices.
In any given case, infallibility is not an
a priori requirement to hold authority or to teach the truth. The Pharisees and the scribes sat on the seat of Moses with authority but were plainly fallible teachers.
Quote from: John Lamb on August 21, 2018, 01:08:13 AM
The papacy has a stunningly perfect record for condemning / avoiding heresy down the ages.
You haven't been awake for the past 60 years, have you?
This should be proof enough that the paradigm that you're defending doesn't work in real life.
It would be nice if you actually attempted to address the arguments made instead of coming up with "gotcha" but easily refuted counterexamples. (Sadly this is par for the course on SD.)
QuoteIf 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).
Of course this is correct. There is no real argument against it. It has to do with the definition of what "authority" actually is. All you can really do is play word games.
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on August 20, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Okay so does a bishop have authority of himself to teach his flock? Is his teaching authoritative or not? Yes it is, unless you reject Church teaching. Ah but his authoritative teaching does not need "in and of itself be obeyed merely because it is Magisterium"/authoritative if it is false/dangerous. But how do you determine the bishops authoritative teaching is wrong? You go to a higher authority. Note that does not make you the authority. Otherwise, if a bishop teaches against scripture you couldn't contradict him unless the Pope did or something.
Hence, we see there is a type of authority which is true authority but can be wrong and may be contradicted by a higher authority. Furthermore, that higher authority can be appealed to by you without making yourself the authority.
No, a lower "authority" which presumes to contravene or contradict a higher authority is no authority at all. It is operating outside its proper sphere of authority. It may be indeed a raw attempted exercise of power, but not of authority, properly speaking.
QuoteYou 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.
Also true. Again it has to do with the very definition of "authority".
QuoteWell, there are true authorities in the Church which are given the benefit of the doubt unless evidence to the contrary comes out. This is a fact. Now, if we are talking about an infallible authority then obviously it must be obeyed and you can't appeal to another authority, even an infallible one.
This is again no real authority at all. True authority demands obedience
even when there is evidence to the contrary. Of course
everyone who contradicts Church authority on
anything does so because he has, or thinks he has, evidence to the contrary. And this statement quite destroys just about the entirety of the traditionalist position. Evidence to the contrary has been found that the pre-Vatican II positions on religious liberty, ecumenism, death penalty, etc., were wrong. Ergo. Now you might not think such evidence is there, but I do, and I have the post-Vatican II Popes backing me up. In fact there is also
plenty of scientific evidence that monogenism and special creation of man are wrong. Etc.
QuoteIf 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.
Again true (almost self-evidently), so you equivocate on what "Magisterium" means here.
QuoteOkay, so I don't deny but distinguish the premise: I disagree with you what "Magisterium" is here. I think it's just infallible teaching at least with regards to doctrine. We can put laws to the side right now for simplicity. I think it's just the Extraordinary or Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Explain WHY the Pope must always teach when he teaches authoritatively as Magisterium as you term it. Why can't he teach with a lower authority?
Alright, let me rephrase. If
obeying Church authority at any level on anything 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. If the Church is by nature an infallible means of salvation, that means that
everything it does must lead to salvation and that everything it commands must be holy, and not just some things.
QuoteDon't say that if he taught with a lower authority then we could disagree with him and would be final authorities.
Well of course I'll say that. If we disagree, who is making the final call? We, or him?
QuoteThat's stupid because he could just not teach at all (and we could appeal to Tradition without being final authorities against heretics) but the Church would still be an infallible means of salvation.
That is illogical. There is a difference between him not teaching at all and him teaching something evil.
QuoteNow, the idea of infallibly safe teaching is fine but I don't see a priori way all papal teaching must fall under that category for the CHURCH to be an infallible means of salvation.
I can prove it from logic. Again,
QuoteIf obeying Church authority at any level on anything 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.
QuoteSo do you admit your understanding of authority means that all authority is void except for current papal teaching? Yes, Augustine can be questioned. But not a consensus of Church Fathers etc (see Vatican I). Sometimes scripture is unclear which is why we need an authority to interpret it (Tradition and Church). However sometimes it is clear.
No, the issue is that the Church does not in reality have the authority She claims to have. Her pronouncements are just mile-markers, waystations if you will, on the road to a progressively and ever-deeper understanding of things which sometimes contradicts what went before. All the anti-Modernist fulminations do nothing whatsoever to disprove the fact that this is an empirical fact; it has happened and is happening.
QuoteI suppose you are also saying understanding of doctrine can change.
Of course, because it has. It doesn't matter who or what you cite. There is no arguing against an empirical fact.
QuoteDo you mean deepened or contradiction???
You can always justify any contradiction by saying it's a "deeper" understanding. We can jettison monogenism on the basis of a "deeper" understanding of original sin which no longer requires a literal Adam, so why insist on it when the scientific evidence shows otherwise? Just like we jettisoned geocentrism on the basis of a "deeper" understanding of Scriptural inerrancy. Or usury with a "deeper" understanding of economics. Or the death penalty with a "deeper" understanding of human dignity. Or opposition to religious indifference/ecumenism with a "deeper" understanding of how the Holy Spirit actually operates in souls.
QuoteOkay so summarizing my counter argument:
1. There are true authorities in the Church which can contradict infallible authorities.
2. An inferior can contradict a superior on the basses of an higher authority without becoming his own authority.
3. There has been given no compelling argument given for why the Pope can never speak to the Church with an authority less than previous Pope's, Tradition, or Scripture authority. (Can't he speak like a bishop does in his diocese? But his just happens to be the whole world in a way)
4. There is evidence of contradiction between certain levels of Papal magisterium and infallible authority.
5. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that a Pope can speak authoritatively in such a way that higher authorities may be appealed to.
This is fallacious since you conflate personal authority with written authority. If the highest personal authority in the Church (which is the Pope) can contradict infallible written authority (Acts of Councils, etc.) the Church is in essence no different from a Protestant group. Let's rephrase 1. to read: There are true authorities in the Church which can contradict God. God is certainly an infallible authority, if there is one. See the problem?
Vetus, I have a question(s) for you that I hope isn't too personal: If the Church, institutional or otherwise, is not an infallible teaching authority then how do you personally "know" which books of Scripture were accepted by the early Church led by the apostles? And even if we grant that the canon passed down to us is the authentic one, how do you know that you're interpreting scripture in a way that does not lead you to heresy and/or hell?
Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 21, 2018, 08:45:09 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on August 21, 2018, 01:08:13 AMName one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".
Modernism.
The Roman Church condemned Modernism and has never taught it.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 21, 2018, 09:10:24 AM
The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).
No, the argument goes like this:
Quote1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,[55] cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion."[56]
What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: "The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."[57]
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."[58]
3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .
5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on August 21, 2018, 09:40:04 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on August 21, 2018, 01:08:13 AM
The papacy has a stunningly perfect record for condemning / avoiding heresy down the ages.
You haven't been awake for the past 60 years, have you?
This should be proof enough that the paradigm that you're defending doesn't work in real life.
Look at the record of all the other churches down history. None has anywhere near the same pedigree for orthodoxy as the Roman Church. The past 60 years has seen the Roman Church hold to the Christian condemnation of contraception and divorce where every other church in the world has fallen into apostasy on this point, as well as the Roman Church's magisterium being miraculously saved from corruption despite the presence of so many heterodox theologians and bishops.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 21, 2018, 10:36:43 AM
Alright, let me rephrase. If obeying Church authority at any level on anything 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. If the Church is by nature an infallible means of salvation, that means that everything it does must lead to salvation and that everything it commands must be holy, and not just some things.
Indeed, but you must make the distinction between what the Church commands & teaches, and what her ministers command & teach, because the Church as a whole is indefectible and infallible, but her ministers are not. Just because a parish priest, a bishop, or even a pope does something evil or teaches something false, does not mean that the Church does something evil or teaches something false.
QuoteNo, the issue is that the Church does not in reality have the authority She claims to have. Her pronouncements are just mile-markers, waystations if you will, on the road to a progressively and ever-deeper understanding of things which sometimes contradicts what went before. All the anti-Modernist fulminations do nothing whatsoever to disprove the fact that this is an empirical fact; it has happened and is happening.
This really is downright Modernist heresy, and I'm glad you're already aware of it.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 21, 2018, 11:25:14 AMVetus, I have a question(s) for you that I hope isn't too personal: If the Church, institutional or otherwise, is not an infallible teaching authority then how do you personally "know" which books of Scripture were accepted by the early Church led by the apostles? And even if we grant that the canon passed down to us is the authentic one, how do you know that you're interpreting scripture in a way that does not lead you to heresy and/or hell?
The same way we know which OT books are part of Scripture. There's sound historical testimony. No infallible authority of the Sanhedrin or of the Scribes was required in and of itself. God ensured that the Church, both in the Old and New Testaments, would eventually recognize her Master's voice and compile the texts. Of course, there are intrinsic reasons for canonicity within the texts themselves (content, time frame, coherence, apostolicity, etc.) but ultimately God's people are able to recognize God's voice. God is not a mere abstract philosophical concept but an active agent in our lives:
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:27)
As far as interpreting Scripture is concerned, much is made of this matter without sufficient reason, it seems just for the sake of apologetics. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence that reads the NT is capable of recognizing the fundamentals of faith and salvation. It's not a puzzle: Christ did not come to deliver us an obscure message that needs an infallible authority to develop it, and "clarify" it, over centuries without end. The Christian faith is simple and its preaching is the very reason why the NT was written down to being with:
"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31).
Secondly, it seems to me that this objection has little ground to stand on in real life. It's not like the Roman Church is infallibly interpreting Scripture for us. How many infallibly interpreted verses do you have in more than two thousand years of history? A handful? Not much. In real life, Catholic theologians debate Scripture as much any other Christian theologians. For instance, how many more centuries will it have to pass until Rome infallibly decides the controversy over predestination between Molinism and Thomism/Augustinianism? Hasn't the Church a charism of infallibility in order to be able to decipher the Scriptures unlike the rest of us? Apparently, Rome has as much of a problem in infallibly interpreting scriptural record as the Arminian and Calvinist schools in Protestant tradition, with the difference that the latter don't pretend to infallible in and of themselves.
Finally, Irenaeus himself would object to the "scriptural skepticism" so prevalent in modern apologetics:
QuoteAgainst a typical objection raised by those who would rather place their trust in men, rather than God, Irenaeus criticizes those who "...accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition" (3.2.1). This shows clearly that he not only believed in the perspicuity of Scripture, but also the sufficiency of the literal hermeneutic, apart from tradition, to understand what the Scriptures are teaching. This is the exact same paradigm of the Old Testament.
But doesn't 2 Peter 3:16 seem to imply that personal interpretation of scripture can lead to damnation? That verse has been traditionally interpreted as pointing to the institutional Church, in the form of the episcopate, as having the God-given authority to teach. But if the Church is not infallible, then it is just as liable to error as the individual.
I guess I sort of see where you're coming from Vetus, but as for myself I cannot believe in the Christian faith if its teaching authority is just as fallible as that of any other religion. I mean, how can I be assured that I'm not following a false faith? You might be able to just say that your interior conviction is enough for you, but that's never been enough for me.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 21, 2018, 02:40:37 PMBut doesn't 2 Peter 3:16 seem to imply that personal interpretation of scripture can lead to damnation? That verse has been traditionally interpreted as pointing to the institutional Church, in the form of the episcopate, as having the God-given authority to teach. But if the Church is not infallible, then it is just as liable to error as the individual.
Let the text speak for itself:
"Why, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent that you may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him has written to you; As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:14-16)
All this verse means is that those are unlearned and unstable can wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. What it doesn't say is that we aren't to interpret the plain meaning of the Scriptures as we read them ourselves, since this would be utter foolishness. All men interpret a text when reading it and must do so in order to understand it, even if it's a Baltimore Catechism. And I should also ask: is that only the episcopate has the authority to interpret Scripture
the infallible interpretation of 2 Peter 3:16?
Barnes, nevertheless, goes a bit more into detail here:
QuoteAre some things hard to be understood - Things pertaining to high and difficult subjects, and which are not easy to be comprehended. Peter does not call in question the truth of what Paul had written; he does not intimate that he himself would differ from him His language is rather that which a man would use who regarded the writings to which he referred as true, and what he says here is an honorable testimony to the authority of Paul. It may be added,
(1) that Peter does not say that all the doctrines of the Bible, or even all the doctrines of Paul, are hard to be understood, or that nothing is plain.
(2) he says nothing about withholding the Bible, or even the writings of Paul, from the mass of Christians, on the ground of the difficulty of understanding the Scriptures; nor does he intimate that that was the design of the Author of the Bible.
(3) it is perfectly manifest, from this very passage, that the writings of Paul were in fact in the hands of the people, else how could they wrest and pervert them?
(4) Peter says nothing about an infallible interpreter of any kind, nor does he intimate that either he or his "successors" were authorized to interpret them for the church.
(5) with what propriety can the pretended successor of Peter - the pope - undertake to expound those difficult doctrines in the writings of Paul, when even Peter himself did not undertake it, and when he did not profess to be able to comprehend them? Is the Pope more skilled in the knowledge of divine things than the apostle Peter? Is he better qualified to interpret the sacred writings than an inspired apostle was?
(6) those portions of the writings of Paul, for anything that appears to the contrary, are just as "hard to be understood" now, as they were before the "infallible" church undertook to explain them. The world is little indebted to any claims of infallibility in explaining the meaning of the oracles of God. It remains yet to be seen that any portion of the Bible has been made clearer by any mere authoritative explanation. And,
(7) it should be added, that without any such exposition, the humble inquirer after truth may find enough in the Bible to guide his feet in the paths of salvation. No one ever approached the sacred Scriptures with a teachable heart, who did not find them "able to make him wise unto salvation." Compare the notes at 2 Timothy 3:15.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 21, 2018, 02:40:37 PMI guess I sort of see where you're coming from Vetus, but as for myself I cannot believe in the Christian faith if its teaching authority is just as fallible as that of any other religion. I mean, how can I be assured that I'm not following a false faith? You might be able to just say that your interior conviction is enough for you, but that's never been enough for me.
The Christian faith is defined by its primary object: Christ. This is what makes it different from all other faiths. His person is a historical reality, testified to in the Gospels that were written precisely so that we may have faith in Him and by doing so, be saved (John 10:31). The only infallible authority, as of necessity, is God Himself and His word, the knowledge of which among us He ensures will never disappear:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 23:35) This is as much true of the OT, as it is of the NT.
Furthermore, the need of having an infallible authority besides the word of God is a bit of a smokescreen. Were the scribes and the Pharisees infallible in their teaching? No. And yet they were accountable to God's word. So was all the Jewish people and so are all of us today.
Certainty of faith arrives
only by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12:3). Only God's grace will reform your heart and make it ready to believe. And it is always your mind, when assenting or rejecting any fact or proposition that will be the final arbiter, smokescreens of infallible authorities notwithstanding.
I got part of a response typed up, but Quare do you believe in papal infallibility? Do you believe Vatican I is infallible when it says Universal teaching of the fathers is infallible? Do you believe the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as defined by Vatican I is infallible? Do you believe Scripture and Tradition is infallible? I'm not talking about infallibly safe teaching here or the problem of interpreting Scripture or Tradition. You seem to say stuff that answers in the negative to the above questions.
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on August 21, 2018, 03:50:08 PM
I got part of a response typed up, but Quare do you believe in papal infallibility?
Yes.
QuoteDo you believe Vatican I is infallible when it says Universal teaching of the fathers is infallible?
No, because 1) it doesn't say that and 2) they are wrong on geocentrism. If it had said that, this would be empirical proof that even Conciliar infallibility was erroneous. But it didn't.
QuoteDo you believe the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as defined by Vatican I is infallible?
Yes.
QuoteDo you believe Scripture and Tradition is infallible?
Yes, insofar as the written or oral Word of God cannot be false. No, insofar as anyone makes a claim as to what that is. We don't have the original manuscripts of Scripture. Thus, copyist errors are possible and no one can claim any extant written text is per se infallible. A moral certainty is as good as it can get, which is not infallibility. Much less do we have any proof at all, much less absolute and incontrovertible proof, that what Christians believed in the 8th Century (for instance) has its origin in what was handed down from the Apostles, versus what came into being at a later time. It is really flabbergasting when (for instance) someone cites St. Augustine as proof of "Tradition". It's proof of what he said, not what the Apostles said.
Vetus, you make mention of the plain meaning of scripture, but what is the plain meaning? 2000 years ago the plain meaning of the Genesis creation account and the account of the Flood was that there was a literal creation of the Universe in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago and that there was a literal flood that covered the entirety of the globe to the height of the tallest mountains. But modern geological evidence shows that both of these interpretations (based on the plain meaning) are false.
Similarly, a plain reading of the Exodus account would have us believe that 600,000 Israelite men left Egypt. If we include women and children that number is several times larger. Yet we know that New Kingdom Egypt in total had a population no larger than 4 million. It's just not possible that 2-3 million Israelites fled Egypt.
I'll readily admit that I am no biblical scholar, but there are plenty of passages in Scripture that, to me, seem to debunk its claim to inerrancy.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 21, 2018, 04:46:32 PM
I'll readily admit that I am no biblical scholar, but there are plenty of passages in Scripture that, to me, seem to debunk its claim to inerrancy.
The plain meaning is the literal meaning of the texts themselves. Otherwise, how can St. John say he wrote his Gospel so that we may believe in Christ, and believing in Him have eternal life, if we can't extract any meaning whatsoever from Scripture unless someone else dictates it to us? In fact, what is the point of the Scriptures to begin with if no-one can understand them unless some other authority steps in? They're pointless in that epistemological scheme. We'd rather have the Catechism right away, and even that might posit some problems.
The plain meaning of the text, however, does not mean that allegory shouldn't be recognized when reason demands it. Or that certain traditional understandings of the text shouldn't be changed when faced with
overwhelming and conclusive evidence to the contrary (Geocentric models of reality, for instance). Our relationship with the Sacred Word is dynamic in some respects but on the fundamentals of the faith necessary for a sinner to be reconciled with God and to know Christ, it's undeniable that the Scriptures are perspicuous.
And I'm not denying the role of the Church, mind you. The Church has, per apostolic teaching found in Holy Writ, a necessary role to instruct us and to nourish us in our spiritual life. However, she is bound by the word of God, the same way the OT Church was. And will be corrected by it if found wanting.
The Bible is like a Constitution. The Magisterium is like a Supreme Court. Both are necessary. Jesus Himself says, from the Protestant KJV, Mat 18, " 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This shows that as the constitution generally provides the supreme court should settle disputes, the Lord provided St. Peter the Rock, together with the Bishops of the Church, have His authority to bind and loose on earth; and they have it infallibly, for He says that He will bind in Heaven what His Church binds on earth. In Acts 15, we see the early Church gather in Council in Jerusalem to hand down a definitive decision against those preaching circumcision.
Vetus wants a religion of private scribes & seers, not a religion of divine public authority.
His contempt for the common people is obvious.
Instead of the Pope & Bishops guiding the Christian people with paternal authority, keeping them on the true path, providing them with the true sacraments, baptising them and providing them with Holy Communion - he wants to fling bibles at them and let them figure it out for themselves: "It's perspicuous, dummies! Don't worry, the Holy Spirit will teach you!" The result? Babies aren't baptised, Christians are left without Holy Communion, and there's no one with the authority to say that Arius or Nestorius weren't right all along (so we might as well be Muslims).
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on August 21, 2018, 05:33:59 PM
And I'm not denying the role of the Church, mind you. The Church has, per apostolic teaching found in Holy Writ, a necessary role to instruct us and to nourish us in our spiritual life. However, she is bound by the word of God, the same way the OT Church was. And will be corrected by it if found wanting.
Well the scriptures can't speak for themselves, so I don't know how they will manage to correct the Church if the Church is "found wanting", as you say. Unless God is going to raise up prophets like Luther & Calvin to wrest the scriptures from the Church and use them to denounce her. Or is it
you that God has chosen to interpret the scriptures and correct the Church?
I wish our Protestant friends would do as many good Protestants who listened to Fr. Arnold Damen did; they gave up their errors and became Catholic. https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml
"I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all the preachers into the bargain, to disprove what I will say tonight. I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the living God.
For, my dear people, if God had intended that man should learn His religion from a book – the Bible – surely God would have given that book to man; Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself." If Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another. And all because of private interpretation of the Bible.
Christ sent His Apostles with the authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of writing the Bible. And the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of God throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.
The first word written was by St. Matthew, and he wrote for the benefit of a few individuals. He wrote the Gospel about seven years after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God, established by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New Testament.
St. Mark wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth; St. Luke about twenty-five years, and St. John about sixty-three years after Christ had established the Church of God. St. John wrote the last portion of the Bible – the Book of Revelation – about sixty-five years after Christ had left this earth and the Church of God had been established. The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before the Bible was completed, before it was written.
Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren, were these Christian people, who lived during the period between the establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible, were they really Christians, good Christians, enlightened Christians? Did they know the religion of Jesus? Where is the man that will dare to say that those who lived from the time that Christ went up to Heaven to the time that the Bible was completed were not Christians? It is admitted on all sides, by all denominations, that they were the very best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.
But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it from the Bible that they learned it? No, because the Bible had yet to be written. And would our Divine Savior have left His Church for sixty-five years without a teacher of man? Most assuredly not.
Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends? You say, "Yes, sir; they were the very founders of Christianity." Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible; not one of them except, perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed.
How, then, did those Christians that lived in the first sixty-five years after Christ ascended – how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? They knew it precisely the same way that you know it, my dear Catholic friends. You know it from the teaching of the Church of God, and so did the primitive Christians know it. "
See also https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/one_church.shtml It is good to have a strong belief in Christ, but this should lead you to fidelity to His Bride. The visible Church holds His Keys of Authority.
QuoteIt would be nice if you actually attempted to address the arguments made instead of coming up with "gotcha" but easily refuted counterexamples. (Sadly this is par for the course on SD.)
Maybe I didn't express myself well enough but I assure you my rebuttal is not based on shallow gotcha counter examples. I disagree with you on your fundamental premise that every time a Pope speaks with authority his teaching is the teaching of "the Church which infallibly leads to salvation".
QuoteNo, a lower "authority" which presumes to contravene or contradict a higher authority is no authority at all. It is operating outside its proper sphere of authority. It may be indeed a raw attempted exercise of power, but not of authority, properly speaking.
Ok, so the bishop's teaching in so far as it is wrong or contradicts higher authority is not authoritative. But we still do say a bishop has authority to teach and that his teaching (in general) is authoritative in some way. My whole point though is that the above can apply to the Pope when he doesn't teach infallibly. In fact you would agree with me to a certain point. Does the Pope doesn't teach infallibly safe when he talks to a friend? No and you would agree. How about when preaches a sermon? You would probably say no. How about a letter addressed to a specific bishop? Or how about a private book addressed to anyone? Where you disagree with me is that you apply all papal teaching of some kind to be the same as Church teaching in so far as she is a divine institution.
QuoteYou 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.
Also true. Again it has to do with the very definition of "authority".
That's fine but the common use of the word authority is not that strict.
QuoteAlright, let me rephrase. If obeying Church authority at any level on anything 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. If the Church is by nature an infallible means of salvation, that means that everything it does must lead to salvation and that everything it commands must be holy, and not just some things.
Okay let me further clarify. As you use the term authority, I don't think papal encyclicals or most papal teaching are authoritative. Hence I don't think they are a Church authority. Which sounds awful except for the fact that your use of authority in you understanding of the Church applies only to papal teaching as far as current living personal authorities are concerned. Again let me restate that I do not think everything the Pope teaches officially is part of the Church in so far as she is a Divine institution of infallible means to salvation. Your whole argument hinges on this fact and I am asking you to prove it. I don't see any priori reasons for this and using Tradition or Scripture would be very difficult. I think my frame work makes fewer assumptions which is partly why I prefer it to yours.
QuoteME: Don't say that if he taught with a lower authority then we could disagree with him and would be final authorities.
QUARE: Well of course I'll say that. If we disagree, who is making the final call? We, or him?
Okay then, so I'll ask this question and I very much want you to answer it directly:
So if a Pope doesn't clarify an issue with infallibly safe teaching or infallible teaching, do we make ourselves final authorities if we disagree with say our bishop who we think is contradicting Scripture? Or is it wrong for us to do so?
If you answer no to both questions then if my theory is correct and the Pope can teach in an analogous way as bishops do but to the world,
then we are not final authorities when we contradict what the Pope teaches in an encyclical just like we wouldn't be if he taught us in a sermon.
QuoteME: That's stupid because he could just not teach at all (and we could appeal to Tradition without being final authorities against heretics) but the Church would still be an infallible means of salvation.
QUARE: That is illogical. There is a difference between him not teaching at all and him teaching something evil.
Sure but using your definition of authoritative teaching, I would agree the Pope hardly ever teaches authoritatively. Furthermore, using your definition of authoritative teaching, no other person in the Church ever speaks authoritatively in any way as an individual. If you apply that definition across other aspects of life, NO ONE EVER TEACHES WITH AUTHORITY. Excuse me there I even hurt my eardrums 😀.
QuoteIf obeying Church authority at any level on anything 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.
I disagree that papal encyclicals and so forth are authoritative Church teaching using your definition. This just makes papal encyclicals not an infallible means of salvation. You need to prove how they necessarily are part of "Church" teaching in so far as she is a purely divine institution. And no my frame work does not mean the Church is an accidental means of salvation. She just happens not speak as much as you think. The thing is though is that She doesn't need to. We have Scripture, Tradition, and past infallible Magisterium on important issues. We have brains and we don't need to be right about everything. Let's not forget the Sacraments or the mystical Body of Christ aspect of the Church either.
QuoteNo, the issue is that the Church does not in reality have the authority She claims to have. Her pronouncements are just mile-markers, waystations if you will, on the road to a progressively and ever-deeper understanding of things which sometimes contradicts what went before. All the anti-Modernist fulminations do nothing whatsoever to disprove the fact that this is an empirical fact; it has happened and is happening.
In light of what you answered to my questions I assume you don't mean the Church in her infallible teachings. I assume you are talking about encyclicals and so forth her. Taken individually they can be wrong but shouldn't be a priori assumed to be the ramblings of some guy on the street. If taken as a whole and if bishops of the Church agree on a single point of doctrine across time and space, then by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium they have infallible doctrine in them. Furthermore, if an infallible authority isn't wrong here, then it's not a problem for me. I agree that many had too high of a view of papal authority. So are you saying sometimes many theologians bishops and even gasp, papal encyclicals are wrong/contradictory? Isn't that what I am saying except you arbitrarily assume that the "Church" is always moving towards the truth so you just go with the current Pope even if it is obvious he is contradicting past Popes. And let's not forget that we only know Francis teaching because he writes it down. And he is not more clear than past Popes and won't even clarify his teaching for the most part. Is the death penalty intrinsically evil or not? It's inadmissible and that teaching is a legitimate development of past teaching!!!! It is hard to say that his teaching is more clear than past teaching.
QuoteThis is fallacious since you conflate personal authority with written authority. If the highest personal authority in the Church (which is the Pope) can contradict infallible written authority (Acts of Councils, etc.) the Church is in essence no different from a Protestant group. Let's rephrase 1. to read: There are true authorities in the Church which can contradict God. God is certainly an infallible authority, if there is one. See the problem?
But we know that the Pope can teach non authoritatively (using your definition) unless you want to say he teaches with authority when he sleep talks. So I think the Pope can in a non authoritative way contradict written authority. I think encyclicals using you definition of authority are not authoritative. Hence, I think they are analogous to a bishops teaching in his diocese but for the whole Church.
Donum Veritatis also seems to say that theologians can publicly oppose current papal teachings. This implies that they don't have to give assent to them per se.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-church-permits-criticism-of-popes_20.html?m=1
Concerning your statements about how it's an empirical fact that the Church was wrong on this or that, if it's not infallible Church teaching, there is no problem. If it is, then it is right and I disagree to that it's false. Furthermore I would say it's an empirical fact that Pope Francis teaching on the death penalty is wrong and contradicts Scripture and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Furthermore what he teaches in Amoris Laetitia is wrong as well. Read in context he says God may want a man or women to have sex with their spouse or at least have romantic type relations like passionate kissing. Keep in mind it's says also that such adultery is objectively sinful and logically so would the romantic kissing. I've brought this up before and you say I misunderstand it. The epistemological problem of "how do we know this says that" can be applied to practically anything. We have to use our common sense to see that the Church is necessary because of how ambiguous scripture can be but also how we don't need a living authority for everything to be known.
Concerning how you equate changing doctrine/contradiction with development of doctrine as far as practical epistemology goes:
There still is the question of ontology and how once you except an authority as infallible, it is epistemologically consistent to assume there is no actual contradiction.
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on August 22, 2018, 01:39:17 PM
Maybe I didn't express myself well enough but I assure you my rebuttal is not based on shallow gotcha counter examples. I disagree with you on your fundamental premise that every time a Pope speaks with authority his teaching is the teaching of "the Church which infallibly leads to salvation".
OK. Then, from logic, if p does not entail q, then p entails possibly q. So this means that some times when a Pope speaks with authority it could be an evil teaching which leads to damnation. Which means the Pope does not in reality have the authority to determine (epistemologically) what is good and true vs. what is false and evil, no matter how vociferously and loudly he claims he does.
And that's game over for western theology.
QuoteMy whole point though is that the above can apply to the Pope when he doesn't teach infallibly. In fact you would agree with me to a certain point. Does the Pope doesn't teach infallibly safe when he talks to a friend? No and you would agree. How about when preaches a sermon? You would probably say no. How about a letter addressed to a specific bishop? Or how about a private book addressed to anyone? Where you disagree with me is that you apply all papal teaching of some kind to be the same as Church teaching in so far as she is a divine institution.
Your examples aren't Papal authoritative teaching. Your examples are the Pope acting in his private capacity as an individual, or as a priest. Encyclicals, catechisms, and the like, however, are authoritative teaching. He is making an authoritative statement as to what is or is not Catholic doctrine, or what is or is not morally good or evil.
QuoteOkay let me further clarify. As you use the term authority, I don't think papal encyclicals or most papal teaching are authoritative.
Well, they certainly are, have always been understood by the Popes as such, and have been explicitly claimed as such.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
Quote20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
QuoteHence I don't think they are a Church authority.
But they claim to be, and that is all that is needed.
QuoteAgain let me restate that I do not think everything the Pope teaches officially is part of the Church in so far as she is a Divine institution of infallible means to salvation.
Which is simply another way of saying that the Church is not, in fact, an infallible means to salvation. Your argument is like saying I am healthy except insofar as I am sick, or that the Church is an infallible means to salvation except for when She in fact leads to damnation.
IOW this is nonsensical. It is saying there can be official Papal teaching without it being official Church teaching.
QuoteYour whole argument hinges on this fact and I am asking you to prove it.
The Pope has
supreme jurisdiction over the Church, according to Western theology.
That means that Papal teaching (meaning, when he authoritatively says, for the whole Church, what is or is not Catholic doctrine, or what is or not morally good or evil, etc.) is official Church teaching.
And if following official Church teaching can lead to hell even possibly, then the Church is not an infallible means of salvation.
QuoteI don't see any priori reasons for this and using Tradition or Scripture would be very difficult. I think my frame work makes fewer assumptions which is partly why I prefer it to yours.
But it is not a question of Occam's Razor. It is a question of what the Church Herself claims.
QuoteOkay then, so I'll ask this question and I very much want you to answer it directly:
So if a Pope doesn't clarify an issue with infallibly safe teaching or infallible teaching, do we make ourselves final authorities if we disagree with say our bishop who we think is contradicting Scripture? Or is it wrong for us to do so?
Yes it would be wrong to do so. The Bishop's authority is limited and he does not have the prerogative to decide doctrinal matters and controversies in the way the Pope does. He indeed has the authority to grant or deny Imprimaturs, etc. But if he condemns your latest writing on Scripture, no matter how right you think you are and how wrong he is, you should obey and not publish.
QuoteIf you answer no to both questions then if my theory is correct...
But it isn't.
QuoteSure but using your definition of authoritative teaching, I would agree the Pope hardly ever teaches authoritatively.
The Popes would disagree.
QuoteI disagree that papal encyclicals and so forth are authoritative Church teaching using your definition. This just makes papal encyclicals not an infallible means of salvation. You need to prove how they necessarily are part of "Church" teaching in so far as she is a purely divine institution.
Come on. I already did. You're playing word games. "Authoritative" means "binding".
The Pope has supreme jurisdiction. That's why they are authoritative. He intends to make a decision for the entire Church as to what is or not Catholic doctrine, etc.
Unless you want to say, they have no authority at all. Or, unless you want to say, they have no authority at all unless they are right.
Which is it?
Well, Quare makes a good point about the impossibility of authoritative teaching being false to a degree that would lead souls to hell. This was also taught by Cardinal Franzelin and Msgr Fenton - both taught that a fallible Church teaching cannot, despite its fallibility, be radically erroneous and lead souls to hell. It is impossible for the Church to teach anything authoritatively that, if obeyed, endangers one's soul. That would make the Church means of damnation.
However, then - once again - you claim that the Church has indeed contradicted itself.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 21, 2018, 10:36:43 AM
No, the issue is that the Church does not in reality have the authority She claims to have. Her pronouncements are just mile-markers, waystations if you will, on the road to a progressively and ever-deeper understanding of things which sometimes contradicts what went before. All the anti-Modernist fulminations do nothing whatsoever to disprove the fact that this is an empirical fact; it has happened and is happening.
QuoteI suppose you are also saying understanding of doctrine can change.
Of course, because it has. It doesn't matter who or what you cite. There is no arguing against an empirical fact.
QuoteDo you mean deepened or contradiction???
You can always justify any contradiction by saying it's a "deeper" understanding. We can jettison monogenism on the basis of a "deeper" understanding of original sin which no longer requires a literal Adam, so why insist on it when the scientific evidence shows otherwise? Just like we jettisoned geocentrism on the basis of a "deeper" understanding of Scriptural inerrancy. Or usury with a "deeper" understanding of economics. Or the death penalty with a "deeper" understanding of human dignity. Or opposition to religious indifference/ecumenism with a "deeper" understanding of how the Holy Spirit actually operates in souls.
Now, the examples you have brought up have already been refuted - the Church never changed its teaching on usury (it is not enforced, but that is a completely different matter), there is not a single Magisterial pronouncement which overturned
Vix Pervenit. Neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism have ever been taught infallibly by the Church, and the question whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is true is far from being decisively answered. The Church has always taught literal Adam, strict EENS and was opposed to religious indifferentism. V2 and post-V2 theology changed that, true, which are some of many reasons why V2 claimants to the Papacy are most likely not Popes.
The point is, however, that if the teaching of the Church has indeed changed, as you claim, then the claims of the Church to any authority have been empirically falsified, just as Quran's misunderstanding of the Trinity (Muhammad thought that Trinity means three gods) falsifies its claim to being a divinely revealed book. The moment I would become convinced that the Church changed its infallible teaching (i.e. believe what you believe) I would cease to be a Catholic, because it would prove that the Church is not what it claims to be, and therefore there is no reason to be a Catholic.
You claim to believe in Papal infallibility, yet you claim that the Church "changed" its teaching on EENS. Well,
Cantate Domino with its definition of strict EENS was certainly an infallible pronouncement fulfilling conditions of
Pastor Aeternus. But if Church's teaching on EENS has changed, it means that
Cantate Domino was wrong, and thus Papal infallibility was empirically falsified.
Finally, you claim it is an "empirical fact" that the teaching of the Church has changed. You rightly argue against private judgment, but this claim is also a private judgment. You exempt yourself from your arguments against private judgment by saying "it is empirical fact" (how do you know that?). If you were to follow your own principle to its conclusion, you would have to say that it is impossible for the teaching of the Church to change and that pre- and post-Vatican 2 teaching on EENS, religious liberty, ecumenism etc. are consistent and there is no change, or that they are not consistent and therefore V2 claimants to the Papacy are most likely not Popes. You seem to try to find a middle way, but there is none.
Quote from: Arvinger on August 24, 2018, 07:15:04 AM
Well, Quare makes a good point about the impossibility of authoritative teaching being false to a degree that would lead souls to hell. This was also taught by Cardinal Franzelin and Msgr Fenton - both taught that a fallible Church teaching cannot, despite its fallibility, be radically erroneous and lead souls to hell. It is impossible for the Church to teach anything authoritatively that, if obeyed, endangers one's soul. That would make the Church means of damnation.
OK. Glad you at least see this much.
QuoteHowever, then - once again - you claim that the Church has indeed contradicted itself.
Yep. This is simply an empirical fact.
QuoteNow, the examples you have brought up have already been refuted
No, they haven't. I'm getting really tired of all this spin-doctoring. There have indeed been attempts to refute it, but facts are facts.
Quote- the Church never changed its teaching on usury (it is not enforced, but that is a completely different matter), there is not a single Magisterial pronouncement which overturned Vix Pervenit.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law demanded that religious orders put their savings in interest-bearing accounts. You have the Pope ordering religious to commit sin. (Please don't bother arguing that the Code of Canon Law isn't really "Magisterium". That is a tortured, desperate argument. The arguments of the theologians that you cite extend to the Church's commands as well as its teachings, using exactly the same reasoning; if the Church commands something evil, it becomes a means of damnation.)
QuoteNeither geocentrism nor heliocentrism have ever been taught infallibly by the Church, and the question whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is true is far from being decisively answered.
OK there you put in the weasel word "infallibly". Geocentrism was taught by the Church, and it flip-flopped by officially allowing heliocentrism (formerly condemned as at least erroneous). The scientific status of geocentrism is irrelevant to this argument.
QuoteThe Church has always taught literal Adam, strict EENS and was opposed to religious indifferentism. V2 and post-V2 theology changed that, true, which are some of many reasons why V2 claimants to the Papacy are most likely not Popes.
So why doesn't the same logic follow pre-Vatican II? It taught necessity of explicit faith except for when it didn't.
QuoteThe point is, however, that if the teaching of the Church has indeed changed, as you claim, then the claims of the Church to any authority have been empirically falsified, just as Quran's misunderstanding of the Trinity (Muhammad thought that Trinity means three gods) falsifies its claim to being a divinely revealed book. The moment I would become convinced that the Church changed its infallible teaching (i.e. believe what you believe) I would cease to be a Catholic, because it would prove that the Church is not what it claims to be, and therefore there is no reason to be a Catholic.
Then why don't you, may I ask? What you actually did was, when the Church did change its teaching, simply say that the putative Pope must not be the real Pope. You've made the claims of the Church to authority empirically unfalsifiable. There is absolutely no empirical fact that would ever (even hypothetically) cause you to cease to be Catholic. Even if the Pope officially promulgated Satanism as official worship, you would not hold the claims of the Church empirically falsified.
And that means, (being the good epistemologist I know you are), that the Church is worthless as means for determining truth.
QuoteYou claim to believe in Papal infallibility, yet you claim that the Church "changed" its teaching on EENS. Well, Cantate Domino with its definition of strict EENS was certainly an infallible pronouncement fulfilling conditions of Pastor Aeternus. But if Church's teaching on EENS has changed, it means that Cantate Domino was wrong, and thus Papal infallibility was empirically falsified.
It means that the Church simply does not have the authority She claims to have. Let's start there. Maybe Cantate Domino was right, and the subsequent pronouncements wrong.
QuoteFinally, you claim it is an "empirical fact" that the teaching of the Church has changed. You rightly argue against private judgment, but this claim is also a private judgment. You exempt yourself from your arguments against private judgment by saying "it is empirical fact" (how do you know that?).
An observation of fact is not a judgment. Moreover, logic is epistemologically more basic than claims to authority.
QuoteIf you were to follow your own principle to its conclusion, you would have to say that it is impossible for the teaching of the Church to change and that pre- and post-Vatican 2 teaching on EENS, religious liberty, ecumenism etc. are consistent and there is no change, or that they are not consistent and therefore V2 claimants to the Papacy are most likely not Popes. You seem to try to find a middle way, but there is none.
Yes, it's impossible for the teaching to change given the Church's claims to authority to teach the absolute truth. So, the other option is that they are not consistent and the Church's claims to authority are empirically falsified, with sedevacantism being a desperate post-hoc theory invented to save the theory from discordant data, at the cost of rendering the Church's claims (even hypothetically) empirically unfalsifiable.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 24, 2018, 08:54:51 AM
Yep. This is simply an empirical fact.
Rather your fallible private interpretation of the Magisterium and Church history, which is precisely what you argue against.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiNo, they haven't. I'm getting really tired of all this spin-doctoring. There have indeed been attempts to refute it, but facts are facts.
Again, you are using a sleight of hand trying to pass your private interpretation of Church history as "facts".
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiThe 1917 Code of Canon Law demanded that religious orders put their savings in interest-bearing accounts. You have the Pope ordering religious to commit sin. (Please don't bother arguing that the Code of Canon Law isn't really "Magisterium". That is a tortured, desperate argument. The arguments of the theologians that you cite extend to the Church's commands as well as its teachings, using exactly the same reasoning; if the Church commands something evil, it becomes a means of damnation.)
Of course it is not. Show me a Magisterial document teaching that Canon Law is part of the Magisterium and is binding on faith and morals. It is not, as a matter of fact it deals with many issues which have nothing to do with faith and morals or are disciplinary measures. The infallibility and indefectibility of the Church do not cover commands of members of hierarchy - it is entirely possible for a Pope to command something sinful to his subjects (as long as he does not teach it authoritatively as a doctrine), such a possibility was admitted by Bellarmine in
De Romano Pontifice. That is of course assuming, for the sake of argument, that the 1917 CCL indeed violated
Vix Pervenit, which must first be established.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiOK there you put in the weasel word "infallibly". Geocentrism was taught by the Church, and it flip-flopped by officially allowing heliocentrism (formerly condemned as at least erroneous). The scientific status of geocentrism is irrelevant to this argument.
There is a difference between allowing to believe something and teaching something. The Church never defined theological status of geocentrism and heliocentrism, and although the majority view was indeed geocentrism, the Church allowed heliocentrism to be held an acceptable opinion in Magisterial documents (Pope Benedict XV,
Praeclara Sumorum). Earlier prohibitions against distribution of works promoting heliocentrism were done merely on disciplinary, not doctrinal level. Even Alexander VII's bull (arguably the most authoritative anti-heliocentric document in Church history) containing index of forbidden books did not doctrinally define the theological status of geocentrism and heliocentrism, it only contained a disciplinary measure of forbading heliocentric books. There is no Magisterial pronouncement defining heliocentrism to be true or false.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiSo why doesn't the same logic follow pre-Vatican II? It taught necessity of explicit faith except for when it didn't.
There is no pre-Vatican II Church's Magisterial document teaching that one can be saved without explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, although I'm sure you will mention
Suprema Haec Sacra (which is probably a forgery) and misinterpret Pope Pius IX's
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore - we went through this before.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiThen why don't you, may I ask?
Because I don't believe that the Church ever changed its infallible teaching.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiWhat you actually did was, when the Church did change its teaching, simply say that the putative Pope must not be the real Pope. You've made the claims of the Church to authority empirically unfalsifiable.
First, by saying "Church did change its teaching" you are begging the question by implicitly asserting that V2 claimants are actually Popes, even though in earlier discussions you conceded that sedevacantism is ontologically possible (since the Pope can fall into heresy and lose membership in the Church).
Second, yes, indeed the claims of the Church are in practice unfalsifiable, because anyone in Church hierarchy who would try to act against these claims (i.e. teach heresy) would automatically cease to be member of the Church, so his teaching would not really be Church's teaching. If we know that the Catholic Church is true and it is our final authority (and thus its truthfulness is a fundamental presupposition), there is no need for a mechanism which would hypothetically allow to falsify claims of the Church. In fact, any attempt to verify truthfulness of the Catholic Church would mean that there is a higher authority than the Catholic Church which verifies it. Then, we need an authority which verifies the authority which verifies the Catholic Church, another authority which verifies the authority... etc. - in other words, infinite regress. That is not the case, the Catholic Chuch is the final authority which is not subject to further verification (although that does not mean fideism - we have arguments to support the belief in truthfulness of the Catholic Church).
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiThere is absolutely no empirical fact that would ever (even hypothetically) cause you to cease to be Catholic. Even if the Pope officially promulgated Satanism as official worship, you would not hold the claims of the Church empirically falsified.
Correct, because such claimant to the Papacy would cease to be Pope. However, it would be possible had Church teaching on heresy and membership in the Church be different. For example, if the Church dogmatically taught that a putative Pope is necessarily a member of the Church and cannot be a heretic, then Vatican II would indeed falsify this claim.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiAnd that means, (being the good epistemologist I know you are), that the Church is worthless as means for determining truth.
That is non sequitur.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIt means that the Church simply does not have the authority She claims to have. Let's start there. Maybe Cantate Domino was right, and the subsequent pronouncements wrong.
But that is just another way of admitting that Church's claims were empirically falsified, and consequently that Catholicism is false.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiAn observation of fact is not a judgment. Moreover, logic is epistemologically more basic than claims to authority.
See, you often correctly call out people on using private judgment when it suits your argument, but when it does not suit your argument then your private interpretation conveniently becomes labeled "facts".
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Yes, it's impossible for the teaching to change given the Church's claims to authority to teach the absolute truth. So, the other option is that they are not consistent and the Church's claims to authority are empirically falsified, with sedevacantism being a desperate post-hoc theory invented to save the theory from discordant data, at the cost of rendering the Church's claims (even hypothetically) empirically unfalsifiable.
And that means nothing less than Catholicism being a false religion. If what you say above is true, there is zero epistemological reason to follow the Catholic Church - it becomes another quasi-Protestant denomination like Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.
As to sedevacantism, it is not a "post-hoc theory invented to save the theory from discordant data", because it has its basis in many pre-Vatican II teachings on membership in the Church, formal heresy and possibility of a heretical Pope. It also reflects the reality that membership in the Church has not only material, but also supernatural aspect (having true faith and being baptized), and without the supernatural aspect the material aspect is not sufficient to be a member of the Church. Therefore, a Pope who falls into formal heresy ceases to be member of the Church and Pope, as you conceded is possible. If it is possible, how can you ignore the possibility that this is exactly what happened?
QuoteOK. Then, from logic, if p does not entail q, then p entails possibly q. So this means that some times when a Pope speaks with authority it could be an evil teaching which leads to damnation. Which means the Pope does not in reality have the authority to determine (epistemologically) what is good and true vs. what is false and evil, no matter how vociferously and loudly he claims he does.
He can speak infallibly or can point to Tradition, Scripture, or infallible Magisterium. There is still a very high presumption in his favor which I would call authority but I suppose you wouldn't. Furthermore, in your frame work the Pope has no authority to determine what is or is not truth but rather that such and such teaching cannot lead to hell so obey me (in his Ordinary teaching).
QuoteAnd that's game over for western theology.
Haven't you said hell with western theology, or part of it? So what's the matter if I do as well?
QuoteYour examples aren't Papal authoritative teaching. Your examples are the Pope acting in his private capacity as an individual, or as a priest. Encyclicals, catechisms, and the like, however, are authoritative teaching. He is making an authoritative statement as to what is or is not Catholic doctrine, or what is or is not morally good or evil.
The point is that he can act in non authoritative way so why are his encyclicals authoritative in the way you say they are? Because he says so doesn't disprove my ecclesiology since I think he could be wrong in those cases and secondly you can only find a few cases where a Pope seems to say that. Furthermore, I would say Donum Veritatis provides counter evidence.
QuoteYes it would be wrong to do so. The Bishop's authority is limited and he does not have the prerogative to decide doctrinal matters and controversies in the way the Pope does. He indeed has the authority to grant or deny Imprimaturs, etc. But if he condemns your latest writing on Scripture, no matter how right you think you are and how wrong he is, you should obey and not publish.
Let me further clarify. So if your bishop started promoting Arianism officially or if a bishop started to teach Nestorianism or if a bishop started to teach that Mary wasn't the mother of God etc before the Pope directly addressed the issue, you couldn't contradict him??? That's ridiculous. I'm talking about things which are clearly heretical or erroneous apart from explicit papal teaching. In the early Church the pope would normally only clarify after an issue of doctrine had started.
QuoteIOW this is nonsensical. It is saying there can be official Papal teaching without it being official Church teaching.
Not really. The Church is infallible right? But the Pope isn't always infallible in his official teaching? So the Pope's official teaching isn't always the same as "Church" teaching insofar as the divine aspect of the Church cannot teach error. But her human aspect can and does.
Quote20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
So that's evidence in your favor. However, how about what John Paul II said in Donum Veritatis? If we can legitimately dispute or question the content of an encyclical, are we actually giving consent to the teaching (content) based off the authority of the encyclical itself? Furthermore, Pius XII does not say what happens when a future Pope contradicts a past Pope. He doesn't say we would have to give assent per se to the present Pope who obviously contradicts a past Pope. He does not directly address that issue and in my frame work, I can say he is wrong although the burden of proof is on me. Furthermore, those words of his no longer apply to many of his encyclicals or teaching on things like the death penalty in your own frame work.
QuoteThe Pope has supreme jurisdiction over the Church, according to Western theology.
That means that Papal teaching (meaning, when he authoritatively says, for the whole Church, what is or is not Catholic doctrine, or what is or not morally good or evil, etc.) is official Church teaching.
And if following official Church teaching can lead to hell even possibly, then the Church is not an infallible means of salvation.
Is the teaching of the Church the teaching of Christ? Is the Church infallible or just infallibly safe and sometimes infallible? Because if She teaches what Christ taught or what Christ wills Her to teach and if She can teach minor errors and does then Christ is not God nor Christ but might as well be the devil. Do you see the problem? I just happen to make a few further distinctions on levels of "Church" teaching.
QuoteUnless you want to say, they have no authority at all. Or, unless you want to say, they have no authority at all unless they are right.
Which is it?
From the ccc:
* The teaching office
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ"
So I guess the second one in the same way as it applies to bishops. And to clarify I'm talking about stuff like papal encyclicals.
Also, aren't you required in your frame work to say that current "Church" teaching on the death penalty and Amoris Lætitia are developments of doctrine and not contradiction of past Church teachings since that what the "Magisterium" says?
Quote from: Arvinger on August 24, 2018, 10:40:55 AM
Again, you are using a sleight of hand trying to pass your private interpretation of Church history as "facts".
There are (empirical) facts, premises (taken as givens for the sake of argument), logical deductions (which flow from facts and premises via logical necessity), and interpretations (which do not flow from facts via logical necessity, but are argued for partially on the basis of those facts.)
It is a fact that loan contracts with interest were condemned as usury in Vix Pervenit.
It is a fact that the 1917 CCL demanded religious orders put their saving in interest-bearing accounts.
It is a fact that an interest-bearing account is a loan contract with interest between the depositor and the bank.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that CCL commanded something condemned in Vix Pervenit.
QuoteShow me a Magisterial document teaching that Canon Law is part of the Magisterium and is binding on faith and morals. It is not, as a matter of fact it deals with many issues which have nothing to do with faith and morals or are disciplinary measures.
The issue is not whether Canon Law is in of itself part of the Magisterium - I already said it is not. The issue is that Canon Law is binding - that is why it is called Law in the first place. It commands some things and forbids others. The question regards whether the disciplinary measures (or anything else) it commands can be evil. They cannot.
It is a premise that the Church is an infallible means of salvation.
It is a logical deduction that, if the above premise is true, everything it does must lead to salvation; or at least, nothing it does can lead to damnation.
It is a fact that commanding evil is something that leads to damnation.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, if the CCL commanded evil, the above premise is false; therefore, the CCL could not have commanded evil.
But (from above) the CCL commanded what was condemned as evil in Vix Pervenit.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, while it was condemned as evil in Vix Pervenit, it no longer was at the time of the promulgation of the CCL.
QuoteThe infallibility and indefectibility of the Church do not cover commands of members of hierarchy - it is entirely possible for a Pope to command something sinful to his subjects (as long as he does not teach it authoritatively as a doctrine), such a possibility was admitted by Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice.
The above logic stands no matter who you want to cite.
QuoteThere is a difference between allowing to believe something and teaching something. The Church never defined theological status of geocentrism and heliocentrism, and although the majority view was indeed geocentrism, the Church allowed heliocentrism to be held an acceptable opinion in Magisterial documents (Pope Benedict XV, Praeclara Sumorum).
The Church certainly did define the theological status of heliocentrism as "at least erroneous in faith" ("heliocentrism" meaning what is relevant here, the earth's motion). Then, as you say, the Church officially allowed heliocentrism to be held.
It is a fact that the 1616 Decree of the Holy Office censured the earth's motion as theologically "at least erroneous in faith".
It is a fact that it is a sin to hold to a doctrine which is erroneous in faith.
It is a fact that later the Church officially allowed heliocentrism to be held.
It is a logical deduction that the Church officially allowed a doctrine to be held which was previously held as sinful to hold.
It is a premise that the Church is an infallible means of salvation.
It is a logical deduction that, if the above premise is true, everything it does must lead to salvation; or at least, nothing it does can lead to damnation.
It is a fact that saying that what is in reality evil is actually permitted is something that leads to damnation.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, if the Church did this, the above premise is false; therefore, the Church could not have done this.
But (from above) the Church later allowed what was condemned as evil in 1616.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, while holding of heliocentrism was condemned as evil in 1616, it no longer was at the time of Benedict XV.
QuoteThere is no pre-Vatican II Church's Magisterial document teaching that one can be saved without explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, although I'm sure you will mention Suprema Haec Sacra (which is probably a forgery) and misinterpret Pope Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore - we went through this before.
Well, if that's the kind of argument you're going to take, how do you know that any purported Magisterial document isn't really a forgery, or a deliberate miscopying, etc.
Admittedly QCM isn't an absolute slam dunk like the previous two examples. Yet you have to force an interpretation of QCM in order to get it to agree with the necessity of explicit faith. You have to read things into the text which aren't there, and then say QCM doesn't contradict because doesn't explicitly deny those things, even though they are implied via the text. Your interpretation is not what anyone would understand via a plain meaning of the words in ordinary language. IOW, you would have to say QCM is misleading, implying something which is not true.
And even that is sufficient for the previous line of argumentation to work, because even being misleading is something which leads to damnation.
QuoteFirst, by saying "Church did change its teaching" you are begging the question by implicitly asserting that V2 claimants are actually Popes, even though in earlier discussions you conceded that sedevacantism is ontologically possible (since the Pope can fall into heresy and lose membership in the Church).
10/10 for unnecessary pedantry. You knew what I meant.
QuoteSecond, yes, indeed the claims of the Church are in practice unfalsifiable, because anyone in Church hierarchy who would try to act against these claims (i.e. teach heresy) would automatically cease to be member of the Church, so his teaching would not really be Church's teaching.
OK. But the value of the Church in knowing truth lies in the precise possibility that its claims could (hypothetically) be empirically falsified but actually won't be. Now you've reduced "the Church teaches the truth" to a mere tautology - if what is taught is not the truth, then it is not the Church teaching it.
QuoteIf we know that the Catholic Church is true and it is our final authority (and thus its truthfulness is a fundamental presupposition), there is no need for a mechanism which would hypothetically allow to falsify claims of the Church.
There is no need for an empirical fact-checker, granted; there is no need for the hypothetical possibility, denied.
QuoteIn fact, any attempt to verify truthfulness of the Catholic Church would mean that there is a higher authority than the Catholic Church which verifies it. Then, we need an authority which verifies the authority which verifies the Catholic Church, another authority which verifies the authority... etc. - in other words, infinite regress. That is not the case, the Catholic Chuch is the final authority which is not subject to further verification (although that does not mean fideism - we have arguments to support the belief in truthfulness of the Catholic Church).
Except that the authority of the Catholic Church is not only ontological, but also epistemological, which is no longer the case for you. You have to verify truthfulness of what is putatively the Catholic Church in order to confirm it is really the Catholic Church, so in practice, epistemologically speaking, the Church is not the final authority. If you didn't follow this you would accept Vatican II and not submit it to a further test.
QuoteBut that is just another way of admitting that Church's claims were empirically falsified, and consequently that Catholicism is false.
Or, maybe Church pronouncements are historically conditioned, not as a result of any particular defect on the part of the Church, but on a defect in humans in how truth and knowledge can really be grasped.
QuoteSee, you often correctly call out people on using private judgment when it suits your argument, but when it does not suit your argument then your private interpretation conveniently becomes labeled "facts".
Again, there's facts, deductions, and interpretation.
QuoteAs to sedevacantism, it is not a "post-hoc theory invented to save the theory from discordant data", because it has its basis in many pre-Vatican II teachings on membership in the Church, formal heresy and possibility of a heretical Pope...
Therefore, a Pope who falls into formal heresy ceases to be member of the Church and Pope, as you conceded is possible. If it is possible, how can you ignore the possibility that this is exactly what happened?
Yes, and there would be no problem with this if the epistemological criteria for determining all this (Pope's heresy, loss of office, etc.) were
something other than and prior to the Pope's official teaching. But that's not how current sedevacantist arguments operate (at least, none that I have seen). They argue that Vatican II or the New Mass is (heretical, erroneous, etc.) and that proves the Pope must have lost his office prior to their promulgation. That is why I say it is post-hoc. Had instead Paul VI or John XXIII annulled the Council, or gotten through the initial (unobjectionable) version of documents, they would not be saying they weren't Popes; they'd be praising them as courageous defenders of the Faith against Modernism.
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on August 25, 2018, 02:06:12 PM
Also, aren't you required in your frame work to say that current "Church" teaching on the death penalty and Amoris Lætitia are developments of doctrine and not contradiction of past Church teachings since that what the "Magisterium" says?
Yes. Which I can't, so it is no longer my frame work. If Francis is right, and the death penalty is intrinsically immoral, then it means the Church officially allowed immorality for centuries at least (if not millennia). If he is wrong, then Church condemnations of acts as "intrinsically immoral" have no real value, since they could in fact be perfectly fine in themselves, and the Church's condemnation just being a result of the current zeitgeist. This is the nail in the coffin, if you'll excuse the pun.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 25, 2018, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on August 25, 2018, 02:06:12 PM
Also, aren't you required in your frame work to say that current "Church" teaching on the death penalty and Amoris Lætitia are developments of doctrine and not contradiction of past Church teachings since that what the "Magisterium" says?
Yes. Which I can't, so it is no longer my frame work. If Francis is right, and the death penalty is intrinsically immoral, then it means the Church officially allowed immorality for centuries at least (if not millennia). If he is wrong, then Church condemnations of acts as "intrinsically immoral" have no real value, since they could in fact be perfectly fine in themselves, and the Church's condemnation just being a result of the current zeitgeist. This is the nail in the coffin, if you'll excuse the pun.
Why are you claiming that Francis taught the death penalty is intrinsically immoral? I thought the change to the catechism was:
QuoteRecourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person",[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide"
It looks to me like a claim that the death penalty is wrong now because of a change in circumstances, not a claim that it is intrinsically wrong. While this is also problematic, it is not at the level of saying the death penalty is intrinsically wrong. On the contrary, the statement implies that it was correct to allow the death penalty in the past before the current "more effective systems of detention" had been developed.
Quote from: Jayne on August 25, 2018, 04:46:02 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 25, 2018, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on August 25, 2018, 02:06:12 PM
Also, aren't you required in your frame work to say that current "Church" teaching on the death penalty and Amoris Lætitia are developments of doctrine and not contradiction of past Church teachings since that what the "Magisterium" says?
Yes. Which I can't, so it is no longer my frame work. If Francis is right, and the death penalty is intrinsically immoral, then it means the Church officially allowed immorality for centuries at least (if not millennia). If he is wrong, then Church condemnations of acts as "intrinsically immoral" have no real value, since they could in fact be perfectly fine in themselves, and the Church's condemnation just being a result of the current zeitgeist. This is the nail in the coffin, if you'll excuse the pun.
Why are you claiming that Francis taught the death penalty is intrinsically immoral? I thought the change to the catechism was:
QuoteRecourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person",[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide"
It looks to me like a claim that the death penalty is wrong now because of a change in circumstances, not a claim that it is intrinsically wrong. While this is also problematic, it is not at the level of saying the death penalty is intrinsically wrong. On the contrary, the statement implies that it was correct to allow the death penalty in the past before the current "more effective systems of detention" had been developed.
But it does say more or less that the primary reason for the death penalty according to the Church (retributive justice) is an insufficient justification for the death penalty. In other words, the death penalty is intrinsically evil if it is not done out of societal proactive self defense, but rather in order to achieve retributive justice. The end result is the same no doubt.
QuoteYes. Which I can't, so it is no longer my frame work. If Francis is right, and the death penalty is intrinsically immoral, then it means the Church officially allowed immorality for centuries at least (if not millennia).
So what is your frame work? Because I was talking about your frame work which you have defended for the last couple years and what I thought was still yours. I don't want to know what I should think of if I accept western theology but what you actually think so that I know where you are coming from.
Bergoglian efforts to pollute the magisterium just have to be ignored. Later they will be clarified to nothing or he will be posthumously condemned, a far more deserving candidate than Pope Honorius. Bergoglio owes his office to a cabal of old sodomites and pederasts looking to protect their networks. His evasive death penalty edits to canon law seem to blasphemously say God is wrong, to cast doubt on His words, and heretically hold a succession of Saints, Popes and canonists to be wrong. It matches his usual modus operandi of sowing doubt into every part of Church teaching.
Quote from: Jayne on August 25, 2018, 04:46:02 PM
Why are you claiming that Francis taught the death penalty is intrinsically immoral?
Because this can be logically deduced from what he wrote.
QuoteRecourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however...
Obviously, then, today, it is
not considered "appropriate" and "acceptable" as means for effecting justice and protecting the innocent. This is a blanket statement. And it can't be argued that he really meant this was due solely to circumstances, since he specifically says otherwise.
Quote...there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.
It is due to our increased "awareness" and "understanding" which make what was OK yesterday evil today. But if our current awareness and understanding is correct today, it can't make it intrinsically OK yesterday; it just means we didn't realize the evil we were doing.
It is only partially due to circumstance.
QuoteLastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
But that doesn't save it.
Quote"Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person",[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide".
Any sort of "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" is intrinsically evil. Previous teaching on capital punishment denied that it was an attack on the person's dignity; to the contrary, it even maintained that it would contribute to the person's dignity if the punishment were accepted in a spirit of expiation.
But it's necessary to go to CDF Letter to the Bishops to get the full interpretation.
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556/01210.html#letteraing
Quote6. In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that "today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned's crime may have been."[8] The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, "entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment."[9] Furthermore, it is to be rejected "due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error."[10] It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that "no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person."[11]
The death penalty is "cruel", "inhumane", and "degrading" and that is the primary reason for rejecting it; only secondarily, due to problems in the criminal justice system (which has always been recognized as a legitimate reason for its prudential rejection in practice, and something I support as long as prosecutors are allowed to act like sociopaths with impunity) and is not justifiable no matter what the gravity of the crime. It is intrinsically evil to act in a cruel, inhumane, and degrading manner.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 25, 2018, 03:43:36 PM
It is a fact that loan contracts with interest were condemned as usury in Vix Pervenit.
It is a fact that the 1917 CCL demanded religious orders put their saving in interest-bearing accounts.
It is a fact that an interest-bearing account is a loan contract with interest between the depositor and the bank.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that CCL commanded something condemned in Vix Pervenit.
It is your private interpretation and conclusions based on your analysis of the above-mentioned facts, which again you try to pass as facts. Same way atheists take two passages of Scripture, "demonstrate" that they contradict each other, call it "logical deduction" and on these basis claim "it is a fact" that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible. But of course, you will not grant that, because we know that there are no errors in the Bible, and private judgment of any person cannot trump this knowledge.
In other words, you use primarily epistemological arguments, but here you switch to ontology, since the argument violates your own epistemological principles.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIt is a premise that the Church is an infallible means of salvation.
It is a logical deduction that, if the above premise is true, everything it does must lead to salvation; or at least, nothing it does can lead to damnation.
It is a fact that commanding evil is something that leads to damnation.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, if the CCL commanded evil, the above premise is false; therefore, the CCL could not have commanded evil.
But (from above) the CCL commanded what was condemned as evil in Vix Pervenit.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, while it was condemned as evil in Vix Pervenit, it no longer was at the time of the promulgation of the CCL.
Again, this is begging the question by asserting that CCL commanded evil and contradicts Vix Pervenit - this is your private interpretation of both documents (not to mention modern economy). Usually you argue against it, but here you exempt yourself from your own standard by rebranding private judgment as "facts".
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIt is a fact that the 1616 Decree of the Holy Office censured the earth's motion as theologically "at least erroneous in faith".
Yes, and the 1616 Decree of the Holy Office is not a Magisterial document, just like the Canon Law is not. Neither heliocentrism/geocentrism was defined as true by the Church - the anti-helicentric prononcements and documents were disciplinary measures, and as such do not define doctrine, or were fallible. The Church did not change its teaching on geocentrism/heliocentrism for the simple reason that such teaching was never defined in first place.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIt is a fact that it is a sin to hold to a doctrine which is erroneous in faith.
It depends. St. Thomas Aquinas was not in sin for denying the Immaculate Conception (the dogma has not been defined yet), but he was in error, and his opinion was objectively erroneous in faith. Same way the Holy Office in 1616 could have been wrong, or later Popes could have been wrong - since the issue was never defined by the Church, none of them were heretics and no danger for souls is involved in this contradiction, because it is not a contradiction in Church's teaching.
Binding Church's teaching on geocentrism/heliocentrism does not exist, therefore no soul can be endangered by being wrong on this issue.Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIt is a fact that later the Church officially allowed heliocentrism to be held.
It is a logical deduction that the Church officially allowed a doctrine to be held which was previously held as sinful to hold.
It is a premise that the Church is an infallible means of salvation.
It is a logical deduction that, if the above premise is true, everything it does must lead to salvation; or at least, nothing it does can lead to damnation.
It is a fact that saying that what is in reality evil is actually permitted is something that leads to damnation.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, if the Church did this, the above premise is false; therefore, the Church could not have done this.
But (from above) the Church later allowed what was condemned as evil in 1616.
Therefore, it is a logical deduction that, while holding of heliocentrism was condemned as evil in 1616, it no longer was at the time of Benedict XV.
Again, the 1616 decree of the Holy Office was not infallible and the issue was never settled by the Church. Therefore, regardless whether the Holy Office in 1616 or later Popes were correct, no danger to soul was involved at any point, simply because the issue of geocentrism/heliocentrism was not settled by the Church. Therefore, if a Catholic follows an erroneous view on this issue (whether it is heliocentrism or geocentrism), he does not go against Church's teaching and is not a heretic, because there is no binding Church teaching on this issue.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiWell, if that's the kind of argument you're going to take, how do you know that any purported Magisterial document isn't really a forgery, or a deliberate miscopying, etc.
How do you know that CCL contradicts Vix Pervenit? You argue that on the basis of your analysis of both documents (that is, ontology). Here you reject an ontological argument (evidence that
Suprema Heac Sacra is a fraud) and switch back to epistemology. You jump from one to another when it is convenient for you.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiAdmittedly QCM isn't an absolute slam dunk like the previous two examples. Yet you have to force an interpretation of QCM in order to get it to agree with the necessity of explicit faith. You have to read things into the text which aren't there, and then say QCM doesn't contradict because doesn't explicitly deny those things, even though they are implied via the text. Your interpretation is not what anyone would understand via a plain meaning of the words in ordinary language. IOW, you would have to say QCM is misleading, implying something which is not true.
And even that is sufficient for the previous line of argumentation to work, because even being misleading is something which leads to damnation.
QCM does not imply what you claim. It explicitly says about being saved "through divine light and grace", which is an obvious reference to God granting an unbeliever faith. Also, the paragraph in question is immediately followed by strong reaffirmation of EENS, which puts it into proper context, usually ignored by those for argue that Pope Pius IX taught possibility of salvation without explicit faith.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti10/10 for unnecessary pedantry. You knew what I meant.
If you are claiming that
Amoris Laetitia changed Church's teaching, you are indeed implying that Francis is a Pope, which is the very issue in question.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiOK. But the value of the Church in knowing truth lies in the precise possibility that its claims could (hypothetically) be empirically falsified but actually won't be. Now you've reduced "the Church teaches the truth" to a mere tautology - if what is taught is not the truth, then it is not the Church teaching it.
No, because I deny that people who are formal heretics are members of the Church at all. During the Arian crisis over 90% of putative Church hierarchy taught Arian heresy - that does not change the fact that they were not Church hierarchy, and that Councils of Milan and Sirmium were false councils. Following your principle, one would have to accept these councils to avoid "reducing Church teaching to mere tautology". In fact, according to your principle St. Athanasius "reduced Church teaching to mere tautology" by opposing Arian councils.
If one becomes a heretic he ontologically ceases to be member of the Church and his teaching is not teaching of the Church - epistemology can inform us about ontological reality, but it cannot change it.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiExcept that the authority of the Catholic Church is not only ontological, but also epistemological, which is no longer the case for you. You have to verify truthfulness of what is putatively the Catholic Church in order to confirm it is really the Catholic Church, so in practice, epistemologically speaking, the Church is not the final authority. If you didn't follow this you would accept Vatican II and not submit it to a further test.
That is non-sequitur. If putative hierarchy is not actual hierarchy (like heretical bishops during the Arian crisis), it is an ontological fact which episitemology cannot change. Therefore, if one rejects their teaching he does not reject or submit to test Church teaching, but teaching of heretics.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiOr, maybe Church pronouncements are historically conditioned, not as a result of any particular defect on the part of the Church, but on a defect in humans in how truth and knowledge can really be grasped.
Which means nothing less than complete relativism. If changing the teaching on death penalty or Communion for adulterers can be justified like that, then - using your own example - there is no reason why declaring Satanism to be official worship of the Church could not be excused the same way. If tomorrow Francis declares murder to be intrinsically good (you claim that Church's teachng can and did change, so you cannot exclude a possibility of such change) you can always say that previous prohibitions of murder were historically conditioned and they can be expained away through some "defect in how truth and knowledge can really be grasped". Your above statement makes Catholicism absolutely meaningless - if you are correct, any teaching on any issue can change tomorrow and therefore there is zero ontological or epistemological reason to follow the Catholic Church, because everything is relative.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiAgain, there's facts, deductions, and interpretation.
Your conclusions about alleged changes in Church's teaching fall into the interpretation category.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiYes, and there would be no problem with this if the epistemological criteria for determining all this (Pope's heresy, loss of office, etc.) were something other than and prior to the Pope's official teaching.
Why is that a problem? If, hypothetically, a Pope falls into heresy through a certain official pronouncement and heresy leading to it, that is when he ceases to be Pope. We cannot see it before it happens.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiBut that's not how current sedevacantist arguments operate (at least, none that I have seen). They argue that Vatican II or the New Mass is (heretical, erroneous, etc.) and that proves the Pope must have lost his office prior to their promulgation. That is why I say it is post-hoc.
There are many quotes from V2 claimants to the Papacy indicating their heretical beliefs from before and after their official pronouncements, there is also Siri theory. But even if that was not the case, see above - if a Pope falls into formal heresy through an official pronouncement and his heretical belief leading to it, then indeed we can see it only afterwards.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiHad instead Paul VI or John XXIII annulled the Council, or gotten through the initial (unobjectionable) version of documents, they would not be saying they weren't Popes; they'd be praising them as courageous defenders of the Faith against Modernism.
If they were indeed orthodox they would not cease to be Popes/be impeded from becoming Popes, of course. But that is not what happened.
When clerics are covering up for pedophiles, why on earth would I worry about them covering for former nazis?
Paul Touvier certainly isn't/wasn't a clear and present danger to Jews or Gypsies. He wasn't ordering Zyklon B on eBay and converting the showers in Broadstairs. Whatever he did it was a long time ago.
The molester priests ARE a definite danger to the young and USUALLY remain so.