Author Topic: Paul Touvier & The SSPX  (Read 6475 times)

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20441
  • Thanked: 5996 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #135 on: July 07, 2018, 05:59:59 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? 
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo, Maximilian, Richard Malcolm

Offline matt

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #136 on: July 07, 2018, 06:29:12 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Oh 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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."

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.

Quote
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.

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Richard Malcolm

Offline matt

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #137 on: July 07, 2018, 06:32:49 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Richard Malcolm

Offline matt

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #138 on: July 07, 2018, 06:52:03 PM »
Itís 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, heís 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: heís 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. Heís just a danger to the Faith as a full blooded N.O. Prelate.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 07:08:43 PM by matt »
 
The following users thanked this post: Elizabeth, Richard Malcolm

Offline Richard Malcolm

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #139 on: July 07, 2018, 07:17:47 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.
 

Offline matt

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #140 on: July 07, 2018, 07:17:56 PM »
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 Iíll 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 ďout-of-dateĒ). 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 Ė 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, ďThe crazy ideas of Bishop Williamson were familiar to us, and we knew all about them.Ē

 
The following users thanked this post: Richard Malcolm

Offline Richard Malcolm

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #141 on: July 07, 2018, 07:22:58 PM »
Itís 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, heís 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: heís 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. Heís 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: matt

Offline matt

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #142 on: July 07, 2018, 08:24:58 PM »
Itís 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, heís 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: heís 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. Heís 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 Iím sure someone will correct me if Iím 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, itís  .75 of his second eleven, which makes an even better batting average!
 

Offline Richard Malcolm

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #143 on: July 07, 2018, 08:29:53 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 Iím 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 ďsupport.Ē Econe at the time said they had no ďlinkĒ to Touvier, and that the permission for him to stay at the chapel in Nice was ď"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. Laguťrie, has condemned Bishop Williamson publicly over his comments on the Holocaust.

3. Regarding traditionalist support for (your term) fascist regimes. Obviously thereís considerable and well known history on this point, though Iím unclear if youíre 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 wasnít like there were any Habsburg governments left around to support.  If I had been a Catholic Spaniard in 1936, there really wouldnít be much to think about Ė 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. Itís not a surprise that many would be drawn to the FSSPX as soon as it appeared on the scene.

4. Iím not going to retreat on the allegations regarding +Williamsonís 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), Iím not sure itís fair to describe the American and British war efforts as directed to the ďpreservationĒ of the Soviet Union. The war effort was directed to the destruction of Nazi Germany. "If Hitler invaded hell,Ē Churchill famously said, ďI would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Itís 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 donít virtue signal. I think Iíve got a pretty fair bead on the crowd here by now. What would it gain me?

5. Finally: My ďnewbieĒ status. I donít 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 itís worth.
 

Offline Richard Malcolm

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #144 on: July 07, 2018, 08:41:43 PM »
Itís 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, heís 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: heís 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. Heís 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 Iím sure someone will correct me if Iím 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, itís  .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.
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4693
  • Thanked: 2109 times
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #145 on: July 07, 2018, 09:52:05 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.


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.


3. Regarding traditionalist support for (your term) fascist regimes. Obviously thereís considerable and well known history on this point, though Iím unclear if youíre 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.


After all, it wasnít 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.


 for many conservative Catholic Frenchmen, what was underway was an extension of a struggle that had been underwaysince 1789. Itís not a surprise that many would be drawn to the FSSPX as soon as it appeared on the scene.

Right. And they were correct.


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.


Iím not sure itís fair to describe the American and British war efforts as directed to the ďpreservationĒ 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: CrŪostůir

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3549
  • Thanked: 1219 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #146 on: July 08, 2018, 04:06:40 PM »
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, "Öa 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. 



« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 04:31:40 PM by Gerard »
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich, CrŪostůir, Larry, Maximilian, Padraig, Arvinger

Offline Richard Malcolm

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #147 on: July 08, 2018, 08:47:17 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.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 08:51:44 PM by Richard Malcolm »
 

Offline Elizabeth

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4879
  • Thanked: 1978 times
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #148 on: July 09, 2018, 10:13:11 PM »













5. Finally: My ďnewbieĒ status. I donít 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 itís worth.
Welcome! Honored to have you here.
 We assist at the SSPX DC Mission in the catacombs. (Everly Funeral)
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Richard Malcolm

Offline Arvinger

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 189
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Paul Touvier & The SSPX
« Reply #149 on: July 12, 2018, 05:24:57 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.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 05:36:19 AM by Arvinger »