Replies

<> Zviadist, you are your buddies like to slam those in union with the Pope. I thought you and your ilk would like to read a little bit about your side:)<>

:: I. Shawn McElhinney 4:22 PM [+] ::

"Trad" Internal Inconsistency (Part II)

This is a continuation of the thread started HERE. Please read it before reading this one for proper context.

It is a clear and irrefutable (not to mention damning) fact that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and the Abbe de Nantes were all on the side of the Vichy government. (The war criminal Paul Touvier was not the only one who was given amnesty at Lefebvrist monestaries and seminaries I assure you.) There is a LOT more dirt here that I could print that I will not get into and cannot ever recall mentioning publicly in any of my refutations of pseudo-tradism: stuff that corroberates the above assertions and which all the more crystalizes to the SSPX's discredit - as if supporting the Nazis was not bad enough. (I remember one message board post from last year where I touched on the subject but I stopped short of going into detail on it.) By sharp contrast the theologians and philosophers later persecuted (referring to the theologian/philosophers de Lubac, Conger, Danielou, Blondel, and Maritain) were all affiliated with the Resistance which was opposed to the Nazi regime. Note the clean division made above.

There are many elements to this equation that are not often recognized but it is interesting to note that those who supported the stagnant neo-scholastic manual theology methods - and the duplex ordo view of nature and grace relationship - were by my reckoning always on the side of the Nazis in Germany, Franco on Spain, and Mussolini in Italy. If you are aware that the French movement "Action Francaise" factors heavily into the equation it helps to see the root and matrix of all the Lefebvrist positions.

Action Francaise was founded by Charles Maurras (1868-1952) who was an atheist. He saw the Catholic Church as a force of tradition, authority, and order as a counter to the revolutionaries of the mid nineteenth century who propounded a radical form of democracy that was condemned by the popes. Action Francaise saw as a necessary part of therir program a restoration of the Catholic monarchy. (Garrigou-Lagrange's declaring to Jacques Maritain that his support of the Free French against the Nazi occupied Vichy government was a mortal sin demonstrates the degree to which Integrisme was a core philosophy of its adherents.)

Now when you consider the teachings of Vatican I which were never completed* the apparent imbalance in Church teaching made the papacy come across as very monarchial indeed. And though collegiality is eminently traditional, Lefebvre and company saw collegiality as akin to the radicals of the nineteenth century who were pushing for dangerous forms of democracy. The idea that collegiality presupposes the papacy and is not properly exercised apart from it never permeated Lefebvre's weltsanchauung. (Much as the idea that there could be democratic forms of government that were not akin to the mob rule of the French revolutionaries.)

In the realm of religious liberty the original schema which was defended by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani actually stated that religious liberty was something that the Church claimed when she was in the minority but that she never had to concede when in the majority. How this rationale would have persuaded the overwhelmingly secularist governments - not to mention the atheist totalitarian dictatorships such as the USSR - is of course a mystery since the rationale here is so ridiculously inconsistent.

The integralists never understood (and still do not) that there was a distinction to be made between the divine law which the Catholic Church taught recognized the right of one religion and one religion alone to exist and the individual's rights in civil society to religious liberty and being able to worship in accordance with their conscience without coersion by government provided that certain limits were respected. (Limits I might add to which the Catholic religion is Constitutionally incapable of breaching if properly exercised.) This is a subject that I have written essays on and books have been written on by others. Hence it cannot be done justice in a brief weblog blurb.

And of course that the ecumenism as espoused by the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council was diametrically different from the ecumenical efforts of the 1920's which Pope Pius XI condemned in Mortalium Animos. This is something that anyone who actually *reads* the relevant documents can see that the substance of the errors condemned in Mortalium Animos were also condemned in Unitatis Redintegratio. What differs is the usage of certain terms and the rejection by UR of certain policies that MA put into place to deal with specific contingencies of its time. But this is another area where essays and books can be written and I will not do it full justice here in this brief summation by my own admission.

In summary, those who opposed the duplex ordo were almost always opposed to the Nazis, opposed to Franco, and opposed to Mussolini. (Not to mention the strong anti-semitic streak that permeated the adherents to duplex ordo outlooks viz nature and grace.) I believe that the paralysis of duplex ordo theology is what causes the "trads" to act in the very inconsistent manner that you have noted Patrick. Hence Lefebvre (as I noted in my essay on the Syllabus of Errors) could endorse forceful suppression of Muslim worshippers and claim that it was "contrary to charity" but at the same time "you would not be doing them an injustice". When something can be by implication both opposed to charity and at the same time be just, you have a SERIOUS internal inconsistency because what is uncharitable cannot by nature be just. But when you espouse duplex ordo theology, that is the kind of twisted rationale you get.

* As the Second Dogmatic Constitution on the Church intended to deal with the episcopate was never issued. Only with Vatican II would these teachings be completed.

You have really hit the bottom. Traditionalists are all Nazis! This is your argument??!?? You are a shameless bottom-dweller for resorting to this disgusting argument. You are on par with sleazebags like Cornwell and Goldhagen.

With this post your true, visceral hatred for the Roman Catholic Church is completely unmasked! You can no longer hide behind the lie that you are a Catholic. You seethe with hatred for the Church. At least my protestant friends here are honest: they don't follow my Church and I have no problem with that when they don't attack it. But you pretend to be a Catholic so as to eat at the Body from within. That is despicable. You are shamed for this post!!! I will no longer address any comments to you.

I'll read your silly post as soon as I get off my prayer rug, kiss the Koran and give praise to almighty Allah; i.e., a cold day in Hell.

You are getting funny, posting Vichy government accusations. Or else desperate. What's next? Another charge of racism or anti-semitism? First of all, where's your proof? Second of all, how is this relevant to matters of faith? I acknowledge the Pope had been a good Polish patriot during the war--but he has still been colossally wrong to punish traditionalists. In other words, this is another smear and red herring at best.

That said, it should be noted the good Archbishop spent his life in the African missions, laboring in the vineyards, living in poverty. Do you really think he was deeply involved in supporting Hitler? There were many reasons Frenchmen supported the Vichy government besides sympathy for the Nazi cause--not least of which was a desire to spare the nation horrific destruction. Do you understand how silly these smears are getting on your part? You sound like Democrats straining to prove Bush was secretly hand-in-glove with Enron because the corporation once contributed to a political campaign fund. Give me a break.

The Archbishop was in good standing up until around 1970. He had been superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers and had worked on the schema for Vatican II. In other words, none of this stuff about the Vichy government or anything else bothered any of you Novus Ordo types--UNTIL he began defending traditional Catholicism. Then all of a sudden his past is raked over for something--anything--that might possibly discredit him and lend credence to the charge that his motives were anything but honorable.

By participating in this transparent charade, you dishonor yourself.