Eleison Comments

Modernism’s Malice – V

Modernism’s Malice – V on June 13, 2020

There is at least one more important consideration to be presented before we leave modernism alone (at least for the time being), and it is a prophecy of Fr Frederick Faber (1814–1863), concerning our own times, which has surely appeared already more than once in these “Comments.” He said words to the effect that the end of the world will be characterised by men doing evil while they think they are doing good.

It stands to reason. Even at world’s end men will still have their God-given nature, which as such is good, underlying their original and personal sins, however heavy these are in the last times – II Tim. III, 1–5. By this underlying nature which underlies even their inborn original sin, men have an underlying natural inclination to good. Yet the mass of men under the Antichrist and his predecessors will have gone along with his evil, actual or anticipated. How will this good and this evil have been compatible inside them?

The human will can want nothing that the human mind has not first presented to it. In front of every human desire must go a human thought. The desire of a non-object can only be a non-desire. Therefore the will depends on the mind to have grasped its object for it, and between every will and the object it wants must have come the mind, always assuming that the mind grasps its own object. But now comes Kant who says that the mind cannot grasp its own real object, it can only grasp what it itself fabricates. This means that the will and its real object are no longer properly connected. This means that a good will can will things in reality bad and a bad will can will something in reality good, but given men’s original sin the latter case will be less frequent. And so when Kant unhooks the mind from objective reality, he is making it that much easier for the will to want something bad while it appeared to be good. Thus in today’s whole world of minds unhooked from objective reality, it is that much easier for men still to be of good will even when they are wanting what is in reality not good, because the mind has been radically crippled.

Here is what Fr Faber is prophesying. He is saying that by the end of the world, the problem need not be so much bad hearts or ill-will as good hearts with crippled minds, in other words good hearts with bad principles. What does this mean in practice? It means that today there will be a large number of Catholics who can have the Faith and who mean well, but whose minds are malfunctioning because they follow, consciously but more often unconsciously, the teaching of Kant, so that their good will is correspondingly adrift. Then they can no longer see how the Newchurch is a gangrene upon the true Catholic Church, or how the Archbishop’s Society of St Pius X is being gangrened by his successors. But in many cases the blindness of such souls is not necessarily out of malice or a lack of good will.

It follows that in dealing with such souls in which the subjective has been split from the objective by a whole world crippled by Kant, a Catholic can easily make one of two opposed but connected errors. Either he can say that such souls are so innocent of heart that they cannot be mistaken in mind, so the Newchurch cannot be all that mistaken, and so he should rejoin it, Pachamama and all – thus behave today the Newsociety’s leaders and all those following them. Or he can say that the errors in the mind of the Newchurch and the Newsociety wishing to rejoin it are so grave that they cannot possibly be the true Church or the true Society, and both must be absolutely shunned – thus argue and behave those known as sedevacantists and those who may refuse the label of sedevacantism but take sedevacantist positions.

On the contrary, if I recognise how Kant began the split of subject from object, I will say neither that such souls are of good will and therefore their doctrine is good, nor that their doctrine is so false that they must be of bad will. Instead I will say that subjectively they may be of good will, but in any case they are objectively of such bad doctrine that for my eternal salvation I cannot follow them or keep them company. And with the Holy Rosary I will beg Our Lady to keep my heart and mind balanced in truth.

Kyrie eleison.

Modernism’s Malice – IV

Modernism’s Malice – IV on June 6, 2020

These “Comments” of March 21 last claimed to be bringing into view “the incredible perversity, pride and perfidy” of Kant. That may seem strong language coming from a Catholic concerning a famous and merely worldly philosopher, but he is not merely worldly. Who that really knows the Revolution in the Church of Vatican II (1962–1965) would not recognise perversity, pride and perfidy as being its hallmarks? Strong language again? Let us see firstly how each of these three hallmarks applies to the principle that the mind is incapable of knowing its own object, extra-mental reality, for which it was designed by God (but Kantism was designed by Kant as a fortress precisely to shut out God, said the great theologian, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange [1877–1964]). And secondly, how the three marks apply to 1960’s Conciliarism.

PERVERSITY of Kantism When in his Summa Theologiae (2a2ae, 154, art.12) St Thomas Aquinas wishes to prove the supreme malice of homosexuality amongst the sins of impurity, he does it by comparing it with the denial of the principles of thinking inborn in the nature of the mind. But Kant denies not just one or two natural principles of the mind, he denies the application of every single inborn principle of the mind to external reality. Kantism is supremely perverse, and is not that conclusion corroborated by how widespread is the sin against nature among students in our Kantian “universities”?

and of Conciliarism Among Council documents, Dei Verbum section 8 paragraph 2 gives an ambiguous definition of living Tradition, in the name of which John-Paul II condemned that unchanging Catholic Tradition in the name of which Archbishop Lefebvre had just consecrated four bishops in June of 1988. In other words, Catholic Truth so changes down the ages that the Archbishop’s version of objective and unchanging Tradition is no longer acceptable. This melting of Catholic Truth is totally perverse.

PRIDE of Kantism If the “Thing in itself” created by God is unknowable to me on the other side of the appearances, where my mind cannot reach, and if, as Kantism holds, I recompose the thing from the sense appearances in accordance with the prior laws of my own mind, then I become the creator of things, they are fabricated by me, and I take the place of God. For indeed God very rarely makes Himself perceptible to the human senses – even Incarnate and touched by St Thomas, the Apostle still needed an act of faith to believe in His godhead (Jn. XX, 28) – so God is behind the sense-appearances, so, for Kant, He is inaccessible to my mind. He depends on my will to believe in Him, thus: Not what I know but what I want is what is real. Now I want God. So God is real. If this is the basis of God’s existence, could it be more fragile? And if God depends on me to want Him for Him to exist, could pride be more insane?

and of Conciliarism As Fr Calderón makes abundantly clear in his study of Vatican II, Prometheus, the key to the modern man to whom it is the Council’s purpose to adapt the religion of God, is liberty. Modern man will accept no objective truth imprisoning his mind, no objective law commanding his will, no grace healing his nature for any other purpose than nature’s own freedom. In brief, modern man will have nothing and nobody superior to him. He is the supreme creature by his freedom. Also, he is more free than God because he is free to choose evil, which God is not. Again, could pride be more mad?

PERFIDY of Kantism To deny, as does Kantism, that the mind can know anything beyond the sense-appearances, is not to deny that things are what they are, it is merely to make the utterly absurd pretention that they depend on my mind to be what they are. Thus for purposes of living, even surviving, my great mind is bound to fabricate meals on the appearance of my kitchen-table, otherwise I will get rather hungry. And similarly I will fabricate all things necessary for daily existence. So I can behave in daily life just like a normal non-Kantian, and deceive people that I am not crazy at all. Only if I tell them that my mind fabricated the breakfast will they realise that they are dealing with a madman. Thus I can hide from view my radical inward betrayal of outward reality. This is potentially perfidious.

and of Conciliarism Vatican II is not just potentially but actually perfidious because, again as Fr Calderón makes abundantly clear, its very essence was to create a new man-centred humanism which would be able to pass itself of as being still God-centred Catholicism. Objective disguise and deceit were written into the Council’s charter from the very beginning.

Kyrie eleison.

Admirable Appeal

Admirable Appeal on May 30, 2020

Ever since governments all over the world clamped down on the lives of their citizens over two months ago because of dishonest reports of the danger of the “corona-virus” let loose from China, honest experts have contradicted these reports. Included in that clamp-down were severe measures taken against Catholics attending Mass or any of the Holy Week liturgy. And at the time Church leaders and laity set up little resistance. But earlier this month some churchmen published an “Appeal for Church and World” in which at last the sinister forces behind the so-called “pandemic” were openly denounced, even if they were not clearly named. It was high time that Catholics received guidance from high-ranking churchmen that they are being led like sheep to the slaughter by wolves of the Antichrist disguised as friends of mankind. Here is a summary of the 1375-word Appeal –

In today’s crisis, we undersigned Church leaders consider we are in duty bound to make this Appeal to all Catholics and souls of good will. People’s rights have been violated by worldwide government measures taken on the excuse of the coronavirus to restrict their liberties when the facts show that the media panic raised over the virus has been exaggerated out of all proportion. We believe that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and tracking their movements, and that this is a disturbing prelude to the realisation of a world government beyond all control. Such measures have wrecked many an economy, and encouraged foreign interference, whereas governments must protect their citizens and not indulge in social engineering to split families and isolate individuals.

Let scientists tell the truth and beware of shady business interests and of pharmaceutical companies seeking huge profits by expensive cures for the not so dangerous virus. Let governments rigorously avoid all systems of tracking or locating their citizens, and let them not support the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in the plan to do so. Let citizens be free to refuse vaccines, and let self-styled “experts” enjoy no kind of immunity from prosecution. Let the media tell the truth and not practise various forms of censorship as are now being practised, to impose a single way of thinking, in fact a subtle dictatorship of opinion, all the more effective for being subtle.

And last but not least, let everyone remember that Our Lord Jesus Christ granted to His Church an entire independence from the State to worship God and to teach and govern citizens in accordance with her own purposes, the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The State may not interfere in any ruling of the Church upon her own affairs, nor may it in any way limit the sovereignty of God’ s own true Church, nor may it in any way restrict or ban public worship or Catholic priests doing their priestly duty. Therefore let all coronavirus restrictions upon Catholic worship be removed. If citizens have duties towards the State, so also they have rights, which include respect for natural law and for God’s interests coming first.

We are fighting against an invisible enemy that seeks to divide citizens, to separate children from parents, grandchildren from grandparents, souls from priests, students from teachers, and so on, in brief to erase centuries of Christian civilisation by an odious technological tyranny in which nameless and faceless people can decide the fate of the world by confining us to a virtual reality. But Christ will win. We pray for government leaders who face a special responsibility before the judgment seat of God, We beg Our Lord to protect His Church. And may Our Lady defeat the plans of the children of darkness.

And this appeal was signed by dozens of eminent laymen, in addition to several leading churchmen.

Kyrie eleison.

Men Lacking

Men Lacking on May 23, 2020

When Authority abandons Truth in the Catholic Church as it has been doing ever since Vatican II, then it is easier said than done to walk the fine line between heresy on the left and schism on the right. So it is not surprising if an unusually sharp remark like that of Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in the last two issues of these “Comments” (“Hoist the ladder . . . ”) arouses interest.

One layman even doubted the authenticity of the remark – could the sweet Archbishop really have said such a thing? Oh yes, he did. The original words are a little less elegant than the polished quotation, but the substance is identical – “With that, all that’s left is to pull up the ladder. There’s nothing to be done with these people (the Conciliar Romans). What have we got in common with them? Nothing! It’s not possible. It’s not possible” (6 Sept. 1990). The 1990 audio tape reference is Audio – Retrec – PASCALE90 or SACERDOTALE90. (However, let anyone wishing to check the quotation for himself beware of “revised” collections of the Archbishop’s tapes, because any words of his strongly opposed, like these to the Conciliarists in Rome, may well have been cut out by “editors” of the pro-Rome Newsociety.)

Another reader who reacted to the quotation is a priest, from the Novus Ordo, but now firmly established in a Newsociety Priory in Switzerland (without having been conditionally re-ordained, as best we know).

He thinks that “things really look different today” because the present generation of officials in Rome are a different breed from those that the Archbishop was reacting to in the 1980’s, and the best of them want a genuine restoration of the Church. He concludes that to adopt the Archbishop’s attitude today leaves only two solutions – either the “Resistance” or sedevacantism.

But, Father, while the present breed of Church leaders may be different men from the traitor-priests of the Archbishop’s time, who did all they could to destroy the true Church, have they understood (or read) Pascendi? And what use are sweet and well-meaning Church authorities to the Faith or to the Church or to the SSPX or to the “Resistance,” if they have not grasped that the problem is rubber minds which cannot even conceive of truth condemning error or of dogma condemning heresy? A rubber mind sympathetic to Tradition is basically no more use to Tradition than a rubber mind condemning Tradition. Nor is it true that things are “really different” from the Archbishop’s time. The sign that a priest has really understood the problem is when – at least figuratively – he wants to go down to Rome with a machine-gun and send all sweetie-pies to meet their Maker, as Putin would say. In brief, the “Resistance” must stay on the road, otherwise the road will be torn up to provide stones to cry out the Truth in place of the silent shepherds and their non-barking dogs (cf. Lk XIX, 40). The “Resistance” must not, may not, give way!

Finally a good priest seeks to console us with the news from a Society Prior that the Newsociety Superior General told a meeting in February of all Newsociety Priors in France that discussions between the SSPX and Rome are at a standstill because the SSPX is still insisting on doctrine first – well done, Fr Pagliarani – while Rome insists on fixing first a practical agreement. But need Rome even be concerned? Need it not merely wait for the ripe fruit to fall into its lap? Bishop Tissier is now so unwell that reportedly a room is being hospitalised inside Écône for him to retire to. Only two SSPX bishops remain to look after its worldwide needs. So either the Superior General must submit to Rome’s terms for the consecration of further bishops, continuing his predecessor’s disastrous conciliating of Church leaders who, however sweet they are, have lost the Faith, as the Archbishop said. Or he must consecrate more bishops without the Pope’s permission, as the Archbishop did. But would the Newsociety still follow in the Archbishop’s heroic line, of defying the (at least) objective traitors in Rome? One may doubt it.

Kyrie eleison.

Hoist Ladder – III

Hoist Ladder – III on May 16, 2020

The last two issues of these “Comments,” # 668 and # 669 of May 2 and 9 respectively, sought to defend the apparent harshness of Archbishop Lefebvre’s parting advice in 1990 to the priests of the Society he founded when he said to them that they should have nothing further to do with the Church’s Conciliar officials in Rome. # 668 underlined the gravity of the subjectivism denounced by the Archbishop as underlying all the Council’s main documents. # 669 recognised that respect and charity are due to the highest officials of Our Lord’s true Church, but repeated yet again that their subjectivism is so grave for the Church’s Faith that the due respect and charity had to be measured by the Faith and not the reverse.

However, the “apparent harshness” may need further defence, and those “Comments” some explanation.

Firstly, a brief reminder of some Society history of those crucial years between 1988 and 2012. In 1988 the Archbishop at the end of a long and outstanding career in the Church’s service apparently performed a grave disservice to the Church by consecrating four bishops against the express will of Pope John-Paul II in order to defend the Faith and the Church from the ravages of the new Conciliar religion being promoted worldwide by the Pope. Of course the Pope did not understand his action, and behaved like a swine in the comparison of Our Lord warning us not to throw pearls in front of swine because they will trample on the pearls and then turn and rend us ourselves. Indeed until 2000 John-Paul II trampled upon the Church’s Tradition as defended by the Archbishop and did his best to “rend” the Society.

However, all over the world there were serious and believing Catholics who fully understood and supported the Archbishop, and who so rallied to his support that the Society arguably enjoyed its golden years in defending the Faith between 1988 and 2000. As a result, not only did the trampling of Rome and the Pope upon the Society not succeed, but it was even counter-productive, attracting more and more customers to buy the Church’s true pearls of Tradition, thanks to the Archbishop and his Society. The official Church’s failure to tread those pearls into the mud became absolutely clear with the success of the Society’s Jubilee Year Pilgrimage to Rome in the spring of 2000. That was when the “swine” of Rome switched their strategy from the stick to the carrot, and began cooing like doves in order to entice the Society to descend from its impregnable fortress of doctrine down to the shifting sands of diplomacy.

And the Archbishop having died in 1991, his charisma and wisdom were no longer there to prevent his relatively young successors from being seduced by the cooing of the apparent doves.

And so the battle-lines in the fight for the Faith seem to have been re-drawn, with the official Society having gone over to the enemy, so that it is now more angry with the lightweight “Resistance” than it is with heavyweight Conciliar Rome. In fairness however, the present Society leaders have not yet signed over the store, and a good number of Society priests are truly opposed to their store being signed over. But any Catholic must wish that the Society never cease to stand for what the Archbishop stood for.

And his “harshness”? Pachamama is merely one very clear example of how right he was to sound the alarm and to take action in the wake of Vatican II. The same “swine” as later had cooed like doves also at the Council (1962–1965) to fool a huge number of Catholic sheep and shepherds at the time, by no means all of whom woke up later or in the next 55 years to date. But the Archbishop had learned to value the good philosophy he had been given at the seminary to fortify his common sense, and so he judged everything in the light of true principles and the Faith. In that light the modern world and its wretched Council are a sorry affair, leaving only an appearance of Christianity while the substance is becoming something completely different. To say, take to the hills and do not look back, is only what God Himself told Lot. It is good advice, however difficult now to apply, for a world being confined in folly.

Kyrie eleison.

Hoist Ladder – II

Hoist Ladder – II on May 9, 2020

Last week these “Comments” started out from words of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1990 on the mindset of the officials at the top of the Conciliar Church in Rome, and they finished with his strong conclusion –

All we can do is pull up the ladder (i.e. cut all contact) . There is nothing we can do with these people, because we have nothing in common with them.

Such words may seem to be lacking either in charity, or at least in the respect due to the princes of the Church of Our Lord, but in fact they are neither uncharitable nor disrespectful, because the very purpose of Our Lord’s Church is 1/ the Faith on which 2/ must be based charity and 3/ respect for the officials who are meant to be caring for that Church.

1/ “Without faith it is impossible to please God. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” (Hebrews XI, 6). (Atheists, if you wish you could believe in God, notice immediately that “He rewards those who seek Him,” and if you do persevere in seeking Him, your reward will most likely be that you will find Him, as many quotations in Scripture attest, but that is a story for another time.) All spiritual souls, by which alone human beings live, come from God in accordance with His wish that they use their brief lives to choose to return to Him for eternal bliss in His heaven. However, while that choice is encouraged by all the goodness in creation, it is discouraged by the soul’s three great enemies, the world, the flesh and the Devil, and by all the evil that God chooses to allow in his creation, so that there is a genuine choice to be made, requiring virtue, otherwise I will incline away from God towards the evil.

Now such is the display of goodness in God’s creation that those who see it and still do not believe in God are called by St Paul “inexcusable” (Romans, I, 20). Nevertheless God Himself normally remains invisible (e.g. Col. I, 15), so that the prime virtue needed to begin to make one’s way towards Him is the virtue of faith, by which I choose to make the jump, from what I see with my eyes to what or Who I must know with my mind is behind what I see with my eyes. Hence the Council of Trent (VI, 6) calls faith “the foundation of salvation,” and the Catholic Church by its Creeds simply spells out what I need to believe in order to have faith in the truth, and not falsehoods, about God.

2/ Now there cannot be a desire in a human will which is not preceded by some thought in the same person’s mind. A desire without object is a non-desire. That object is presented to a human will by a mind.

Now charity is a kind of desire seated in the will, so it presupposes a thought in the mind. And if the charity is to be truly supernatural and not just humanist or sentimental, it presupposes a supernatural object in the mind, and that is the supernatural object which is believed in by faith. Therefore true charity presupposes true faith, and without true supernatural faith there cannot be true charity. It follows that if today’s Roman officials have a faith at least seriously contaminated by Vatican II, as is certainly the case, then people wishing to keep the true Faith must be seriously warned to stay away from such officials lest their own faith be also contaminated. In other words they must be told to “pull up the ladder.”

3/ And while to those “seated on the chair of Moses” (Mt. XXIII, 2) is due all respect due to the chair of Moses, all the more to the See of Rome, and while to high Church officials is due all charity towards souls with a tremendous responsibility at their Particular Judgment, nevertheless the Catholic faith comes first, so that neither the respect nor the charity can include my exposing my own soul or anyone else’s to contamination of our faith by imprudent contacts risking just such contamination. the Conciliarists in 2020 are still crusaders for the idolatry of man peddled by their wretched Council. Archbishop Lefebvre was right – pull up the ladder. Catholics and Conciliarists are in a war of religions, a war to the death.

Kyrie eleison.