Eleison Comments

Speak Up!

Speak Up! on December 28, 2019

If there have been great minds from the past, it is because they will have been thinking on great matters, which means, explicitly or implicitly, matters of God, and if they were truly great minds, their thinking will have been not just destructive. One such mind was certainly England’s Shakespeare. As a Catholic he grappled with his country’s apostasy being fulfilled just as he was reaching his prime, around 1600. But that turning of England to Protestantism meant that if he did not want to be hanged, drawn and quartered, he had to disguise his Catholic message, as Clare Asquith proved in her book of 2005, “Shadowplay,” where she took English literature way above English “patriots” and the dwarves of literary criticism.

To take just one example, in the book’s Appendix on Shakespeare’s Sonnet 152, she shows how from start to finish, beneath the obvious application to a woman Shakespeare has known, there is a complete second meaning of far wider application to himself as a writer who has failed to warn his countrymen as he should have done. Here are the 14 lines of the sonnet together with their obvious meaning:—

In loving thee thou know’st I am forsworn
But thou art twice forsworn to me love swearing,
In act thy bed-vow broke and new faith torn,
In vowing new hate after new love bearing.
But why of two oaths’ breach do I accuse thee,
When I break twenty? I am perjured most,
For all my vows are oaths but to misuse thee,
And all my honest faith in thee is lost;
For I have sworn deep oaths of thy deep kindness,
Oaths of thy love, thy truth, thy constancy,
And, to enlighten thee, gave eyes to blindness,
Or made them swear against the thing they see.
    For I have sworn thee fair: more perjured eye,
    To swear against the truth so foul a lie.

You know I break a promise by loving you, but by
swearing you love me, you break two promises: you
forsook your husband’s bed, then returned to him
(“new faith,” “new love”) only to forsake him again.
But why do I accuse you of breaking two oaths when
I break twenty oaths? It is I the greater perjurer, for
To your own harm I have sworn oath upon oath about
your goodness when I well knew you were not good.
Thus I have been swearing that you are very kind,
very loving, very truthful, very constant, and to
put you in a good light, I have made me see what I
Did not see, or, have sworn I saw not what eye saw.
    For I have sworn you were good. What terrible
    Perjury on my part, when that is so untrue!

Interestingly, the sonnet’s text makes more sense in its hidden meaning, referring to faithless England, than in its apparent meaning, referring to Shakespeare’s unfaithful mistress. Thus “Merrie Englande” had been a faithful wife of the Catholic Church for 900 years. By Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy (1534), (“In Act”) England broke its marriage (“bed-vow”) with the Catholic Church and took Protestantism as its lover. Then it remarried the Catholic Church under Mary Tudor (1553, “new faith,” “new love”), only to fall back into adultery with Protestantism under Elizabeth I (1558, “new faith torn,” “new hate” of the Catholic Church). But Shakespeare (1564–1616) blames himself for much worse infidelity, because down these years he has repeatedly glorified (“to enlighten thee”) England with its unfaithful Tudor rulers, for instance in his History Plays, glorified to England’s harm (“to misuse thee”), because as a Catholic he knew full well that Protestantism would be the ruin of “Merrie Englande.” Sure enough!

And today? The pattern repeats itself: for over 1900 years Catholics were faithfully married to the true Church, but with Vatican II (1962–1965) the mass of them followed bad leaders into more or less of adultery with the modern world (“bed-vow broke”). Then Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) led many back to the truly Catholic Church (“new faith,” “new love,” or renewal of the old faith and the old love), only to see his successors at the head of the Society of St Pius X which he founded in 1970 fall back into an adulterous longing for a reunion with Conciliar Rome, by a “new hate” for the pre-Conciliar truth.

Conclusion? Any Shakespeares amongst us, or any Catholics, must speak up, that Pachamama Rome is, as such, nothing other than an abomination, to be shunned.

Kyrie eleison.

Two Bishops

Two Bishops on December 21, 2019

Ever since the summer and autumn of 2012 when it became clear that two of the three bishops of the Society of St Pius X were no longer taking the position towards relations of the Society with Rome which they had taken in their April 7 letter to Society Headquarters, followers of the Society, priests and laity, have wondered why. Few people, then or since, will have taken the bishops’ change of position to have been a question of persons or personalities. Since the letter warned severely against abandoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s clear refusal of contacts with unconverted Rome, most people took the two bishops’ change for what it was, namely a rallying to the Superior General’s new principle of contact before conversion. Yet since Conciliar Rome had hardly changed except for the worse between 1988 and 2012, why had the two bishops changed?

The question retains all of its importance for today. What is to be gained by the Society for the Faith – not by the Faith for the Society! – through friendly contacts of the Society with the Conciliar Romans still hell-bent on their Vatican II ecumenism, down to and including the Pope’s veneration of the Pachamama idol in the very gardens of the Vatican? One thing seems certain: for the last 20 years the Society has staked everything for its future on that friendship, and to give it up now would mean admitting that these 20 years had all been a big mistake. Therefore the Society, in grave need of new bishops for its worldwide Traditional apostolate, cannot choose and consecrate its own choice of Traditional bishops, because these would certainly displease the Conciliar Romans. Therefore the two bishops in 2012 laid a heavy cross on their own backs, heavier each year – they helped to drive the Society up a blind alley – in 2019 it cannot have, and it cannot not have, its own bishops.

Recent information became available that throws some light on the two bishops’ decision to abandon the Archbishop’s line of conversion-before-contacts, to which they had so recently adhered. As for Bishop de Galarreta, we learn that almost as soon as the April 7 letter appeared on the Internet, he hastened to SSPX Headquarters to apologise to the Superior General for its appearance, which he absolutely disclaimed. But how could he disclaim the appearance without also dissociating himself from the content? It seems that the publication made him fear the imminent implosion of the Society more than the content made him fear the blind alley of the Society, its essential abandoning of the Archbishop’s defending of the faith. Was the Society’s survival more important than that of the faith?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais took longer to retract his signature, so to speak, of the April 7 letter, but by early 2013 that retraction was also clear. To a friend he then gave the following episcopal guidance: Rome’s conversion cannot today come all at once. Official recognition will enable us to work that much more efficaciously from within the Church. We need patience and tact to take our time so as not to upset the Romans who still do not like our criticism of the Council, but we are making our way gradually – is that not what the Saints did? We must continue to denounce scandals and to accuse the Council, but we need to be intelligent so as to understand the way of thinking of our adversaries, who do after all include the See of Peter. Bishop Fellay’s policy has not really failed: nothing was signed on the 13th of June, 2012, nothing catastrophic, nothing stupendous has happened for the last 17 months. A few priests left us, which I find deplorable, from lack of prudence and judgment, but it was all their own fault. In brief, try to be more trusting in others and less trusting in yourself. Put your trust in the Society and its leaders. All’s well that ends well. That should be the spirit of your next decisions and writings.

Here end the bishop’s reasons for recommending his friend to follow Bishop Fellay. But have either Bishop de Galarreta or Bishop Tissier de Mallerais or Bishop Fellay fully understood the Archbishop’s reasons for cutting contact with the Conciliar Romans? Do not all three of them gravely underestimate the unprecedented crisis caused by the Conciliar churchmen’s on-going betrayal of the Truth and of the Faith? How can doctrinal compromise or merely human politicking with Rome solve that pre-apocalyptic crisis?

Kyrie eleison.

Youth Uprising

Youth Uprising on December 14, 2019

Wherever complicated and controversial ideas are being introduced to the public at large, it must be a classic technique of propagandists to focus people’s attention on some striking image which will remain in their minds to carry with it the new message. Here was surely the part designed to be played by the statues of Pachamama which were highlighted from beginning to end of the recent Synod of bishops held in Rome supposedly to advise the Pope on the future of the Catholic Church. The Pope himself said that they were statues of Mother Earth, in other words pagan idols. They certainly caught the attention of Catholics. A young Austrian man and his friend threw five of them into the River Tiber. The interview he gave afterwards to John-Henry Westen of Life Site News was highly edifying, and “amidst the encircling gloom” it deserves to be reproduced here, albeit abbreviated and adapted, as usual. Alexander Tschugguel, is 26 years old, was married only this summer and lives in the centre of Vienna.

What motivated you to throw out the idols? Did you think of the possible consequences for yourself?

With my wife I took an interest in the Synod. We visited the church where Amazonian exhibits were on display. I immediately saw the Pachamama statues as being idols breaking the First Commandment. My motive for acting was simple – get them out of the Catholic church, get paganism out of the Catholic sanctuary. As for consequences, I never thought what an impact throwing them out would have. I thought, truly serious consequences are, not getting to Heaven. In comparison, this act was not too much for me.

Do you mind telling us about your life in the Catholic faith?

I only became a Catholic when I converted at the age of 15 from Lutheranism. The more I investigated the Catholic faith, the more beautiful it became. I can no longer imagine not being Catholic.

How did you prepare spiritually to throw out the idols?

With a great deal of prayer. Many Rosaries every day, and daily Mass if possible. We prayed right up to entering the church to throw out the idols, and even while we were throwing them out. Spiritual preparation was everything. Without the prayer, the act would have been impossible.

Were you scared of the authorities, of breaking the law, of possible confrontations over the idols?

We were not looking for a fight, just to get the idols out of the church. We entered the church the moment it opened, just to avoid confrontation. We were neither stealing for personal use, nor seeking publicity. If any prosecution was to follow, we trusted in calm and prayer to deal with it, if and when it happened.

How did you react later when the Pope as Bishop of Rome apologised for your treatment of the idols?

Firstly, he called them “Pachamama,” so they really were idols. Secondly, we acted not against the people of Amazonia, but for them to have the real Catholic religion. “Holy Father, please understand. We simply do not want idols in the Church. We want the Church to follow Jesus Christ and Church Tradition.”

Many people would say, you simply hate Pope Francis.

I would never hate the Pope. I want to hate nobody. He needs our prayer and our humble help every day to make it easier for him to understand us. If the Synod is to help him, why cannot the laity help him?

Your act sparked valour all over the Church. Even high churchmen called your act “heroic.”

I am flattered, but what we did was never about us. We only meant to do what was right in the eyes of God. The First Commandment forbids bowing down in front of any graven image. That bowing down is exactly what happened in the Vatican gardens.

You followed the Synod. What about it, and what about its outcome?

It announced that it would deal with closed questions, like married priests and women priests, which made me suspicious. Then the whole political side of the Synod came into focus – it was a big mixture of wrong ideas in faith and politics. But the Synod was only to advise? Now they are saying it is to be applied, for instance in Germany. People must realise – behind the Synod was the whole globalist agenda.

You have taken action! How do you advise other young folk like yourself to go into action?

Visit the nearest most Traditional church. Pray tons of Rosaries. Read up on the Church’s philosophy and history. Talk to family, parish, friends. Speak up! Join pro-life, pro-family, help your priest, and so on . . .

Kyrie eleison.

Book Suggestions

Book Suggestions on December 7, 2019

December 25th is soon upon us, and there may be a number of readers caught up in the race to get presents which they hope will not end just in a tie. This last year has seen much good reading matter in English appearing in book form, either for the first time or as volumes of reprints, which should help Catholics to save their souls who wish to resist the mushing of their minds. Below are listed the four separate books, or series of books, and below again are the various postal or electronic addresses from where they can be purchased ( None of them are available from personal addresses of Bishop Williamson). Firstly, the books, in alphabetical order:—

“AS WE ARE?,” by Sean Johnson, who has for years been following closely developments in the Society of St Pius X. The so-called “Resistance” movement accuses the Society of diverging from the conversion-before-contact policy towards Conciliar Rome which the Society inherited from Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991), whereas the Society denies any such significant divergence from the Archbishop. In his book “As we are?” Johnson provides an abundance of evidence, including many electronic links, that the Society has for a long time been pursuing a different course from the Archbishop, because his successors have never seen as clearly as he did the full harm of the Council and of Conciliar Romans. Necessary reading for any Catholic seriously wanting to discern whether the Society has diverged or not.

“ELEISON COMMENTS,” by Bishop Williamson, in three volumes, numbers 1–200, 201–400 and 401–600. Here is the full set of his weekly Saturday “|Comments,” from their beginning on the Internet in Argentina in 2007 to their second issue from January of this year in Broadstairs, England. They cover a variety of subjects – philosophy, history, politics, art, music, theology – but are perhaps most useful for their tying all these subjects together in the perspective of the Catholic Faith. They are not infallible, but they do argue, and anyone who follows the arguments is not likely to suffer from a mushed mind.

“RECTOR’S LETTERS,” also by Bishop Williamson, in four volumes, are the letters which he wrote each month as Rector of the Society’s Seminary in the USA between 1983 and 2003, when he was still a member of the Society of St Pius X. They are the predecessors of the “Eleison Comments,” but are each of them twice as long, being monthly instead of weekly. They document the history of the Society over many of its best years, and steadily analyse the madness of our times in the consistent light of God and of His one true Church. In these “Letters” and “Comments” a certain number of souls have by the grace of God found their way to Him, despite all the confusion of our darkened age. Thanks be to God.

“VOICE of the TRUMPET,” last but not least, by Dr David White, retired English professor from the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, is a one-volume biography of his long-standing friend, Bishop Williamson, from 1940 until a few years ago. Only the first of the book’s four parts is strictly biographical. The other three parts tell the story of the Bishop’s on-going battle with modern Church and world in a highly original but popular style, unique to the good Doctor, who is specially able by his strong faith and deep knowledge of world music and literature to relate Our Lord’s Church and the modern world to one another. Again, highly recommended for any Catholic wishing to fume – or to think.

And secondly, four sources of availability for these books, in alphabetical order:—

Amazon.com for “As we are?,” “Letters” and “Trumpet.”

Cathoilc Action Resource Center for “As we are?,” “Eleison Comments” and “Trumpet”

ChantCD for “As we are?”

Stmarcelinitiative.com for “Letters” and “Trumpet.”

Kyrie eleison.

Both… And…

Both… And… on November 30, 2019

If issues of these “Comments” can broadly be divided into those that treat of the modern problem and those that treat of the Catholic solution, it would seem to be a pity if a number of readers are interested in the problem but not in the solution, or in the solution but not in the problem. This is because if I know the problem without the solution, I can be seriously tempted to despair, especially today, when God is giving to His enemies unprecedented permission almost to destroy His Church. On the other hand if knowledge of the solution leads me to mistake or to underestimate the problem, then the problem is liable to catch me unawares by going around my inadequate defences.

St Paul was a classic case of someone who knew both, and who grasped so well the New Testament solution, Jesus Christ (Rom. VII, 24–25), only because he had been a fervent Pharisee according to the problem of what sinful men had made of the Old Testament (I Cor. XV, 8–10). So it was only because St Paul had directly experienced the powerlessness of the Old Testament to forgive sin that he so deeply understood the salvation which Christ had brought to men by the New Testament. Another great convert who profited from many years in error to become one of the Church’s greatest ever servants of Catholic truth was St Augustine. Here is why the French have a saying, “A convert is worth two apostles.”

And here is why Catholics today should not scorn knowledge of the enemies of God or of how they are fighting Him, however vile that fight may be. And non-Catholics will be wise not to scorn the Catholic Church, because, however downtrodden it may appear to be, it still has the only true solutions to any of the world’s real, i.e. properly human, problems. All such problems are the poisoned fruit of sin rearing up against God in men’s souls, where God alone, and not psychiatrists, can penetrate with His forgiveness, which He chooses to bestow through His divine Son alone, and the Church purchased with His Blood.

Then let us suggest to non-Catholic readers of these “Comments” that they take interest not only in the analyses of the modern arts or politics, but also in their arguments that can seem to be merely squabbles among Catholics, such as what is wrong with Vatican II, or how the Society of St Pius X is more and more following Vatican II. This is because the Catholic Church may well be the only true solution of all readers’ true problems, but that solution is vulnerable to constant falsification by sinful men, and if it is falsified it is no longer the solution but part of the problem. Now Vatican II was the logical climax of many centuries of men wishing to put man in the place of God, and the Society of St Pius X, while it was designed and founded in 1970 to resist the errors of Vatican II, has since 2012 in particular fallen under the poisonous charm of those errors. Therefore non-Catholics looking for real solutions to the modern problems that they know all too well should follow the arguments over Vatican II and the Society.

Correspondingly, to Catholic readers of these “Comments” let it be suggested that they follow not only the arguments concerning Vatican II and the Society’s dangerous slide into conformity with the modern world but also the analyses in depth of what is wrong with that world. For indeed if the Society leaders are sliding in this way, is it not because they have underestimated the problem of that world? Are they not heading for defeat by waging a war without knowing the enemy? Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre once said that the whole of Vatican II is shot through with subjectivism, did not Bishop Fellay once say that 95% of its texts are acceptable? And whereas the Archbishop often said, in so many words, that one needs a long spoon to sup with today’s Conciliar Romans, is not Bishop Fellay’s successor following the latter’s example of behaving as though he thinks he can outwit the Roman devils? The real strength of the Archbishop was never his cleverness but always his faith, and his faithfulness to Catholic truth. And the same is true of the Society which he founded. Then let Catholic readers of these “Comments” not think that they have no need to consider the Comments’ analyses of modern corruption, however distasteful that consideration may be to them. They cannot afford to hide their heads in the sand.

Kyrie eleison.

World Sliding

World Sliding on November 23, 2019

It is not just the Society of St Pius X which is sliding, it is a whole world that is sliding, within men’s souls. And just as “you cannot make silk purses out of sows’ ears,” and “you cannot make bricks without straw,” so it is hopeless to expect yesterday’s institutions not to be emptied out by today’s human beings, like so many collapsed balloons in which the air has been let out. Here is the interesting answer of somebody who is still thinking, when he was asked what he saw in the future for the “Resistance,” for the SSPX, for the Church and for the world –

As for the “Resistance” there will be no great increase in numbers, no large harvest of souls, because the suitable material is simply not there. How can you make anything Catholic out of people who have little or no idea any longer of true and false, of right and wrong, of what truly needs to be resisted? Truth and right have been undermined, and more and more people have given up believing that they are of any importance, both because man is a social animal that takes his colouring from those around him who have today massively given up on truth and right, and secondly because life is so much less demanding if truth and right are insignificant. I can then go with the flow, and there is nothing I still need to resist.

As for the SSPX, if Bishop Fellay is fearful, his fear will spread to the rest of the Society and from there to the rest of the Church, insofar as the Archbishop’s Society was in its heyday the stiffening in the backbone of the Church. Without that stiffening a soft Conciliarism will prevail, with a hybrid Missal blending the Tridentine Mass with the New Mass, with a “hermeneutic of continuity” blending Catholic doctrine with Vatican II, with doubtful priests and rites making possible an illusory re-run of the 1950’s. And so the Church will end up with nobody still telling the Truth, and the “light of the world” will give out only a dim and optional glow, and the “salt of the earth” will be powerless to hinder the universal corruption.

The world will consequently become more and more degenerate, more and more wilfully artificial, because the Church was the supernatural protector, by grace in men’s souls, of everything natural in God’s creation. And in this New World Order even the remains of the true Church will continue to be persecuted by today’s passive-aggressive intimidation. Beneath an appearance of passive toleration, the reality is one of relentless pressure to conform – “You had better be ‘politically correct,’ like everyone else, or we will make you an outcast.” To this pressure from without corresponds a mysterious weakness within the modern mind which cannot hold on to any truth. The Devil then gets inside at the natural level, and swings minds to the left, away from God, making Catholics doubt themselves – ‘Who am I to say that Archbishop Lefebvre was right? Were his enemies really evil? Who am I to judge?’ And in this state of mind, it is easy to betray . . .

It was the Council of the 1960’s which let loose the confusion in the 1970’s, and it has had another half-century to spread since then, with the SSPX secretly working for the enemy for the last 20 years . . . .

This vision of the future is dark, but it is a realistic forecast on the merely human level. Fortunately God is God, He does indeed exist, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways His ways, “for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah LV, 8–9). Nor will this God be frustrated by the machinations of men: “The word that goes forth from My mouth shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I intend, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it. For you shall go out in joy, and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills before you shall break forth into singing and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle; and it shall be to the Lord for a memorial, for an everlasting sign which shall not be cut off.” (Is. LV, 11–13).

Kyrie eleison.