Eleison Comments

Prometeo – I

Prometeo – I on June 15, 2019

Vatican II was a disaster for the Catholic Church. For the future of the same Church it is essential for Catholics wishing to save their souls to see why it was such a disaster. Fr. Alvaro Calderón, professor of Thomist Philosophy and Theology at the Priestly Seminary of the Society of St Pius X at La Reja in Argentina, wrote ten years ago a book proving that Vatican II from inside the Church replaced the religion of God with the religion of man. The first of the four Parts of the book, to tell what Vatican II was, starts out with a three-part definition: it was the officialisation of a humanism dressed up as Catholicism.

Firstly it was a humanism, in other words a glorifying of man at the expense of God. The Middle Ages were followed by a series of humanisms, e.g. the Renaissance, the Reformation, the French Revolution, but each time the humanism had perished, says Calderón, because it cut with the Catholic Church. End result? Two World Wars. But this time it would be the churchmen themselves who would create the new humanism to fit the Catholic Church. Hence the unprecedented officialisation by Vatican II of what had always been a grave error denounced by the Church, but this time the churchmen would know how to make it seem Catholic. Thus they would reach out to the man-centred modern world by their new humanism, but at the same time they were intent upon staying within the Church, supposedly to save both modern man from his godlessness and the modern Church from its sterile isolation. At best the churchmen of Vatican II had good intentions, at worst they knew that their new reconciliation of opposed forces would not work, except to destroy the Church, but that is what the very worst of them wanted.

So why would the new reconciliation not work? Because Paul VI wanted a new humanism, neither inhumanly oriented towards God, like in the Middle Ages, nor excessively reacting against that like in modern times, but a new balance between the two excesses which would show that the greater glory of God coincides with the glory of man. For instance man is the greatest creation of his Creator, so to glorify man is also to glorify God. And man is in the image of God by being free, so the more free he is, the more he glorifies God. Therefore to promote human dignity and freedom is to glorify not only man but also God. However, if one starts out from the glory of man, who cannot see the risk of slipping back into the glory of man? Moreover, God is the one and only altogether Perfect Being who cannot therefore need or want for anything outside of His own intrinsic glory. Only secondarily, for his extrinsic glory, can He want or desire any creature’s goodness outside of His own. Therefore the truth is that both God and man are primarily oriented towards God, and God can only be secondarily oriented towards man.

But here are some quotes from the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes: “Man is centre and summit of all things on earth . . . lord and governor of all creation” (#12) – is that not rather God? “The love of God and neighbour is the First Commandment” (#24) – does neighbour appear in the First Commandment? “Man is the only creature loved by God for himself” (#24). For man himself? The deviation is grave, but subtle, and in the Council’s own texts it is rather implicit than explicit, but it emerges more clearly in Church teaching after the Council, for instance in the New Catechism (e.g. 293, 294, 299). In effect, says Fr Calderón, the Council puts man on the throne of Creation, and God at his service.

Similarly, Vatican II turns authority upside down. Humanism is always against authority, but the New Humanism must look Catholic, so it must look for a different way for Christ’s authority to reign in the modern Church and world. But Christ said that he came to serve (Mt. XXV, 25–28). So the Newhierarchy would make itself democratic from top to bottom in order to serve modern man in a way understood by him. But where in the Newhierarchy will there be the authority of God be to lift men to Heaven? It will be dissolved, and with authority dissolved in the Church, authority will be dissolved everywhere, as we see around us in 2019.

Fr Calderón’s Part II will be the New Man of Vatican II, Part III the New Church, Part IV the New Religion.

Kyrie eleison.

“Prometeo” – Introduction

“Prometeo” – Introduction on June 8, 2019

When Archbishop Lefebvre thought of the future of the Society of St Pius X, he used to hope that it would contribute to studies of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council, because that was the main archway through which arrived in the 1960’s the unprecedented multitude of problems with which Church and world have been afflicted ever since. No doubt the Society has contributed to some extent to such studies, but would it be itself afflicted today as it is, some think unto death, if its priests had had a better grasp of the sickness of Vatican II, attractive, highly contagious, and deadly for the true Faith? One may well ask.

However, in 2010 there did appear in Spanish a full-blooded study of the problem by an Argentinian priest of the Society, Fr Alvaro Calderón, a fully qualified thomist, teaching philosophy and theology at the Society’s seminary in Argentina. His book’s title is “Prometheus, the Religion of Man,” and it is subtitled “An Essay to Interpret Vatican II.” Its 320 pages conclude with the dramatic accusation that Vatican II is idolatry, already in its documents and not just in its aftermath. Apparently the book has been translated into French, but if such a translation exists, certainly it has never appeared, most likely to protect the Council’s Newchurch and its bastard offspring, the Newsociety. In fact the book needs to be translated and to appear in a multitude of languages.

To help explain why these “Comments” so often blame Vatican II, they will offer to readers an overview of the book in a series of issues. It is a hazardous undertaking to present in a few articles of some 750 words each a densely argued book of 320 pages, but it is far too important that Catholics get at least a handle on the full malice of Vatican II for the effort not to be made. So these articles will be less for professional theologians requiring rather more depth and precision to be persuaded, than they will be for ordinary souls seeking some explanation for the devastation of Church and world being wrought all around them. To wreak such devastation, Vatican II had to be deep and coherent. Let these issues of the “Comments” be at least enough to suggest the thomistic depth and coherence of Fr. Calderón’s book.

The accusation that Vatican II is idolatry could hardly be more serious, but in his book it is backed up by a series of references to the 16 documents of Vatican II itself, especially Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium. The problem is, as he will explain, that for historical reasons the authors of Vatican II took special care to disguise their idolatrous doctrine so that it would not appear to be out of line with Catholic Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre himself at the time signed on to 14 of the 16 documents, as he would never have done a few years later when the fruits of the disguise had become clear. Therefore the documents are skilfully ambiguous, having one letter and quite another spirit. Therefore to this day both Catholics sincerely loyal to the Church and modernists seeking to transform the Church can and do claim that the letter of the documents is Catholic, but the great advantage of an analysis like Fr. Calderón’s is to argue from the documents themselves that their spirit is to fabricate an entirely new religion centred on man. Thus in reality the neo-modernism of Vatican II is quite especially slippery and perfidious.

Is the Spanish edition of such a book still available? One hopes so. In any case the printer is listed as Luis Maria Campos 1592, Morón, Bs. As., Argentina, Tel. 4696–2094. At the Internet site https://www.scribd.com/document/116861810/PRH can be found in 132 pages the text in Spanish of Fr. Calderón’s book.

The book is in four Parts: Part I, what Vatican II was, a definition; Parts II-IV, what Vatican II did: it made: Part II a new MAN, Part III a new CHURCH, Part IV a new RELIGION. In these “Eleison Comments should follow four articles (perhaps interrupted), corresponding to the four Parts.

Kyrie eleison.

Huonderland Again

Huonderland Again on June 1, 2019

On May 20th, the day on which Bishop Huonder’s term of office as head of the major Swiss Diocese of Chur since 2007 came to a close, the disputed question of his future place of retirement was settled once and for all by a Declaration signed jointly by himself and by the Society’s Superior General, Fr David Pagliarani – the Bishop will be living in the Society’s boys’ school in Wangs in Eastern Switzerland. Doubts had arisen as to where the Bishop would retire because of the natural improbability of a Conciliar bishop settling inside a Traditional house, but on both sides of the doctrinal abyss between the Second Vatican Council and Catholic Tradition, the anti-doctrinal dream of bridging that abyss has prevailed. Thus about his decision the honourable Bishop himself has just written, “In accordance with the wishes of Pope Francis, I shall strive there (in Wangs) to contribute to Church unity.” It is an honourable intention, but it leaves out of account the evil of Vatican II.

As the modern world goes, and with it the modern Church, and with the Newchurch the Newsociety, Bishop Huonder is a decent and well-meaning churchman, full of good intentions which can make any “decent” person think that he is good company, and safe to mix with, and safe to place within a “decent” school. Certainly one may hope that Traditional surroundings in Wangs will do him good.

But from the standpoint of God and of the true Catholic Church, he is a believer in the Second Vatican Council, and therefore he believes in working with the present Pope of that Council, Pope Francis, and in working with all followers of Tradition who have lost their grip on the objective ambiguity and evil of that Council, with its six Conciliar Popes. For indeed that Council is profoundly godless and contaminates all that it touches (see several issues of these “Comments” due soon to appear), and it twists out of true all persons who believe in it. Therefore from the standpoint of the salvation of souls – which is God’s own standpoint – Bishop Huonder is, objectively speaking, contaminated and twisted, not fit company at all for Catholics or a Catholic school, all the more dangerous for his being subjectively decent, well-meaning, likeable and so on.

Nor need he be blamed any more or less than thousands of other “decent” bishops since Vatican II for having let himself be misled by a series of Conciliar Popes, nor need he be insulted as though he is a villain, nor need he be socially shunned like a pariah. But Catholics should absolutely avoid any kind of contact with him, social or otherwise, which might give rise to any temptation to keep with him, for as long as he believes in Vatican II, any kind of company in matters of the Faith. And if to avoid any such temptation it would be necessary to shun his company altogether, then his company should be shunned altogether. God and the Faith must come “first, last and foremost,” otherwise we risk losing our souls.

In conclusion, we can only wish to Bishop Huonder in his retirement all grace of God to understand the perfidy of Vatican II, and we can only wish all grace of God to the Traditional inmates of the Society school in Wangs to help him by their example to understand the danger of the “wishes” of Pope Francis towards the Society, which another example has just brought to light.

The report has come from Rome in the last few days that the Argentinian priest who was appointed by Bishop Fellay to be the Society’s General Bursar, at the request of Pope Francis and with the permission of his successor at the head of the Society, Fr Pagliarani, has rejoined the official Church, and in accordance always with the wishes of Pope Francis he resides presently in the Casa Santa Marta where the Pope himself lives; he will be incardinated in the diocese of Rome, possibly waiting to be appointed bishop by Pope Francis. If such a report were only half true, what would it not still reveal of the inability or unwillingness of high Society officials to understand that Archbishop Lefebvre fought the Second Vatican Council for reasons of the Faith?

Kyrie eleison.

Ill Straw

Ill Straw on May 25, 2019

Brace yourselves, dear readers, for another piece of bad news. It is not the end of the world, but it is one more straw in an ill wind, one more indication that the wind is blowing in the wrong direction when we had hoped that the wind might have turned in the right direction. After all, when at the General Chapter of July last year a new Superior General was elected, was it not a sign that the firm grip of the liberals on the direction being taken by the Society was at last being loosened? That there was a hope that the new Superior General might take the Society in a rather healthier direction than that taken by the Archbishop’s two immediate successors?

This hope received a rude shock when we learned that just before the end of the Chapter it had created beside the Society’s normal governing body which is the triumvirate of its Superior General and his two Assistants, two brand new posts of Counsellor, to advise the triumvirate – and who did it appoint to these two posts? – none other than the two previous Superiors General! But in case we were afraid that this might mean that there would be no change in the Society’s increasing nightmare of the last 20 years, we were re-assured that the two new Counsellors would only be counselling on the inclusion or exclusion of Society members, or on the opening or closing of Society houses. And whosoever wished to believe that re-assurance did so.

Further to allay fears that at the top of the Society the more things changed the more they would stay the same, fears that the Society was still in the firm grip of its internal enemies, we were also told that the former Superior General would no longer be living in Society Headquarters in Menzingen, near Zurich, but would be taking up residence in the Society’s main seminary in Écône, with a range of high mountains between it and Menzingen. Such a move scared some of us by the shadow that would be cast over the whole Seminary by the former Superior General’s proximity to the priestly formation of the Society’s future French-speaking priests, but at least he would not be overshadowing his successor in Menzingen. At least in this respect we could hope that he would be leaving his successor as Superior General free to determine future Society policy on his own. And that is surely what the move from Menzingen to Écône was meant to make us think. Alas, it looks as though we were once more being taken for fools.

For indeed the latest news, coming from more than one source and surely easy enough to verify, is that the former Superior General has packed his bags in Écône and moved back to Menzingen. It does look as though he has calculated either that there was little potential reaction to his staying in Headquarters, or that the reaction had blown over, in any case that it was safe for the spider to return to the centre of his web, because none of the flies would notice.

Priests of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St Pius X, in his name we appeal to you: believe if you must that the policy of re-submission to Conciliar Rome is not suicidal for his Society and for the purpose for which he founded it, but in Hamlet’s words, “lay not the flattering unction to your souls” that the change of Superior General in July has made any real difference to that policy. It does look as though the same mafia of liberals is still in charge and is still intent – of course with the best of intentions – on undoing what he did.

The problem is profound, reaching far outside the little Society – stay tuned.

Kyrie eleison.

Daniel’s Brexit!

Daniel’s Brexit! on May 18, 2019

If poor England needs urgently to understand in depth why Europe is going wrong, so as to save Great Britain from following the New World Order, how much more do Catholics need to understand in depth how and why their Church went wrong at Vatican II, so as to save the entire world from its falling away from the one true God. In the Old Testament God Himself inspired in His prophet Daniel, exiled far from home by the Babylonian Captivity (ca. 590–520 BC), an urgent prayer of contrition for the sins of the Israelites so that God would forgive His people and grant them to restore the glory of His name by allowing them to practise once more His holy religion in the holy city of Jerusalem. It is not difficult to adapt to the Catholic Church’s Captivity in the 21st century the great prayer of Daniel (Chapter IX):—

[4] I prayed to the LORD my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great and terrible God, who keepest covenant and steadfast love with those who love Thee and keep Thy commandments, [5] we Catholics have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside at Vatican II from Thy commandments and ordinances; [6] we have not listened to Thy servants the faithful Popes, who spoke in Thy name to our kings, our governments, and our fathers, and to all the people of Christendom.

[7] To Thee, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us confusion of face, as at this day, to Catholics, to the inhabitants of Rome, and to all the Church, those that are near and those that are far away, in all the lands in which Thou art now punishing them, because of the treachery which they have committed against Thee. [8] To us, O Lord, belongs confusion of face, to our kings, to our governments, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. [9] To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness; because we have rebelled against Him, [10] and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God by following His laws, which he set before us by His servants, the faithful Popes and Bishops.

[11] All Christendom has transgressed Thy law and turned aside, refusing to obey Thy voice. And the curse and oath which are written by Moses the servant of God (Leviticus XXVI, Deuteronomy XXVIII), have been poured out upon Conciliar Catholics, because we have sinned against Him. [12] He has confirmed his words, which He spoke against us and against our rulers who ruled us, by bringing upon us a great calamity; for under the whole heaven there has not been done the like of what has been done by Vatican II. [13] As it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us, yet we have not entreated the favour of the LORD our God, turning from our iniquities and giving heed to Thy truth. [14] Therefore the LORD has prepared the Chastisement and is bringing it upon us; for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works which He has done, and we have not obeyed His voice.

[15] And now, O Lord our God, who hast always been bringing thy Catholics out of a godless world with a mighty hand, and hast made Thee a name, as at this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly. [16] O Lord, according to all Thy righteous acts, let Thy anger and Thy wrath turn away from Thy Church, Thy holy hill; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of the Council Fathers, the Catholic Church is becoming a byword for immorality among all who are round about us. [17] Now therefore, O Lord our God, hearken to the prayer of Thy servant and to his supplications, and for Thy own sake, O Lord, cause Thy face to shine upon Thy one true Church, which is more and more desolate.

[18] O my God, incline Thy ear and hear; open Thy eyes and behold our desolations, and the Church which is called by Thy name; for we do not present our supplications before Thee on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of Thy great mercy. [19] O LORD, hear; O LORD, forgive; O LORD, give heed and act; delay not, for Thy own sake, O my God, because Thy Church and Thy people are called by the name of Thy only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Kyrie eleison.

Brexit – II

Brexit – II on May 11, 2019

There is a deservedly famous English poem from the 19th century which throws much light on the huge fuss which has been stirred up by the attempt of the British people to escape from the trammels of the European Union. “Dover Beach” was written probably in 1851 by Matthew Arnold (1822–1888), and presents in four uneven verses his deep melancholy as he stands on the shore of the English Channel and listens to the unceasing beat of the surf on the beach in front of the house where he is staying for the night with his beloved, presumably his lawful wife.

The first verse is a beautiful description of the moonlit seashore and of the surf, concluding with the “eternal note of sadness” that he seems to hear in the surf. As an accomplished classical scholar, he recalls a quotation from the Greek playwright Sophocles (496–406 BC) who heard in the same surf ebbing and flowing on a similar beach thousands of miles away and more than two thousand years ago “the turbid ebb and flow of human misery,” and Arnold’s mind turns to the deep troubles of his own age, the Victorian age. Arnold was never a Catholic, but in the third verse he traces these troubles back to his 19th century’s loss of Faith, whose “melancholy long withdrawing roar” he seems to hear in the sound of the surf ebbing away before him.

In the fourth and least verse he presents the only solution that he has to the problem of the life ebbing out of what was once Christendom, and that is to turn to his beloved beside him and beg her to remain true to him, because all that they really have is one another. Thus in the poem’s dark conclusion, everything else

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

So Arnold had enough faith to see that the essential problem of his civilization was the loss of religious faith, but he lacked the faith to believe in the real and existing alternative to the resulting darkness and confusion, namely the Catholic Church. Similarly the Brexiteers have enough sane instincts left to sense that the European Union is going the wrong way, but they have even less religion left in them than Arnold had, and so they have even less idea than he had of how to avoid the “darkling plain.” Hence the Brexit debate continues to be a “clash of ignorant armies by night,” because everybody is framing the debate in economic terms, when in fact the real debate is religious, between the last vestiges of the Christian nations on the one side and the onset of the Antichrist with his New World Order on the other side. It is the religious dimension that gives to the debate its force on both sides. It is the lack of religion on both sides that gives to the debate its confusion.

For indeed God is the great Absentee from modern “civilization,” but as Cardinal Pie once said, if He does not govern by His presence, He will govern by His absence. Without Him, the Brexit debate is being conducted in largely economic terms, on the basis of which the Brexiteers are bound to lose. But are they willing to turn in the direction of God? That is the question.

Kyrie eleison.