Eleison Comments

Brexit Diagnosed – I

Brexit Diagnosed – I on May 4, 2019

For months now the British Parliament, once virtual master of the world, has been presenting an unworthy spectacle of division and irresolution to the same world. Why has the question of leaving the European Union caused such confusion and upset? Surely because when in 2016 the political class gave to the people the opportunity to vote in a referendum on their New World Order politics, the people voted in heavier numbers than ever in Britain, and took the political class completely by surprise when they voted down its NWO by 52 to 48 per cent. The vote for Brexit (Britain’s exit from the EU) made that class lose its bearings and it has been floundering ever since, so completely and for so long has it been bewitched – or bought – by the NWO.

Bought, because the European Union and its parliament in Brussels represent Mammon, or the politics of money. Because the whole idea behind the European Union was by material prosperity to buy the support of the very different European peoples for the submerging of their national differences into one international European State, which is in its turn to be a key component of the one international world-State, the New World Order. Thus the Judeo-Masonic money-masters behind the NWO assumed that the politics of union could be brought about by the economics of their single currency, the Euro, and they calculated that Europeans would be so in love with the banksters’ materialistic handiwork that they would not object to the dissolution of their nations by uncontrolled immigration from non-European sources.

But “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Mt. IV, 4). In fact in the nature of things, religion (man to his God) is primary, politics (man to his fellow-men) are secondary, and economics (man to money) are only tertiary. Therefore it is anti-natural for economics to lead politics, and so nature may be reversed by Revolution, but nature is always liable to re-assert itself, as with the Brexit vote, which was directly provoked by the politicians’ unnatural admission into Britain of hordes of unassimilable foreigners. However, when nature does re-assert itself, modern politicians, atheistic materialists almost to a man, can be taken completely by surprise, as by the Brexit vote. They make war on nature. How can they possibly lead it?

But who voted all these anti-natural politicians into office? Who else but the peoples (not only of Britain), in accordance with the sacrosanct principle of democracy? Sacrosanct? Yes, because today’s reversal of nature is complete, so that as modern economics are made to overturn politics, so modern politics are made to overturn religion, and democracy becomes a substitute religion, and the will of the people replaces God. This means that the Brexit vote was not valid just because it was the will of the British people, 52 to 48%, but because it favoured what is natural, the God-given identity and various gifts of the European nations, designed by God to make up the symphony of Europe, as was achieved in the Catholic Middle Ages. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (religion) and all these things (politics) shall be yours as well” (Mt. VI, 33).

Does that mean that the British people who voted for Brexit are at all religious? Hardly! For the most part they are atheistic materialists ripe for the Communism of the tyrannical bureaucracy in Brussels, with little more true vision than the politicians they habitually vote for, and just as confused. But the English Channel gives them a certain distance from, and perspective on, what goes on in Europe, so that when it came to the Brexit vote, some ancient natural instincts came into play, the same as those by which they have preserved the semblance – not the substance! – of a Catholic monarchy. However, if the British people are not careful, if they do not “watch and pray ” for their country, the fruits of their original Brexit vote will be stolen from them by the banksters in one way or another. No doubt these are already plotting how to circumvent what seem to them the stupid and backward Brexiteers. God is supremely generous, but He is not mocked, nor is He short-changed!

Kyrie eleison.

Conciliar Mentality

Conciliar Mentality on April 27, 2019

In these “Comments” of April 6 was mentioned “a discreet meeting” between Bishop Huonder and two bishops with five priests of the SSPX, held in Eastern Switzerland on April 17, 2015, to discuss the ecumenism of Vatican II. A month and a half later Menzingen (SSPX HQ) sent out to SSPX priests a “confidential note” on the meeting which included the few details published here on April 6: BpH’s “Agreement before doctrine,” the SSPX’s reply with true Church doctrine on ecumenism, and BpH’s Huonderland promise to take that doctrine to Rome. Worth looking at in more detail are the arguments of BpH in favour of putting doctrine second, because here is the mindset destroying the Church.

Bishop Huonder put forward eight arguments, according to the confidential note. They are all given here, slightly adapted, in italics. Answers follow below.

1 I (BpH) am very concerned that the SSPX should be canonically re-integrated in the official Church.

2 Without that canonical status, the SSPX has only minimal influence because it is marginalised. Conservative bishops want that status for the SSPX, otherwise everybody is against the SSPX.

3 I don’t think you want to be in schism. You want to prove your unfailing respect for Church Authority.

4 The Church’s Magisterium must listen to what theologians say, including those of the SSPX., in a spirit of mutual respect. The Magisterium must also check to see that any evolution in the Church since the Council is in line with Catholic Tradition.

5 Benedict XVI’s lifting of the 1988 excommunications and his liberating of the Tridentine Mass are signs of good will on the part of Rome.

6 An agreement with Rome would give support to the Superior General of the SSPX and to its apostolate. Also it would give to the SSPX a right to ask the Magisterium for explanations.

7 The Church needs the SSPX for its New Evangelisation.

8 An eventual canonical recognition would need to be followed by treatment of the theological questions to find solutions.

And now for some answers –

1 Honourable Bishop, that is nice of you, but being nice is not the same thing as being Catholic.

2 The SSPX had great influence as long as it was telling the Truth, but according as it has abandoned Catholic Truth to align itself on Rome and the rest of the world, that influence has waned and is

waning. Would you not have encouraged Our Lord Himself to align Himself on the Pharisees?

3 Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society was never in real schism because he was only putting God before men. The Newsociety, like the Newchurch, is moving into real schism by putting men before God.

4 No respect whatsoever is due to error and its poison, like that of Vatican II. Infected by the Conciliar poison, today’s Newmagisterium is very inadequately supervising the Church’s evolution.

5 Conciliar good will, such as that of Benedict XVI, is at best subjective good will, but to be real good will it must be aligned on objective truth, of which all Conciliarists, as such, have lost all notion. “The way to Hell is paved with good intentions,” says a wise old proverb.

6 An agreement with Conciliar Rome would be the final death of the Catholic SSPX, which needs no agreement with Rome to demand that the Romans stop betraying the true Catholic Faith.

7 The true SSPX spurns the “New Evangelisation,” unreal solution to the real problem of Vatican II.

8 In other words, “Agreement before doctrine.” That is a grave error, proposed by all Conciliarists, because if one lives any lie for long enough, one will finish by believing it. Vatican II is a great lie.

In brief, BpH’s eight arguments are all human considerations, essentially unhooked from the objective Truth of the real Catholic Church. May God give him to see how the Conciliar Church has gone astray!

Kyrie eleison.

Restoring Authority

Restoring Authority on April 20, 2019

Whereas the post-Christian pagan Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) claimed that man is by nature an anti-social animal so that human society is essentially artificial, the pre-Christian pagan Aristotle (384–322), a much wiser man, knew that society is natural because man is by nature a social animal – watch how he gathers with his fellow-men from dawn to dusk in all kinds of human societies, especially the human family. But every man has free-will, so that all those kinds of societies must have somebody in authority to co-ordinate those free-wills which by themselves are liable to fly apart. Hence every society needs authority, as natural and as needed by man as is society. See how the Roman centurion recognises Our Lord as a man in authority from his own exercise of authority in the Roman army (Mt. VIII, 8–9).

But authority being as natural to men as is their social nature, and their social nature coming from God, then all authority amongst men must come ultimately from God (cf. Eph. III, 15), which is why in our own sunset of the world where almost all mankind is turning its back on God, men are also revolting against any kind of authority, and all kinds of authority are becoming more and more fragile. For instance is it not more and more common today for wives to be declaring independence from their husbands and for children to be running their parents? That is not natural in any true sense of the word, but it is today more and more common, because revolt against authority is in the bloodstream of all of us. Then how can it be restored? We have a classic example from the book of Numbers (Ch.16) in the Old Testament.

Moses and his brother Aaron were the political and religious leaders respectively of the Israelite people to bring them out of Egypt into the Promised Land. They had both been appointed by God, as the people well knew, but the Israelites were a proud and hard-necked people, and the moment came in the desert when Core, a first cousin of Aaron and jealous of his privileges, stirred up another 250 Levites and two leading Rubenites, Dathan and Abiron, to revolt, and the people rose up in a tumult behind them against the authority of Moses and Aaron. These two immediately appealed to the Lord, who told them to assemble the people on the next day in front of the Tabernacle. Then Moses told the people to get away from the tents of Dathan and Abiron standing there with all their extended families, whereupon the earth opened up and swallowed down the revolutionaries straight into Hell. Fire from God then devoured Core and his 250 Levites demanding privileges and prestige given by God only to the family of Aaron.

By this means God Himself demonstrated to whom He had given authority over the Israelites. Authority was so important for the Israelites in the desert because despite the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus XIV), they were still hankering for the onions of Egypt, and Dathan was complaining of the hardships of the desert (Numb. XVI, 13–14). Yet Moses was no tyrant, but the gentlest of men (Numb. XII, 3), and Aaron had done the people no harm (Numb. XVI, 11). However, had God not resorted to an extreme punishment of the rebels, one may wonder if Moses and Aaron would have been able to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. Would anything less have restored their authority? As it was, it is easy to imagine that after the double miraculous fire no Israelite was in a hurry to disobey Moses or Aaron!

In 2019 rampant materialism all over the world is making ever fewer human beings even believe in God, let alone take Him seriously. Science and technology seem to guarantee the good life for us all, so who still needs God? And without Him, all basis of authority is gone, and authority in every form of human society is melting into thin air, but especially in the Catholic Church. Moreover Neo-modernism holds its victims in such a grip that they are virtually inconvertible, being persuaded that they are still Catholic. How can the Church survive? If Catholic authority is to be restored before world’s end, will not another miraculous and deadly fire from Heaven be necessary, as with Dathan, Core and Abiron? God is not mocked (Gal. VI, 7).

Kyrie eleison.

Holy Week Lessons

Holy Week Lessons on April 13, 2019

No Gospel readings can be so rich in lessons as those of Holy Week. Here are a few references from the Passion of Our Lord, quoted in chronological order, having a particular relevance to our own time, that of the Passion of His Church.

Lk. XIX, 40: “If these (disciples) were silent, the very stones would cry out” – As Jesus is about to enter Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the crowd is praising him loudly. Pharisees complain of the noise. But God’s Truth will be heard. As the SSPX falls silent, somebody else must tell the truths it used to tell.

Jn. XVII, 15: ”I do not pray that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from evil.” After the Last Supper, just before leaving the Cenacle, Jesus prays to His Father in Heaven for His Apostles, but not that life be made easy for them. So why should life be made easy for Catholics today?

Mt. XXVI, 31: “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” On the Mount of Olives Jesus tells His Apostles that they will all fall away, and he quotes from the Old Testament (Zach. XIII, 7). Today with the Pope being crippled in his faith, the entire Catholic Church is more or less crippled.

Mt. XXVI, 40: “Watch and pray.” In the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus is soon to be betrayed, He warns His Apostles to prepare by prayer for the hour of their trial. He says neither just “Pray,” nor even “Pray and watch,” but “Watch and pray,” because if they do not keep their eyes open, if they cease to keep watch, they will also cease to pray. Today the Church’s supreme hour of trial seems imminent.

Jn. XVIII, 6: “When Jesus said to them, ‘I am he,’ they drew back and fell to the ground.” As the Temple police close in on Jesus, he fearlessly identifies himself, and for one moment lets loose a single spark of His divine power – they all collapse. Another such spark could instantaneously rescue the Church today, but that would not win over men’s hearts. Today’s trial of the Church must be fulfilled.

Mt. XXVI, 52: “Put your sword away, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Peter is virile, he loves his Master, he absolutely wants to defend Him, but he has not understood Him – Jesus will be the King of Hearts, not the Knave of Clubs. Virile men today seek any action to defend the Church, as they are not content with “only” praying, but let them pray, or they will flee, as did the Apostles (v. 56).

Lk. XXII, 53: “This is your hour and the power of darkness.” Jesus is just about to be seized by the Temple police. He gently complains that they had not seized Him in daylight, when He was openly preaching in the Temple, but they had had to seize Him at night, when he was no longer surrounded by crowds to protect Him. Never in all history has He been so abandoned, have times been so dark, as today.

Mt. XXVII, 26: “And all the people answered, ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children’ Then Pilate released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to be crucified.” Clearly, the “people” here are not only the “chief priests and the elders” who “persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas and to destroy Jesus” (v.26), it was the whole crowd in front of Pilate, about to riot (v.24), which made Pilate give way by their calling down upon themselves and their descendants the responsibility for the deicide (death of God in His human nature). Now this crowd was overwhelmingly Jewish, and the crowd identified themselves as such (“Us and our children”). Therefore the blame for the deicide rests upon those descendants unless and until collectively they recognise and adore their own true Messiah, but Scripture says this will only happen at the end of the world (e.g. Rom. XI, 25–27). Like a true Catholic, Leo XIII (1878–1903) called for the same blood to come down upon the Jews not as a curse but as a “laver of regeneration” (Act of Consecration of the World to the Sacred Heart of Jesus). Meanwhile, they serve God to scourge our apostasy.

Kyrie eleison.

Invitation Withdrawn

Invitation Withdrawn on April 6, 2019

Bishop Vitus Huonder, still bishop of the large diocese of Chur in Eastern Switzerland which includes Zurich, is not after all going to take up residence in the boys’ school of the Society of St Pius X in Wangs when he retires later this month. In January his diocesan spokesman had announced that the bishop was moving into the school on behalf of Rome’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in order to maintain contact between Rome and the Society, but last month the bishop himself announced that he would not be retiring to the Society school in Wangs after all. And so the loving encounter between Rome’s bishop and the Society’s school was called off. Was it Rome, or the Society, or both, that had cold feet at the last moment? We do not know. It does not matter. What matters is to see clearly the never ending conflict between God’s reality and men’s false dreams, and to prefer God’s reality.

In this case the reality of God is that His Catholic Church and the churchmen’s Conciliar revolution can never blend together, while the dream of the churchmen is that they can. But God puts God before men, while the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) puts men before God. The two positions are as irreconcilable as Jesus Christ and Satan. From eternity Our Lord, Goodness itself, can only reject evil. Ever since Satan fell just after his creation, he has been fixed in evil and can only hate God, and His divine Son, and His Son’s true Church. And men are torn between the two from conception until death, because they receive from God their basic human nature and possibly sanctifying grace which both incline them to God, while from the Fall of Adam their nature is wounded with original sin which inclines them to Satan and to evil. Nor can any man alive avoid this conflict. Either he is advancing in good and becoming less evil, or he is retreating from goodness by sinking into evil.

Therefore if Bishop Huonder, a Conciliar bishop, had moved into the Traditional Catholic school in Wangs, one of two things must have happened. Either he succeeded in making the school less Traditional, or the school succeeded in making him more Catholic. And so if his residence in Wangs has been called off, either Rome feared his becoming more Catholic, which is not likely because Bishop Huonder is a typical crusader for the Newchurch of Rome, or the Newsociety changed its mind, and instead of installing the Conciliar wolf in its sheepfold in Wangs, decided to exclude him, after its prior decision to install him. Why the change of mind?

There are two possible explanations. Either by virtue the Newsociety for at least a moment stopped dreaming of wolves being nice, or by necessity it was forced by two extra revelations of wolvishness to delay the wolf’s welcome. On the one hand details came to light of a discreet meeting held in April four years ago in Oberriet, Switzerland, between Bishop Huonder and Bishops Fellay and de Galarreta with five more priests of the SSPX, to discuss the ecumenism of Vatican II. BpH began with a position which can be summed up as “Agreement first, doctrine second,” which is typical for a Conciliarist. The SSPX bishops and priests responded by putting in front Catholic doctrine on ecumenism, in a manner worthy of Archbishop Lefebvre. BpH concluded with the promise to take to Rome the SSPX objections to Conciliar ecumenism. But the Romans know those objections inside out – in brief, BpH’s arguments show him to have been a faithful servant of Conciliar Rome. On the other hand details also came to light of BpH’s extensive work within the Newchurch, especially since 2011, on behalf of official friendship between the Catholic Church and the Jews. Such work is again typical of a Conciliarist either innocently or wilfully ignorant of nearly 2,000 years of consistent – and proud – Jewish hatred of the Church.

So these two revelations showed BpH to be imbued with the spirit of the Council, a potentially dangerous inmate of a house of the SSPX. The true Society would not invite him again. But the Newsociety risks merely waiting until Traditionalists are soft enough to accept such Conciliarism in their midst.

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Huonder

Bishop Huonder on March 30, 2019

It was widely known that Bishop Huonder (BpH) of the official diocese of Chur, Switzerland, when he is due to retire in April at the age of 77, was due to take up official residence for his autumn years in a boys’ school of the Society of St Pius X in Wangs, Switzerland. There was even a rumour circulating, from a close collaborator with two previous Superior Generals of the SSPX, that this same Conciliar bishop would be the principal consecrator of two Society priests to give, with Pope Francis’ full approval, two new bishops to the SSPX, perhaps after Easter. A date so soon for an event so significant is certainly impossible now, but its logic was inexorable, given the Newsociety’s 20-year old policy of blending with the Newchurch.

The same logic was behind BpH’s settling for his retirement in the Society’s school for boys in Wangs. Even as official bishop for one of the largest Newchurch dioceses in Switzerland, he is reported to have made several visits already to the school, and to have made himself popular with the Newsociety priests and boys living there. But he would not be cutting all contact with the Newchurch in Rome. On the contrary, his present diocesan spokesman announced in January that the bishop’s retiring to Wangs in April “is tied to a mission being entrusted to him by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to maintain contact with the SSPX.” Clearly BpH, reputed to be a personal friend of Pope Francis, was planning to act as a link between Newchurch and Newsociety, in the hope of bringing them closer together.

Nor was the hope necessarily dishonest. Many a Newchurchman cannot see (or will not see) the gulf that separates the Catholic religion of God from the Conciliar religion of man. On both sides there exists the wish to pretend that there is no such gulf. On the one hand Catholics find it hard to bear being outside the structure of the Church’s visible Authority, while on the other hand followers of Vatican II need re-assurance that they have not broken with the true Church’s unchanging Tradition. It may be to BpH’s credit that he wanted to settle in a more Catholic environment than the official diocese where he probably has no alternative to giving Communion to young women badly dressed, and no alternative to taking back remarks entirely justified against homosexuality. But “A fact is stronger than the Lord Mayor,” says the English proverb.

The fact is that Vatican II was the greatest break with Catholic Tradition in all Church history. Take for instance the Newmass, which is to the Council as practice is to theory. Would BpH have been asked never to say it in the school? Could he have accepted never to say it? And even if so, could he possibly have admitted that the theory and practice of his priesthood and episcopacy have been immersed in the Conciliar sell-out of God’s true Church to the godless modern world? Could he have shed overnight the convictions of all his tens of years of immersion in the Conciliar Church? Ordained priest in 1971 and consecrated bishop in 2007 with the rites of the revolutionary Paul VI, could he have admitted that to eliminate all doubt as to the Newrites’ validity, he needs to be conditionally re-ordained and re-consecrated? Or would the Newsociety have required neither? That seems most likely, given its recent practice, but how would the Swiss Traditionalists have responded to that? To all appearances Bishop Vitus Huonder may be an honest and well-meaning man, but his honesty is Conciliar, which means that he is loyal to a thoroughly dishonest corruption of the Catholic Faith and Church.

Alas, all over the world Society Traditionalists are being accustomed to the replacing of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society by the Newsociety. Bishop Fellay wanted to establish the SSPX within the walls of official Rome for it to act as a Trojan horse to convert Conciliar Rome. But was not BpH, even granting him all the good will in the world, being placed to act as a Trojan horse within the walls of the Society? One may hope that the school in Wangs would have enabled him to see the gulf between Tradition and the Council, but that is a fond hope. Alice was in Wonderland. The Newsociety wanted to be in Huonderland.

Kyrie eleison.