Eleison Comments

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.

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.