Eleison Comments

Hamlet = Apostasy

Hamlet = Apostasy on January 5, 2019

If Hamlet is possibly the most puzzling, probably the most interesting, and certainly the most modern amongst all 37 of Shakespeare’s stage plays, it is all for the same reason – there is an elephant in the room. That elephant is England’s apostasy from the Catholic Faith which was being hammered home by the English government when Shakespeare wrote the play, around 1600 AD, and which was driving him to despair because he was a devout Catholic. So (1) Hamlet is the most puzzling of his plays for the mass of post-Catholic readers or theatre-goers or critics who have no inkling of the “Reformation” as being the greatest disaster ever to befall England. (2) It is the most interesting of the plays because it is pivotal and conflictual between the past Middle Ages and the coming Modern Age. (3) It is the most modern, because over the last 400 years virtually the entire world has come to share in England’s apostasy.

(1) But who cares about apostasy today? How many people even know what the word means (a falling away from the Catholic Faith)? There was a time, like 1600 in England, when the Devil fiercely persecuted the Faith, so that Shakespeare had to disguise the Faith in his plays in order not to be hanged, drawn and quartered. But today the Devil ruins many more souls by making them take it for granted that religion is of so little importance that anybody can choose any religion he likes, or none. The vile media are so awash in error and immorality that the mass of people do not even notice them any more. See Clare Asquith’s book Shadowplay for the Catholic coding in all Shakespeare’s plays. But if Hamlet’s incestuous mother, Queen Gertrude, does indeed represent England committing incest with Protestantism, his uncle, is it any wonder if our contemporaries can see no proportionate reason for Prince Hamlet’s melancholy?

(2) The play is pivotal and conflictual because, like no other of Shakespeare’s plays, it is suspended between the medieval world and the New World Order, because Shakespeare himself was being shaken to the core by the seeming success of the stamping out of the Faith in his beloved country, as can be read in the play from the bitterness of the Prince towards almost everyone around him, especially his true love, Ophelia. Now a Catholic is not bitter, but Shakespeare was bitter, in writing Hamlet. It did not last. Read John Vyvyan’s immensely valuable book, The Shakespearean Ethic, if you want to discern that moral pattern underlying all the plays which was Shakespeare’s glorious heritage from medieval England. It is even present in Hamlet, notably in the Prince’s spurning of Ophelia to make room in his heart for revenge, but in Hamlet as in no other play the corruption of society – by apostasy, no less – is so terrible that the anti-social Prince comes over as an absolute hero, the first in a long line of anti-authoritarian heroes (cf. Hollywood) needing to override all natural respect for social authority. Apostasy kills society.

(3) And so Hamlet is the most modern of the Shakespeare plays because it is the play which most departs from, or overlays, the medieval model. Shakespeare wrote many plays after Hamlet, but he was never again tempted to replace love by vengeance, or to return from the New to the Old Testament. He regained his calm and balance while still writing superb plays, but in 1611 he abandoned the stage and London to leave the Puritans to take over England and lead eventually all the world away from God. By today generations of young men suckled on anti-heroes have turned into anti-men, with little to nothing left in them of their medieval heritage. But human nature has not changed, and human beings still need men to lead, which is why the girls are trying to make themselves into men, and the two young sexes more and more spurn one another. In a line from Macbeth, “Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.”

If you read Hamlet, beware of the Ghost in Act One. If you are Catholic you know that Almighty God would never let out of Purgatory a soul to pursue revenge. Then where can the Ghost come from, other than from Hell? In which case, is the Prince really such a hero? Shakespeare’s bitterness was understandable, but it twisted his theology. Young men, adore and love Jesus Christ, love His Mother, pray her Rosary and lead the girls. That is what they need you for.

Kyrie eleison.

The Problem

<u>The</u> Problem on December 29, 2018

God’s way is rarely the easy way. Here is an email from a reader of these “Comments,” elaborating on a point raised here often but that cannot be raised too often, because it lies at the heart of the problem and danger for the Society of St Pius X since 2012 and for the foreseeable future: the down-grading of doctrine. Here is what he writes, abbreviated and edited as usual for these “Comments”:—

When I think about the Society’s 2012 switch from doctrine before practice to practice before doctrine, ending in a secret agreement with things going unsaid but no less agreed, I do believe that the SSPX Headquarters have been behaving like the Communists whose tactic it was, in post-war France, to say to Catholics, “ Look, you want to help the working class just like we do, but you have the Faith, whereas we are atheists. Let us leave to one side questions of doctrine. You let us keep our Marxist ideology, and we will not ask you to abandon your Faith. Let us just act together to relieve the workers’ misery and to give back a bit of hope to the victims of modern society.” And by this means the large number of worker-priests who had consented to lead the lives of factory workers were turned into Marxists. The reason was, as St Augustine said, that if I do not act as I think I will end up thinking as I act. Pius XII forbade the worker-priest experiment to continue, but only after many priests had been lost to the priesthood. And the future Paul VI in Rome and the Archbishop of Paris rivalled with one another in undermining Pius XII’s ruling, because already then they believed more in action than in doctrine.

Thus the Society switch in 2012 from doctrine to action has not ceased to produce bitter fruits. When one hears people remarking that Rome is no longer requiring the Society to give up anything at all, that is sheer foolishness. Benedict XVI saw clearly what was at stake when he explained to modernists worried about Rome and the Society getting back together, that a practical agreement would so change the atmosphere as to put an end to the Society’s criticism of Rome without any further special intervention being needed on Rome’s part. The example of the Traditional Congregations that have since 1970 made agreements with Rome proves his point. As for the Society, it is now caught with both feet in this trap.

The Popes’ teaching, the voice of reason, experience itself, might all just as well have gone for nothing. And all these priests and laymen formed in Catholic Tradition now have the most terrible prejudice of all – the mindset of somebody who knows, but thinks it best to relativise, or leave to one side, what he knows.

What matters now is not waiting to see what Rome will or won’t do to stop Tradition. The real enemy is not outside the Society. What matters is to understand that, with regard to Rome, by claiming from Rome a normalisation, or recognition, or regularisation (call it what you like!), the Society is in fact accepting the Romans in their present wretched state, and is thereby compromising its own integrity. This behaviour shows that the Society has swallowed the modernist poison, which just like a cancer is now spreading within the Society all the time.

Dear Society priests, this excellent analysis warns you of your own very real and present danger. The Society’s real enemy is not only within. It is within your leaders. It is the self-righteous delusion that contact with the criminal or deluded modernists ruling the Church in Rome is not only not dangerous, but is positively advantageous to the Universal Church. However, if any of these modernists in charge of God’s Church are genuinely deluded, can you think that God is not offering them all graces necessary to see their fruits as they are, i.e. the radical destruction of His Church? In which case, how many of them can be genuinely deluded? In which case, what business do your leaders have to be mixing and planning with them? God told Lot to get out of Sodom, and not look back! You must, for your own salvation and that of your flock, take whatever steps are necessary to insulate yourselves from the mafia not only in Rome, but also in Menzingen unless it changes course! May God be with you.

Kyrie eleison.

Heart’s Protection

Heart’s Protection on December 22, 2018

Here is a precious account of how Christmas may have protected the Immaculate Heart of Mary from being overcome by her intimate participation in the Passion of her divine Son –

“The ecstatic bliss of my giving birth came over me like the essence of a flower, enclosed in the living vase of my heart, for the rest of my life. An indescribable joy. Human, and superhuman. Perfect joy.

“When my heart was pierced every evening of my Son’s life with the painful reminder, ‘One day less of waiting, one day closer to Calvary,’ and when my soul was smothered in pain as though a wave of torture had swept over it, being a wave in advance from the flood of torment that overwhelmed me on Golgotha, I would in spirit lean over the memory of the bliss of Holy Night that had remained alive in my heart, like one would lean over a narrow mountain gorge to listen to the echo of a song of love, or to see in the distance the home of one’s joy.

“That was my strength through life, especially in the hour of my mystic death at the foot of the Cross. God was punishing the two of us, me and my gentle Son, for the sins of a whole world, but in order not to tell Him that the punishment was too terrible and that the hand of His Justice was being laid too heavily upon us, I was obliged, through the veil of the bitterest tears that ever woman wept, to fasten my heart on that Holy Night, that memory of light, of bliss, of holiness, which rose up before me on Golgotha as a comforting vision from inside my heart to tell me how much God had loved me – the vision had come to me there on its own without waiting for me to seek it out, because it was a holy joy and everything holy is infused with love, and love gives life even to things seemingly lifeless.

“Here is what we need to do when God strikes –

* Recall the times when God gave us joy, so that we can say even amid the torment, “Thank you, God. You are good to me.”

* Accept to be comforted by remembering a gift from the past, to strengthen us in moments of present suffering, when we are crushed to the point of despair, like plants being crushed in a storm, so that we will not despair of the goodness of God.

* Make sure that our joys are of God, in other words not just human joys of our own choosing and all too easily not of God, as is everything we do if it is disconnected from God, from His divine Law and Will. We must look for joy from God alone.

* Keep in mind God’s Law and Will for past joys as well, because recalling a memory that spurs us on to do good and to bless God is not blameworthy, it is to be encouraged and blessed.

* Shine the light of past joy on present darkness to make the darkness so bright that even in the blackest night we can see the holy Face of God.

* Sweeten a bitter chalice with a relished memory so as to be able to endure the horrible taste and drink the chalice down to the last drop.

* Sense by the precious memory that we cherish, the sensation of God’s caress even while the thorns press in on our forehead.

“There you have the seven sources of happiness opposed to the seven swords, such as they pierced my Immaculate Heart. They form my Christmas lesson for you, and together with yourself I make a present of them to my favourite children. I bless them all.”

Kyrie eleison.

Discussions Renewed? – III

Discussions Renewed? – III on December 15, 2018

Many readers of these “Comments” may not be content if for the third time in succession they deal with what can seem to them mere arguments between priests, namely the meeting on November 22 in Rome between Cardinal Ladaria and Fr Davide Pagliarani. But every human being, Catholic or not, must suffer eternally in Hell if he does not save his soul. This can only be done in accordance with Catholic doctrine, and so that doctrine must be kept pure. Since the 1970’s the staunchest defender of Catholic doctrine against Vatican II confusion inside the Catholic Church, was the Society of St Pius X. But since 2012 the Society too has been wavering in its faithfulness to that doctrine. Therefore it is a matter of concern to every human being alive whether discussions with Rome today will or will not put an end to the Society’s faithfulness to the Church and to the doctrine of the one and only Saviour of men, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Two weeks ago these “Comments” (EC 594) presented in general the press release of November 23 in which Society Headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland, described the meeting on the previous day between the Society’s new Superior General, Fr David Pagliarani, and Rome’s head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ladaria. One week ago the “Comments” (EC 595) presented the full text of the third and fourth paragraphs of that press release, with their glimmer of hope that the Society will come back on its Founder’s track to defend the doctrine of the Faith. But when the fifth paragraph concluded that doctrinal discussions with Rome should be re-opened, the glimmer grew dark, not only because doctrinal discussions between Rome and the Society were already held between 2009 and 2011 (EC 594); not only because neo-modernists like today’s Romans cannot think straight (EC 595); but also because Rome has only one purpose in discussing with the Society, and that is to put a final end to the Society’s historic resistance to their own sell-out to Satan’s New World Order.

Thus whenever Communists wanted to take over a country, the main obstacle in their way was always the Catholic Church, which utterly rejects – doctrinally – the atheistic materialism of Communists. But Communists learned not to fight Catholics on doctrine, where faithful Catholics are too strong. Instead they invited Catholics to join them in a joint action, supposedly on behalf of the people, because once Catholics and Communists were collaborating in action, the Communists would exploit the practical contact to get around the doctrinal blockage. The one thing that the Communists did not want was for the Catholics to break off all contact. Then they no longer had the means of working on them.

Similarly, when Cardinal Castrillón was Rome’s man to deal with the Society ten years ago, he used basically the same tactic – “Let us first get together, and we will sort out all the doctrinal problems afterwards, once we are together. The important thing is first a practical agreement,” he said. On the contrary Archbishop Lefebvre always insisted on Catholic doctrine coming first. His successors thought that they knew better, and have time and again sought contact with the Roman apostates, who have been, logically, only too happy to oblige, with the result that the Society’s defence of the Faith has grown steadily weaker since 2000. The salt is losing its savour. Unless the Society seriously changes course it will become fit only to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (Mt. V, 13).

Another problem is if the Society is wanting discussions in order to obtain official permission for the consecration of the new generation of bishops that it needs for its worldwide apostolate. But if it does not want to consecrate them without Rome’s permission, then it can only agree to Rome’s terms, because it is making itself the beggar and Rome the chooser. But thereby the Society is putting the Conciliar Romans firmly in the driving-seat, where for the defence of the Faith, they absolutely do not belong. So is the new Superior General wanting to re-open discussions with a view to obtaining a Roman permission? God knows. But in any case, discussing with Rome means that the Superior General will be dancing with wolves. A dangerous occupation.

Kyrie eleison.

Discussions Renewed? – II

Discussions Renewed? – II on December 8, 2018

The official press release coming from Society of St Pius X Headquarters on Friday two weeks ago, of the meeting held on the previous day between the Society’s Superior General and Rome’s Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, is full of good words. What remains to be seen is how these words will translate into acts on the part of the new Superior General.

The press release contains seven paragraphs. The first two paragraphs introduce Cardinal Ladaria and Father Pagliarani with their respective colleagues, and state that it was the Cardinal who invited Fr Pagliarani to Rome to discuss the state of relations between Rome and the Society, as they may be evolving since Fr Pagliarani’s election as the Society’s new Superior General last July. The third and fourth paragraphs place the problem between Rome and the Society exactly where it belongs, in the domain of doctrine. Here they are, in the full text:—

(3) In the course of the meeting with the Roman authorities, it was recalled that the underlying problem is well and truly doctrinal, and neither Rome nor the Society can get around that fact. It is the unyielding divergence of doctrine which has for the last seven years frustrated every attempt to work out any statement of doctrine acceptable to both sides. Here is why the question of doctrine remains absolutely basic. (4) The Holy See is saying nothing different when it solemnly states that there can be no setting up of any juridical status for the Society until a document doctrinal in character has been signed.

However, the fifth paragraph proceeds to conclude that “Everything therefore impels the Society to re-open theological Discussions,” their purpose being not so much to convince the Romans as to bring before the Church the Society’s uncompromising witness to the Faith. The last two paragraphs give expression to the Society’s trust in Providence. Its future lies in the hands of God and His Blessed Mother. (End of press release)

Alas, one may well question whether it is useful or prudent to seek to re-open Doctrinal Discussions with these Romans. As one of the four Society representatives commented on the four Roman representatives after the last series of such Discussions held from 2009 to 2011, “They are mentally sick, but it is they who have the authority.” This comment was not meant personally, rather it testifies with precision to the incapacity of the Roman Neo-modernists to grasp the very essence of Catholic doctrine, namely its objective character, allowing of no subjective interference. Almighty God means what He says, He says it through His Church, and so there can be no question of re-moulding for modern times – as did Vatican II – what His Church always and unchangingly said before Vatican II. How then can today’s Romans be loyal to God’s Church and at the same time to Vatican II without either their minds being sick with contradiction, or their having a completely false idea of the Church?

That being so, if and when the Holy See issues a press release on the same meeting of November 22, it will be interesting to see how they present the prospect of a re-opening of the Doctrinal Discussions. They certainly want Discussions, in the hope of luring the new Superior General out of his impregnable fortress of Church doctrine, but their own Conciliar doctrine can only be false insofar as it departs from that Tradition. And so the two great arguments available to them must be, as always, authority and unity, disregarding doctrine. But what is Catholic authority when it no longer serves Truth? And what is Catholic unity if it unites around a pack of slippery lies (Vatican II)? Alas, authority and unity are the only legs that these Conciliar Romans have to stand on.

Therefore, honourable Superior General, here is an act to follow your words: why not make public a clear and fair summary of the record of the last Doctrinal Discussions of 2009–2011? You would be backing your fine doctrinal paragraphs of November 23 with a real doctrinal act!

Kyrie eleison.

Discussions Renewed? – I

Discussions Renewed? – I on December 1, 2018

The latest press release coming last week from Society of St Pius X Headquarters concerning the meeting held on the previous day between the Society’s Superior General and the head of Rome’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, gives rise to a guarded optimism. Guarded certainly, because as the proverb says, “The scalded cat fears (even) cold water,” and Traditional Catholics have been scalded for the best part of the last 20 years by the treacherous politics of Menzingen, putting Conciliar approval above the Catholic Faith, while always pretending to do the opposite. However, there is room for a glimmer of optimism, because this press release puts the doctrine of the Faith back in first place where it belongs.

Two more proverbs say, “Handsome is as handsome does,” and “Actions speak louder than words.” And so Catholics doing their best to keep the Faith are going to be wary for a while, even for a long while, at least until they can see actions and not only good words coming from Menzingen, especially when the practical conclusion of the press release is that doctrinal discussions between Rome and the Society need to be re-opened. Doctrinal discussions? But they have been held already, between 2009 and 2011, long enough to discuss all the main issues, and clear enough to show the impossibility of any doctrinal agreement between Catholic Tradition and Vatican II. Upon which Menzingen abandoned in 2012 the sanity of Archbishop Lefebvre – “No practical agreement WITHOUT a doctrinal agreement” and replaced it with the insanity of his successor – “No doctrinal agreement; THEREFORE, a practical agreement,” which is the direct opposite! And that treacherous lead was docilely followed by the large part of what had once been the Archbishop’s Society . . .

In this switch between the two formulae lies the essence of the treachery, which is not too strong a word, because the Archbishop’s formula puts the doctrine of the Faith in front of approval by the Roman Conciliarists, whereas one may say that the second formula puts the Faith in second or third place. Thus for several years now the Society can be accused of having pursued as its priorities, firstly official recognition by Conciliar Rome, secondly unity within the Society and with Rome, and thirdly the Faith. But what is the Catholic worth of recognition by non-Catholics, e.g. followers of Vatican II, and what is the use for Catholics of unity in any shape, size or form with Conciliarists? What was disappointing in 2012 was the lack of sufficient reaction on the part of so many priests trained under the Archbishop. But we all of us live in a world in which “indoctrination” has become a dirty word, and in which most people want in their heads Masonic mush because it frees them from all ten Commandments . . .

Notwithstanding, Catholics who still want to get to Heaven still want the Faith, because as Almighty God tells us in Holy Scripture, without the faith it is impossible to please Him, and how can one get to His Heaven without pleasing Him (Hebrews XI, 6)? Then such Catholics, scalded in the all-engulfing apostasy which surrounds them, might take at least a glimmer of hope from the press release mentioned above, because at least in words it announces the intention of Menzingen to put the doctrine of the Faith back in first place, as these “Comments” will quote next week. (Meanwhile one act that the new Superior General could immediately put in place is to make public a clear and just summary of the record of the 2009–2011 doctrinal discussions, which was promised to us at the time, a promise never fulfilled.)

However, will Fr Pagliarani have the vision and fortitude to put in place the acts corresponding to his words? Time alone will tell. In fairness, he still needs to be given time if he is to turn around a great oil-tanker at sea, and in the opinion of these “Comments,” he surely – or in any case – needs our prayers. May Our Lady be with him if he truly means to take on the heavy task in front of him of straightening out the Society. It risks being a fight!

Kyrie eleison.