Eleison Comments

Consecration Imminent?

Consecration Imminent? on November 17, 2018

A rumour has been flying around in Catholic Tradition that there will soon be in the Society of St Pius X the consecration of a new bishop, or bishops. Rumours need never be taken too seriously, but on the other hand they are not always without foundation. In the present case the SSPX certainly needs new bishops, because Bishop Tissier has for some time now been not in good health, Bishop de Galarreta as the Society’s First Assistant must now concern himself with administering Society affairs worldwide, and that leaves Bishop Fellay alone with complete freedom to travel anywhere for Confirmations and Ordinations. So there is certainly foundation for the rumour of a new consecration.

But the rumour goes further, because it says that the bishop(s) to be consecrated will have the approval of the Roman authorities, and here is where the rumour is worth considering, even if it is untrue, because here lies the clearest example of the impossible dead end into which the Newsociety has driven itself by its policy of seeking official approval from the Conciliar authorities in Rome. For if the bishop elect has the approval of unrepentant Conciliarists, how can he be pleasing to true Traditionalists? And if he has the approval of true Traditionalists, how can he be at the same time be pleasing to the masters of Conciliarism in Rome? And the answer to that question can only be either that the Conciliarists are giving up on their Vatican II, or Traditionalists are going over to Vatican II, or that Conciliarists and Traditionalists are meeting somewhere in between, as though 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 can be reconciled at 2+2=four and a half.

For do we need to be reminded that Catholic Tradition and Vatican II are intrinsically irreconcilable? Yes we do, because we poor human beings are always wanting to have our cake and eat it. We are always wanting to square the circle, to mix oil and water, to dance with the Devil in this life while not spoiling our chances of enjoying with God in the next life. We want to have it both ways, so that any recipe for reconciling God with the Devil will always sell like hot cakes until it inevitably fails, whereupon it will be immediately succeeded by the next recipe for doing the same thing. The failure is inevitable because in the words of the Anglican Bishop Butler of the 18th century, “Things are what they are, their consequences will be what they will be, why then should we seek to be deceived?”

Thus Catholic Tradition came from Jesus Christ, who is God, while Vatican II (1962–1965) came from the desire of modern man to combine God’s religion with godless modernity arising from the French Revolution. For about Vatican II both Cardinal Suenens on the left and Archbishop Lefebvre on the right said the same thing, namely that it was the Revolution of 1789 inside the Church: religious liberty to free men from all truth of the past, equality to level down all order of old Christendom, and fraternity to create the New World Order of the Masonic brotherhood of man without God. Of course Vatican II has failed, except in the secret purpose of its Judeo-Masonic designers to destroy God’s Church, and since Almighty God, to cleanse His Church, is still giving power to His age-old enemies to scourge it, then they are by no means renouncing their Council, rather today’s Church authorities are putting it into action more than ever.

Therefore if the same authorities approve of a bishop elect coming from inside the once Traditional SSPX, it can only be to help dissolve any remaining resistance from within the SSPX to their Masonic Newchurch. And if any Traditionalists approve of the bishop elect who pleases the Newchurch, it can only be because they are losing their Catholic Faith under the overpowering influence of today’s worldwide apostasy. “Caveant consules,” said the Latins. Let those who are in command watch out.

Kyrie eleison.

True Hero

True Hero on November 10, 2018

On October 21 there died in France one of the few real heroes that our poor modern world could still boast of, Professor Robert Faurisson, in Vichy, France. He was a real hero because in a world of lies he stood with unfailing courage and scrupulous accuracy for truth, on a matter of decisive importance for all mankind. He was repaid with the loss of his job, with the suffering of his family, with ten personal and physical attacks one of which left him for dead, with isolation in his profession and with a relentless series of judicial attacks on the part of his bitter enemies, and yet he maintained towards them a constant courtesy and respect. This way of life he maintained for more than 40 years, never wavering in his service of the truth.

He died on the field of battle, just after returning home from giving one last public conference which was due to be his swansong, in Shepperton, England, the town of his birth nearly ninety years ago. There he spoke with a friend from Italy, who has left us this account of their conversation: “The Professor was as clear-sighted, as balanced and unbowed as ever, but he was tired, very tired, so frail as to seem almost transparent, with the feeling that his task was over. Indeed this super-brave man had achieved everything he was meant to achieve.” And the friend continues, “He leaves behind him an immense contribution to the Revisionist cause [ . . . ] Enemies filled with hate sought to stop him from writing, from living, but he always stood up again, not deflecting by a millimetre from his fearless pursuit of the truth.”

Many readers of these “Comments” know what “Revisionism” is about, and why it is of such importance to all men, including Catholics. As George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their understanding of their history.” Revisionists are historians who see people all over the world being destroyed today by an untrue version of their history, especially of the Second World War, so they do what they can to restore the truth of history. For – again Orwell – “Who controls the past controls the future . . .” meaning that whoever writes the history books controls the future, by the influence that history has on people’s minds, “. . . and who controls the present controls the past,” meaning that if the political masters of the moment use their power to control the history books, then they control the future.

Now the people who hold world-wide power today over politics and the media are people who want the godless New World Order, and they fully understand George Orwell. Therefore they have fabricated a hugely false version of World War Two history to go with a complete fabricated religion to replace Christianity. Now if truth did not matter, and if Christianity did not matter, as many people today think, then they should have no problem with the New World Order taking over, but they will in fact suffer a worldwide tyranny as a result, a prelude to the Antichrist. However Solzhenitsyn, enlightened by Russia’s horrendous 72 years of suffering under godless Communism, warned against building a nation, a continent or a world on lies. Likewise Professor Faurisson had a horror of people building on lies, and he gave his life to re-establishing the truth. The persecution that he underwent for tens of years for telling the truth was the proof from his miserable enemies of the importance and efficacy of what he was doing.

Nor did he promise himself any Heavenly reward for his dedication to truth, because he professed himself to be an atheist. Yet he loved children, was glad of blessings and never repudiated them. Now, as a sister of his pointed out, after going in front of a series of unjust judges who have nearly all buckled under to the New World Order, he has gone in front of the Supreme Just Judge, Our divine Lord Himself. How will Our Lord have judged him? Two things are certain: one, nothing in all the rest of his life will have been remotely as important as that judgment, and two, he merited greatly by men, but that is not the same thing as to merit by God. May he at the very last moment have been given a special grace of conversion, not impossible for God. Mt XXI, 28–29 gives us more than the right to hope and to pray for the eternal salvation of his soul.

Kyrie eleison.

T.F.P. on Liberalism

T.F.P. on Liberalism on November 3, 2018

Whatever have been from its beginning – and still are – the faults of the organisation known as T.F.P. (Tradition, Family, Property), it is a pleasure to say that it is doing some good work in the United States today. In a regular circular letter (available from tfp@tfp.org) it presents brief essays often on three important points for the understanding of how the Catholic Faith needs to function in today’s demonic world. The essays are not too deep for ordinary readers to understand, but neither are they shallow. They may not be infallible, but they are thoughtful and full of good sense, and they often address important problems in today’s Church and world. Here for example is a summary of Four Characteristics of the Liberal Mind that are Destroying Society, from the American T.F.P. Letter of one month ago:—

The fragmented and polarised state of society today is proof that something has gone terribly wrong. Conservatives often blame the breakdown on liberal activists at work in politics and in the media, but the liberals’ dissolvent activity comes from a whole liberal mindset, spread far and wide. Almost everybody today accepts the principles of classic liberalism, enshrined in the American Constitution but moderated at that time by America’s Christian heritage. With that heritage now being largely repudiated, the full dissolvency of liberal principles is today becoming evident, as it was not evident before. In order to see where our chaos is coming from, let us look at four characteristics of the liberal mindset.

1 The liberal mind is always moving away from objective truth. Wanting to appear more compassionate and kind than the “heartless conservatives,” by means of half-truths they slide into error which they did not at first embrace. For instance liberals may well oppose crime in principle, but they promote it in practice by going soft on criminals, because of supposed injustices that criminals may have suffered.

2 To replace unpleasant and impersonal objective truth, the liberal mind is always looking for pleasing subjective opinions, or personal judgments, to confirm them in their own way of thinking and acting. A classic example comes from a Supreme Court decision of 1992, justifying abortion: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of the meaning of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

3 The liberal mind is always wrongly defining freedom as the right to do whatever one wants to do. By this definition, sheer whims and fantasy can ultimately take over. Liberals will then call in doubt whatever contradicts their whims, but never what confirms them.

4 The liberal mind is always disliking rules and laws, which it feels as being automatically restrictive. In reality, law consists of reasonable precepts put forward by any society’s competent authority as being essential to that society’s common good. But liberals will resent even rules of clothing or grammar if these are felt to be too restrictive! Thus to replace the real God of Justice and the Ten Commandments, they fabricate their own god, a god above all of compassion, a god of ten Recommendations.

In brief, all four characteristics are centred on the self. According to liberalism, each person determines for himself what are true and false, right and wrong. Here is where society is breaking down.

For indeed liberalism as such cannot create a social order, or a society, but only a social breakdown. If it has survived until now, that is only by the solid Christian order which it inherited, and of which it is the dissolution. Liberals depend on what they destroy, and destroy what they depend on. In 2018 they are pushing ever closer to chaos. Liberalism is intrinsically anti-social. No society can be made out of anti-social members. Liberalism can only make people more and more isolated, lonely and frustrated. It can only make human life turn more and more into a series of clashes between sacrosanct individuals.

Kyrie eleison.

Still Sliding

Still Sliding on October 27, 2018

“No enemies on the left” is a classic saying of Democrats, Socialists, Communists, etc. It means that in politics, nobody fighting on the left should fight anybody else fighting on the left, unless they are going over to the right. In religion, the same saying should apply as follows: nobody fighting the good fight for Catholic Tradition should fight anybody else fighting for Tradition, unless they are in the process of abandoning Tradition. This means that no Catholics of Tradition should normally be attacking the Society of St Pius X which for over 40 years rendered outstanding service to Tradition. Alas, its interim Chapter of 2012 showed it to be sliding away from that Tradition in which it had been founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now the elective Chapter of last July seems to show the same slide to be continuing. Therefore with no intention here to harm the Society, let Catholics learn of the officially continuing slide.

The evidence is in a circular letter from Society Headquarters in Menzingen which begins to tell details of policy decisions taken by the Chapter of last July concerning relations of the Society with Rome. The policy is in five sections, of which the first three and the fifth contain a variety of pious considerations to frame the fourth section, which could not be a more official presentation of the Society’s policy towards Rome. Here is the fourth section, quoted in full. It is so important for the Society’s immediate future that every word will have been chosen by the Chapter with special care, and every word may be analysed:—

4a It is within the rights of the Superior General to decide if it is expedient to have contacts with the Holy See. It is up to him, in prudence and when the hour has come, dictated by Divine Providence, to take into consideration a modification of the canonical status, without prejudice to the prior convocation of a Chapter.

4b The Society is a work of the Church. Therefore, she has no agreement to conclude with the Holy Father. However, when the time comes, the true rights of the Society will be recognised and codified canonically. This is why the Society’s members are invited to speak more specifically about a “normalisation,” a “recognition,” a “solution or modification of the canonical status,” or a “renewal of our canonical approval.”

As to 4a – Indeed the Society’s Superior General must decide on what negotiations with Rome serve the Faith, and on how to conduct them, but in all Society Chapters prior to 2012 (1994, 2000, 2006), it was clearly repeated that any final submission to official Rome, or re-integration into it, or agreement with it, was something of such momentum for the Society that the Superior General could not alone decide on it without a full General Chapter also voting in its favour. Now note the phraseology of 2018: “modification of the canonical status” is a fig-leaf expression to cover over the placing of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of Truth under Conciliar Rome’s Authority of Lies. And “without prejudice to” (i.e. not excluding) is a poor substitute for “never without” (i.e. necessarily including). And note the assumption that the Superior General is guaranteed to decide in accordance with Providence. Did Paul VI have any such guarantee?

As to 4b – Indeed normally no subject makes an agreement with his Superior as though they are equals, but Neo-modernist Rome is not normal Rome! The Archbishop’s Society of Truth has no business to be putting itself in the position of a beggar with regard to the modernists now holding office in Rome. Truth does not beg from lies, unless it is ceasing to be Truth. In fact the Newsociety of 2018, has lost all real grip on the truth of the overwhelming crisis in the Newchurch of Vatican II, and it is losing its grip on Truth in general. So the four fig-leaf expressions that the Chapter here chooses to replace words expressing the reality of the Newsociety HQ’s intended sell-out to the enemies of the Faith now in Rome, are wholly out of place. They absolutely do not correspond to the reality of that sell-out.

Kyrie eleison.

“Resistance” Acting?

“Resistance” Acting? on October 20, 2018

This time it is a grandmother who writes to “Eleison Comments” with a concern which is widely shared among readers and friends who sympathise in general with the aims of the “Resistance” movement, but wonder what it is actually doing today to help their situation. Here is her plea, slightly summarised:—

I am very disappointed in the lack of leadership which is being shown today in the Society and the Resistance. We support the Resistance but we hear nothing about what it is doing. You have recently consecrated three Bishops but what is their function? What are they doing to give some comfort and hope to the faithful? We don’t hear anything about them either. Can they not form some sort of opposition to the Society, together with some very solid priests that have left the Society? Surely God is looking for something more than just prayers. Years ago He raised up the Archbishop to protect His Church. Is He now going to leave us faithful followers in the lurch? I think many Traditional Catholics are desperately looking for some strong leadership today, whether in the Society or in the Resistance.

Dear Grandmother,

Let me begin to answer with a famous episode from Roman history before Christ. In 216 BC the Roman army, normally unbeatable, went to fight the Carthaginians led by Hannibal who had invaded Italy and were threatening the very city of Rome. But at the battle of Cannae in south Italy the Romans allowed themselves to be out-manoeuvred and surrounded by Hannibal, so that they were slaughtered by the Carthaginians. There was consternation in Rome. What should they do? Some Romans wanted to raise another army and go after Hannibal again, but the advice of the Consul Fabius was to avoid battle if possible, and instead, while keeping a close watch on the enemy, nevertheless to wait until he would go home on his own. The advice was good, and it was followed. Eventually the Carthaginians went home, where their army was crushed by the Romans fourteen years later. “Fabius the Delayer” had won.

No comparisons work perfectly. So after the Church’s crushing defeat at Vatican II (1962-1965), would anybody say that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to have raised a few years later what army he could to go on fighting the modernists? Surely not. But Vatican II was a major battle which left enough good soldiers scattered around for the Archbishop to be able to rally them together in a small army in the 1970’s. On the contrary, the defeat of that army from 2012 onwards was a numerically small defeat, leaving far fewer scattered soldiers to fight. Could the strategy be the same as in the 1970’s and 1980’s? Surely not. For one thing, the soldiers this time round, often children of the revolutionary 1960’s or later, had that much less sense of obedience or of an ordered Church or world than the scattered Catholics had had after the Council. For who can deny that the 2010’s are far more disordered and undisciplined even than the 1970’s? One may wonder if the Archbishop, with all his gifts, could or would have put together a “counter-Society” today. Perhaps, perhaps not…

As it is, the four bishops of the “Resistance” movement do what they can, each in his own part of the world, to provide the few Catholics wishing to keep the Faith with iron rations of sane doctrine and guidance available to all interested, together with the episcopal sacraments. That is a minimal achievement, neither glamorous nor sensational, but it may be the essential necessary. If it is, may God keep us faithful.

Kyrie eleison.

Priceless Femininity – II

Priceless Femininity – II on October 13, 2018

The womanliness of woman is today under fierce attack. The reason is not far to seek. Satan wants complete power over mankind so as to make sure that every single soul falls into Hell. Now the way in which Almighty God designs for human beings to set out on the road to Heaven is by their birth within a normal human family, in which what we call today the “biological father” and the “biological mother” look after the fruit of their mutual love, their own children. Dr Henry Makow takes up the story from last week’s “Eleison Comments,” from the standpoint of the Satanists.

“Cabalist Jews and Freemasons are Satanists. They control by degrading and corrupting. Like termites they eat away at the supporting columns of society. The family is the red blood cell of a healthy society. It provides us with our roles and identity, as well as necessary emotional and material support. It ensures the young are born, loved and raised properly, and the aged are taken care of. Our family is our link in the chain of eternity. So the Satanists have always wanted to destroy it. They went after the women, whom they deemed fickle, vain and feeble-minded. ‘There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women,’ Adam Weishaupt wrote. ‘These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration.’

“So the Satanists convinced women that marriage and family were ‘oppressive.’ Men may have toiled in factories and died in war to provide and protect, but somehow women were the ones oppressed. Satanists needed to interfere with the natural affection and attraction that males and females have for each other, and for their offspring. Satanists exist to banish love. A woman’s essence is love, the power to generate love, by loving and being loved in return. This is the source of her power. A woman’s love for her husband and children is the most precious thing in the world. For a man, this love is his greatest treasure. By allowing herself to be deceived, by pursuing material instead of spiritual power, modern woman has essentially lost the power to love. She can have power or love. She cannot have both. Women need a man’s love like a flower needs sunshine and water. Men nurture women and women empower men by acquiescing to their reasonable demands. This is the heterosexual dynamic [ . . . ]

“But this is what is condemned as the exploitation of woman (the ‘eroticisation of powerlessness’) by, for example, a Sheila Jeffreys, known as a lesbian feminist scholar and political activist. Obviously she cannot understand that woman’s love is her true power. She wants to turn all women into lesbians who like her cannot understand that woman’s style, beauty and charm, in brief her femininity, depend on eschewing material power. A woman who gives herself to her husband is cherished and loved by him and their children. A woman who pursues power in masculine terms is doomed to a life of isolation and bitterness.

“Western feminists, you have forfeited your most precious gift for nothing. You are vulgar, a real turn-off. You lack personality, charm, style, substance. You cannot love. You are not even attractive. And soon you will lose your youth. You will have nothing but your job, your dog and your equally desperate friends. Western feminists, you have been robbed, betrayed by your society, teachers, and political and cultural leaders; and consequently you have joined their traitorous ranks. You have betrayed your unborn children, your culture, your family and the promise of the future. But worst of all, you have betrayed yourselves” (end of Makow quote).

Kyrie eleison.