Eleison Comments

Historical Truth – II

Historical Truth – II on September 23, 2017

As last week’s “Comments” reminded readers, it is Scripture itself that tells us that the Antichrist will come, because men lacked love of the truth (II Thessalonians II, 10). God is truth (Jn. XIV, 6), and so when men turn away from God they open themselves to lies. But Satan is the father of lies (Jn. VIII, 44), and so to welcome lies is to welcome Satan and ultimately his Antichrist, the worst of all enemies of Christ. Therefore to think that the modern political scene being full of lies is not a religious problem because politics and religion have little to do with one another, is to have a very defective view of religion. The love of truth matters in all areas of life. “The truth will set you free,” says Our Lord (Jn. VIII, 32). Sure enough – a mass of people today are enslaved by the lies of the vile media, and the media are vile precisely because they lie, gravely and systematically.

Last week’s example of a monstrous untruth widely accepted came from France, although that untruth holds sway all over the world. This week’s monstrous untruth comes from the United States. No doubt many of the readers of these “Comments” know that the real story of 9/11 is not at all what it has been made to appear, but still far too many minds are bent right out of shape because they have not wanted to know the truth. As a result, their whole perception of the course of events in the 21st century remains twisted out of true by what has been made to appear a “terrorist” attack in 2001 on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. As with last week’s monstrous untruth, just a few hours on the Internet would give them all the evidence they need to know the truth, but “none so blind as he who will not see,” says the proverb.

A great American lover of truth, Paul Craig Roberts, tells in his June 8 article “The American Catastrophe,” how frustrating it is to urge upon his fellow-countrymen the true narrative of events, only to be answered, “If it was a conspiracy, somebody would have talked.” Yes, of course, he replies, but it has no effect whatsoever if they do talk. He quotes Israel’s 1967 attack on the American Navy ship, Liberty, totally exposed since then by senior American officers and officials, yet still officially covered up. He quotes the political assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy in the 1960’s, both still officially covered up despite the clear evidence, and then he comes to 9/11:—

As for 9/11, more than one hundred first responders (fireman and police) and World Trade Centre maintenance personnel who were in the Twin Towers have testified that they heard and experienced multiple explosions inside the towers before barely escaping with their lives. Maintenance personnel have testified that the first explosions were in the sub-basement before the plane hit the tower. Demolition experts have testified that the buildings were without any doubt brought down by controlled demolition. Three thousand architects and engineers have said that the official story is impossible. Independent scientists have published their findings that the residue of the towers contains reacted and unreacted nano-thermite. But all of this talk has had no effect on the official cover-up. The experts are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” a term that the CIA introduced into political discourse to discredit those who exposed the cover-up of President Kennedy’s assassination.

This “American catastrophe” of a people largely disinterested in evidence or truth is right now leading directly to World War III, because the American public is accepting to believe that Russia interfered in the American election last year, that Russia wants to attack its neighbours, that Putin is another Hitler – all lies. Paul Craig Roberts is in virtual despair at this lack of love of truth. We will all of us pay the penalty.

Kyrie eleison.

Historical Truth – I

Historical Truth – I on September 16, 2017

Scripture says (II Thess. II, 9–10) that the coming of the Antichrist “is according to the work of Satan [ . . . ] and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that they may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.” Each word needs to be weighed.

Towards the end of the world, which one can safely say must include the 21st century, the wicked Antichrist will deceive souls that are headed for Hell, and they are headed for Hell because they do not accept the love of truth as they would accept it if they were headed for Heaven. Because they have not loved the truth, God will punish them with the operation of error, with the result that they will believe in a pack of lies. In this way all those will bring judgement upon themselves who instead of loving, seeking, finding and believing the truth, have consented to take part in the wicked world of lies fabricated by the Antichrist and his agents (who can be called “antichrists” with a small “a”). They will populate Hell.

Notice how the widespread damnation of the last times begins not with the refusal of truth but with the refusal of the love of truth. In the world of lies fabricated by today’s politicians and media, an “operation of error” if ever there was one, it may feel as though there is no truth to refuse, but if I refuse to despair and if with an upright heart I set up a hunt for that truth which I know is not around me, God will make sure that I find it (Mt. VII, 7–8). On the other hand if I know an important truth and disregard it, God will not be with me. Here is an example that could come from anywhere today in the Western world.

Just recently a French lawyer died, Bernard Jouanneau, who for years served LICRA to prosecute in the French courts Professor Robert Faurisson for denying the historical truth of the World War II gas-chambers in which Six Million Jews are widely held to have died (LICRA is the League against Racism and Anti-Semitism which prosecuted Archbishop Lefebvre for daring in the late 1980’s to suggest that Muslims should return to their own countries). In an interview with the French Catholic journal “La Croix” of 23 September, 1987, Jouanneau said, “If the gas-chambers existed, then the barbarity of the Nazis was unequalled. If they did not exist, then the Jews have lied and anti-semitism would be justified. That is what is at stake in the gas-chambers debate.”

Jouanneau’s assessment is entirely correct, except that even more than just politics is at stake, because “Holocaustianity” is the closest thing to a religion that many souls have today. Auschwitz replaces Calvary, the gas-chambers serve as Cross, and the Six Million Jews take the place of the Redeemer, in other words, are God. And this “Holocaustianity” is the closest thing to a State religion of many a modern Western State. Therefore one would expect modern States and individuals alike to be seriously interested in the truth of the gas-chambers which are at the heart of “Holocaustianity.” But what does one find? A large number of these States have passed laws to forbid questioning of the official version of the gas-chambers. But since when do laws make or unmake truth? Such laws bring the law itself into discredit!

Here is a tremendous lack of love of truth and a corresponding lack of truth. And sure enough, it is an “operation of error” which closes in, thanks to the vile media. Yet anybody who loves truth need spend only a few hours on the Internet for even the most emotional faith in the gas-chambers to be shaken. No wonder the Licrans and their like are doing all they can to censor the Internet, but with all its perils it remains an asset to be vigorously defended, at least until and if the Licrans manage to control it.

Kyrie eleison.

Benevolent Ally? – II

Benevolent Ally? – II on September 9, 2017

When last year Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana in Kazakhstan in an interview with Adelante la Fe expressed many views in agreement with Catholic Tradition and with positions taken by Archbishop Lefebvre, these “Comments” (498, Jan. 17, 2017) asked if he was a true ally of the Archbishop’s Society.

In July of this year he authorised the publication of an article expressing views of his, even more Catholic and supportive of Tradition. If he was not yet a true ally, has he become one? To answer the question, one must distinguish: subjectively, his heart is in the right place because he wants to save souls by the faithful application of unchanged Tradition, but objectively his mind is still not all the way there, because he still thinks, or says he thinks, that the original intent of Vatican II was not to create a new Church. But, Your Excellency, Our Lord said that by their fruits you will know them. Fruits of Vatican II? Newchurch!

Thus, much that Bishop Schneider says this time about Catholic Tradition is Catholic doctrine, entirely true. For instance (paragraph 6), Tradition is the criterion by which to judge all later doctrine, and (8) in case of doubt raised by ambiguity or novelty, Tradition has the priority. There are ambiguities and novelties of Vatican II which clash with Tradition (10), and the “Hermeneutic of Continuity” is insufficient to resolve the clash. Alas (19), for 50 years a Nomenklatura (Communist-style bureaucracy) within the Church has used the ambiguities of Vatican II to distort the Council’s original intent, and to create a new church, of a relativist and protestant kind. Climaxing today (20) is the use of the Council’s objective ambiguities and departures from Tradition to block all discussion by declaring these to be “infallible.” But this “infallibilising” of the Council must stop (22), and give way to free and open theological discussion, to which (24) a canonically recognised SSPX could make a valuable contribution. True doctrine alone is truly pastoral, and alone is the will of God for the salvation of souls. Thus far the Bishop’s latest article.

But, your Excellency, what makes you so sure that the original intent of the Council was not to create a neo-protestant Newchurch? Do you think the ambiguities were not deliberate? Have you not read, for instance, how Fr Schillebeeckx admitted that they were planted as time-bombs, to be detonated after the Council? Maybe many Council Fathers could say after the Council, like William II of Germany, “Ich habe es nicht gewollt,” I did not want it (WW I). But certainly not all of them did not want the Newchurch, and the “movers and shakers” did want it. You cannot think that the “new church,” as you yourself call it, came out of the Council by accident! Study books about the Council, like The Rhine flows into the Tiber” by Ralph Wiltgen . The Council was an epic struggle, and the Catholics lost.

And if the Newchurch is the fruit of a conspiratorial minority steering a mass of cardinals, bishops, priests and laity towards it, who watch too much television and do not say enough prayers, do you really think that “free and open theological discussion” will solve the problem? Half a year before he died, Archbishop Lefebvre said that the real problem with Vatican II was not even the major identifiable errors like religious liberty, collegiality and ecumenism, but an all-pervading subjectivism which empties out of Catholic doctrine all its objective force, and thereby dissolves the Catholic Church. And the question is not even whether the Archbishop said that, but whether it is true. And it is resoundingly true. The mind of modern man has been reduced to mush, by his own fault and that of Freemasonry in particular. Your Excellency, do you know anything about Freemasonry, or do you think, like so many poor souls have been induced to think, that it is a harmless organisation of do-gooders, unjustly calumniated?

Between 2009 and 2011, there were half a dozen sessions of “free and open theological debate” between four theologians of Rome and four from the SSPX (prior to its betrayal by the General Chapter of 2012).

Result? Nothing! Menzingen promised that the contents of the discussions would be published. We are still waiting. To please Rome, somebody within the SSPX wants to brush Tradition under the carpet!

Kyrie eleison.

Catholic Soldier

Catholic Soldier on September 2, 2017

Once again good news and bad news, this time for English-speaking readers, from the United States. The good news is that there is a Traditional and Resistant quarterly magazine, beautifully produced on paper, sent by snail mail, and which is as politically incorrect as can be, because it is militantly Catholic. It is called Oportet Christum Regnare (Christ must reign), and it is edited by Mr. Hugh Akins, a veteran of the Vietnam war in the 1960’s, wounded then and shot at since in most probably an assassination attempt, because his brand of Catholicism must seriously displease the enemies of God who run the world today. The bad news is that the magazine is attracting barely enough subscriptions to be able to pay its way. That is a pity, because it throws a rare light on Church and world, a light most useful to any Catholics who seriously wish to save their souls. Akins’ light on the modern world is clear from his summary of his own very courageous book, written a few years ago: Synagogue Rising, OCR # 6, p.67:—

The book upholds the Church’s traditional teaching on the Jewish question, documenting the Jewish threat, bringing that threat up to date in relation to the most burning issues and events of the 20th and 21st centuries, including two World Wars, the rise of communism, the rape of the Holy Land, the plundering of the Church at Vatican II, the 9/11 attack on America by Israel, the whole war-on-terror hoax with the planned onset of World War III, and then the connection of all of that to the Jews, the modern apostasy, Fatima, Russia, world peace or the annihilation of nations . . . . To disseminate the truth that sets men free, one will not be concerned with being branded an “anti-semite.” Anti-semitism, so-called, has nothing to do with hatred of the Jews, but rather is a very effective Jewish smear-tactic designed to silence all opposition by discrediting anyone who dares to expose the diabolical intrigues behind the Talmudic and Zionist war against Christ and His Church ( . . . )

This light of Akins on the world goes hand in hand with his light on the Church. By God’s will the Church is inserted in our fallen world. Studying the history of that Church, Akins must have come across the pattern of the bimillennial enmity of the Jews towards Our Lord and His Catholic Church, and knowing how relentlessly this theological enmity is disguised and hidden from view, Akins, like Pope Leo XIII with Freemasonry, must have felt himself obliged to “strip off the mask.” May angels protect him!

But his value for Catholics in particular is that he understands, and in OCR keeps on explaining, not only why the Archbishop was the main upholder of true Catholicism after the “plundering of the Church at Vatican II,” but also why today’s so-called Resistant priests are the main upholders of the Archbishop’s work, despite the appearances. At least as much as he denounces the Church’s external enemies, Akins also identifies and condemns and gives reasons for condemning her internal enemies, within the Society of St Pius X as within the mainstream clergy. Akins is a soldier of Christ, fighting the true war both in Church and world, for the salvation of souls. That war is fiercer by the day. The paper copies of Oportet Christum Regnare may cost more than electronic sources of information, but they are more lasting, and will be a permanent asset of lasting and valuable orientation in a home library.

For subscriptions to Oportet Christum Regnare, or back issues, or much good Catholic reading, in particular for Synagogue Rising, contact Hugh Akins at hughakins@comcast.net, or order directly from the Catholic Action Resource Center/League of Christ the King website at www.ca-rc.com.

Kyrie eleison.

P.S. Not tomorrow, but next Sunday, September 10, after Holy Mass at 10h00, Dr David White, retired Lecturer on World Literature at the U.S.A. Naval Academy, will give three lectures at Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs, England, on Fr Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889), English Jesuit and important poet of the Victorian Age. Use him as a bridge leading from your Faith into the neglected but nourishing world of the English poets. Trains afterwards at 17h26 and 17h42 from Broadstairs back to London.

 

Why “Resistance”?

Why “Resistance”? on August 26, 2017

Following on “Why Tradition?,” let Fr Patrick Girouard, presently ministering to a “Resistance” parish in Western Canada, explain the need not only for Catholics to be Traditional, but also for Traditional Catholics to “Resist.” The following “Mission Statement” he wrote in June of 2013, precisely to explain why he and a few dozen SSPX parishioners were getting out from under the SSPX. Alas, the “Statement” has had to be cruelly shortened. For the full text, contact Fr Girouard at thebastion.faith.

If I, Father Girouard, and about a third of the Langley parish, have decided to start a new parish, it was because our beloved Society is being destroyed by its management, and we could no longer stand the constant propaganda favouring that destruction. Having studied carefully the documents that shed light on it, we were able to understand what happened. If we then remained silent and inactive, not only would we be putting ourselves in harm’s way, but we would also be contributing to the destruction of the Traditional movement. May our taking action encourage more priests and faithful to do likewise!

For all practical purposes, the Society of St. Pius X has joined the Conciliar Church. Even if the deal with Rome has not yet been signed, nevertheless it was accepted in principle at the Society’s July 2012 General Chapter, which was the Revolution inside the Society: the Chapter took the decision that from now on the Society can sign a pact with the relentless destroyers of the Catholic Church.

But how can any Catholic worthy of the name go along with such a decision? How can we say that we are Catholic, if we accept to make a deal with those who are facilitating, by their actions or their silence, the damnation of countless souls for which Our Lord gave His life? How can we even sit down to talk with people who promote that abomination to God, the Novus Ordo Missae? I can remember Archbishop Lefebvre quoting the Prophet Malachy against the New Mass: “To you O priests, that despise my name, and have said: ‘Wherein have we despised thy name?’ You offer polluted bread upon my altar, and you say: ‘Wherein have we polluted thee?’ saith the Lord of hosts” (I, 7).

The mission of the SSPX has never been to enter into the structure of the Conciliar Church so as to “transform” it from within. Such an illusion was condemned by Archbishop Lefebvre after the 1988 Consecrations. The Society’s mission is to train priests who will preach the Truth and fight vigorously against error, without “talks” or “dialogue,” or “negotiations.” Like a beacon, that little remnant will then attract souls of good will. But the present Society leaders have betrayed that mission, nor do they tolerate dissent or critics, so the only way for us to hold to the Truth is to separate ourselves from the Neo-society. We must pray hard for a solution to the crisis, and for ourselves to persevere.

You may ask me: when will be the time to join Rome? How will we ever know if we have a good Pope? The answer is simple: when the Pope publicly condemns the New Mass and forbids its celebration under pain of excommunication; when he publicly condemns and rejects the whole of the Second Vatican Council; in brief, when we see him taking effective action to clean up the mess. Similarly, when can we go back and trust the SSPX again? Answer: When Bishop Fellay and all the priests of the Society promoting the new line will be dismissed, and barred from any future office; when the texts of the Chapter will be officially repudiated; when the faithful priests will be vindicated, and so on.

Impossible, you say? I reply quite simply: So what? What’s the problem? We just do our duty, give glory to God, and leave Him to deal with the destroyers. Let us pray and sacrifice for their conversion, and remain united in prayer, for sure. But let us compromise and put ourselves in harm’s way? – Never!

Kyrie eleison.

Why Tradition?

Why Tradition? on August 19, 2017

If it is true that a generation of Traditional Catholics is growing up who do not know why they are Traditional, that is definitely one reason why the Society of St Pius X is “losing its savour” – see Mt. V, 13. To keep the Faith, every Catholic needs to know why he must follow Tradition. Now the Second Vatican Council was arguably the greatest single assault on Catholic Tradition in all the history of the Church. So let us look at a modernist encyclopedia’s useful ten-point summary of the new teaching of Vatican II, together with the briefest of pointers to the error in each point. The ten points are in italics, their skeletal refutation follows immediately each point:—

1 The Church is, first and foremost, a mystery, or sacrament, and not primarily an organisation or institution. “Mystery” and “sacrament” are deliberately vague words to get away from the Church’s structure, but Our Lord clearly instituted Peter to lead His Apostles and disciples in the saving of souls. Peter is Pope, and in St Paul’s Epistles clearly Apostles become bishops and disciples become priests.

2 The Church is the whole people of God, not just the hierarchy, clergy and religious. Of course the Catholic Church includes all Catholics as well as priests, but the priests are its backbone, or structure.

3 The Church’s mission includes action on behalf of justice and peace and is not limited to the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the sacraments. Doctrine and sacraments are the basic means by which the Catholic Church has contributed more than anybody or anything to justice and peace in the world.

4 The Church includes all Christians and is not limited to the Catholic Church. Non-catholic “Christians” can never be truly Christian, because they reject more or less of what Our Lord instituted.

5 The Church is a communion, or college, of local churches, which are not simply administrative subdivisions of the Church Universal. Today’s chaos in “local churches” all over the world proves how they absolutely need to be united and administered by a sane Universal Pope in Rome.

6 The Church is an eschatological community; it is not yet the Kingdom of God. Wherever souls are in the state of grace, there God is King, not only in Heaven but also already here below on earth.

7 The lay apostolate is a direct participation in the apostolate of the Church and not simply a sharing in the mission of the hierarchy. As a human body needs both skeleton and flesh, so the Mystical Body of the Church needs both clergy and laity (cf. I Cor. XII). Opposite errors (clericalism and laicism) are generated by exaggerating the role of either. The Church needs both.

8 There is a hierarchy of truths; not all teachings of the Church are equally binding or essential to the integrity of Catholic faith. Only non-dogmatic truths can be ranked in order of importance. All Catholic dogmas rank equally, because to deny just one is to deny God’s authority which is behind them all.

9 God uses other Christian churches and non-Christian religions in offering salvation to all mankind; the Catholic Church is not the only means of salvation. To all men alive God offers graces sufficient for salvation. These may come to men IN non-Christian religions or non-Catholic “churches,” but they can never come THROUGH anybody or anything except through Jesus Christ and His one Catholic Church.

10 The dignity of the human person and the freedom of the act of faith are the foundation of religious liberty for all, over against the view that “error has no rights.” Catholicism being the only true religion, then the only true religious liberty is the liberty to be Catholic. Error indeed has no rights.

Kyrie eleison.

P.S. On Sunday September 10, after Mass at 10h00, Dr David White will give three lectures in Broadstairs on Fr Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889), Jesuit priest and important English poet.