Eleison Comments

Marriage Background

Marriage Background on July 1, 2017

Given original sin, holding together in marriage one man and one woman until death do them part is no easy matter, yet that was God’s original design for human beings from the beginning of Creation, and such it remains. However, by the time He instituted through Moses the Old Testament Law, allowance then had to be made for some divorce, “because of the hardness of men’s hearts” (Mt. XIX, 7–8). But that was not how God meant marriage to be, and so when Our Divine Lord instituted the New Testament, on the one hand He abolished all divorce, while on the other hand He made Marriage into one of the seven special channels of sanctifying grace, one of the supernatural Sacraments, so that all souls entering His Church would have access to special supernatural help in the holding of their marriages together.

Nor are merely the man and woman involved in their marriage. The proper upbringing of children calls for both their (biological) father and their (biological) mother, and normally it requires that the two stay together to provide a complete and stable home. Moreover the health of society as a whole requires that healthy children be able to grow up into healthy adults. Thus if Christendom ever achieved unprecedented heights of civilisation, it was much due, if one thinks about it, to the strength of Catholic marriage. It would follow that the Devil is constantly attacking natural and Catholic marriage as a major means for him of breaking down Christendom and of sending all souls to Hell.

In our own time the breaking down of Christendom by the weakening of the Church took a huge step forward with Vatican II (1962–1965). Before that Council, Catholic marriage annulments were strictly regulated. They were not divorces, because it had to be proved in front of Church officials that for some serious reason the marriage contract had been invalid from the very beginning, so that a valid marriage had never taken place. But ever since the Council, that strictness has been making way for laxity, so that from exceptions annulments have now become in some countries the rule, i.e. “Catholic divorce.” Therefore when Archbishop Lefebvre founded his Society of St Pius X to resist the decadence let loose by Vatican II, naturally his Society shunned easy annulments and did all it could to help Catholic couples in today’s dissolvent society to forge a marriage which would hold together.

Alas, the successors of the Archbishop at the head of his Society have worked now for 20 years in disguised but tenacious fashion to join the Conciliar Church, by abandoning his resistance to Vatican II. This means that when three months ago the Conciliar Pope authorised Conciliar bishops to delegate their Conciliar priests to take an active part in marriages celebrated within the Society, then on the one hand Newsociety Headquarters greeted the decision as a great gift from Rome and announced that this papal decision would change the Society’s marriage practice, while on the other hand seven senior priests in the Society’s French District protested publicly against Rome’s Conciliar interference in Catholic practice. Headquarters promptly degraded all seven protesters and also dismissed the author of the protest.

Thus the war between liberalism and Catholicism rages on. Three of the seven protesters are reported to be standing their ground. In brief, as one of them has written, any Conciliar bishop can now send a priest to a Society marriage – and how can any such priest be sent back, after he has been so welcomed by Headquarters? Or the bishop can refuse a priest – but that is only a fortunate accident, leaving intact the dangerous principle of Conciliar interference. Or the bishop is allowed to delegate a Society priest – but that is liable to give rise in any Society Priory to marriages both Conciliar and non-Conciliar, with falsified, not to say, warring, relations between the two of them. Conciliarism and Catholicism can be neither mixed nor reconciled with one another.

Kyrie eleison.

Fatima Crucial – II

Fatima Crucial – II on June 24, 2017

Last week these “Comments” argued that if only Church and world had heeded Our Lady’s great message given through the three children of Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, then the world could have been spared the material disaster of World War II, and the Church might have avoided the much greater spiritual disaster of the Second Vatican Council. But in 1960, which was the year when, at the latest, Our Lady wished the third part of the Secret given to the children in 1917 to be revealed, instead the churchmen locked it away, most likely because it condemned in advance the disastrous Council on which their hearts were set. And ever since, the same Conciliar churchmen have made war on Fatima, to stop it from condemning them.

Yet faithful Catholics knew of the existence of the “Third Secret” and wanted to know what it said. Over the next 40 years a few details of its contents leaked out here and there, and, especially thanks to the labours of Fr Nicholas Gruner, pressure built up for its publication. That is why in 2000 the churchmen in Rome made a special effort to bury Fatima once and for all. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Ratzinger published a text which he claimed was the Third Secret of Fatima. Alas, Fatima experts immediately saw serious differences between the Cardinal’s text and what was known of the true Third Secret, awaited since 1960. They suspected that the true Third Secret was still locked away inside the Vatican.

What confirmed this suspicion was the fact that later in the same year 2000, the Cardinal himself told a personal friend (and a saintly priest), Dr Ingo Dollinger, that “What we published was not the whole Secret. We acted under orders.” Over the next many years, Dr Dollinger told the story of the Cardinal’s admission for many priests, seminarians and lay-folk to hear. Most recently, he confirmed the story once more, and gave permission for it to be published on May 16, 2016. But the truth about the Third Secret could not be allowed to get out. See onepeterfive.​com/​confirmation-father-dollingers-claim-cardinal-ratzinger-fatima. Within days (May 21), the Vatican released a Press Statement that quoted Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal Ratzinger, as saying that he had never spoken to Dr Dollinger about Fatima, and that the entire Third Secret had been made public! Obviously, Conciliar Rome will go to any lengths to stifle Fatima, but Fatima will not be stifled.

At onepeterfive.​com/​chief-exorcist-father-amorth-padre-pio-knew-the-third-secret on the Internet, see details of an interview given in 2011 by the famous exorcist of Rome (but no Conciliarist), Fr Gabriel Amorth, who wanted the interview to be made public only after his death – he died last year. Fr Amorth knew Padre Pio for 26 years, and the interviewer asked Fr Amorth if, in a conversation held with Padre Pio in about 1960, Padre Pio connected the Third Secret to the loss of faith in the Church. Padre Pio replied very sorrowfully: “You know, Gabriele?It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.”

More recently still, it is the brave Cardinal Burke who is entering the fray on behalf of Our Lady of Fatima. He is one of the four Cardinals who earlier this year raised serious objections to the papal document, Amoris Laetitia, on marriage and family. On May 19 in Rome he appealed at a meeting of Roman Life Forum for Catholics to “work for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” He admitted that John-Paul II had made such a consecration of the world in 1984, but “once again we hear the call of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, in accord with her explicit instruction.” The Cardinal is quite right. May he at least never be obliged to swallow his words!

Kyrie eleison.

Fatima Crucial – I

Fatima Crucial – I on June 17, 2017

There are still Catholics who cannot understand the importance of the Apparitions and Messages of Our Lady to three peasant children in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, together with the follow-up apparitions and messages given to one of them, Sister Lucy, for years afterwards. Yet the Church itself in Portugal in 1931 gave its official approval to Our Lady’s intervention, and in those Messages it is Our Lady herself who gave them great importance. Here is the text of the second part of the Secret of Fatima, which falls directly beneath the Church’s official approval. It is well known by many Catholics, but all men alive need to understand its importance, as underlined in the words in heavy black print:—

To save them [poor sinners who are on the road to hell] , God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace . The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father. To prevent this , I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated . . . . . . . . . In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

Our Lady was speaking here in 1917. “The war” referred to in line 3 was World War I (1914–1918), and “the worse war” was World War II (1939–1945), which would not have happened if all Catholics in the world, starting with the Pope, had listened to Our Lady of Fatima. “To prevent this,” as she had promised in 1917, in 1925 she came to Sister Lucy to ask for the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays, and in 1929 she came again to Sister Lucy to ask for the Consecration of Russia. Still Catholics in general and the churchmen in particular paid little attention. As a result, the “night light” prophesied in 1917 in line 4 above by Our Lady occurred as an extraordinary red glow in the sky all over Europe on the night of January 25, 1938, and in September of 1939 World War II broke out fully, with its 66 million dead.

So Fatima was not important? When it could have saved us from World War II? But even more important was how Fatima could have saved us from the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), and could still in 2017 save us from the devastating consequences of that Council, if only enough Catholics would wake up and do what Our Lady asked for.

In the dots in the quotation above, between “annihilated” and “In the end,” was framed in the original Secret what has come to be known as the “Third Secret” of Fatima, actually the third part of the one and only Secret. Our Lady said that this text was to be revealed at the latest in 1960, if Sister Lucy did not die before then. But it has still not been published, almost certainly because it contains Heaven’s condemnation of the essence of the coming Council. So the blind churchmen, set upon their favourite project, dared to proclaim that Our Lady had said that from 1960 onwards it might be published, a wicked lie if ever there was one. Thus Fatima could have saved from the godlessness of 20th century man not only the world but also the Church, if only the churchmen had listened. Is Fatima still unimportant?

Dear readers, pray the Holy Rosary and practise the Devotion of the First Saturdays, as Our Lady of Fatima asked. It is when enough of us listen to Her that Church and world begin to turn around.

Kyrie eleison.

Refined Hypocrisy

Refined Hypocrisy on June 10, 2017

Let us assume then, with Fr Gleize’s first article here six weeks ago (EC 511), that it is not certain that a Pope cannot fall into heresy. To save souls from Luther down to today, God may have given to the authorities of His Church of the decadent Fifth Age special graces to resist that decadence, but that Age came virtually to an end with Vatican II. Conciliar Popes have been the death of the Church. But are they formal heretics? The interest of Fr Gleize’s second article is its highlighting of just how these Popes have managed to kill the Church by subverting Catholic doctrine while seeming to remain Catholic. What is their technique? Fr Gleize examines the case of the five “dubia” or doubtful points raised by the four Cardinals against the text of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia ( AL ): do these points make him a conscious and wilful denier of defined Church doctrine? Seemingly, no, says Fr Gleize, but in effect, yes.

Seemingly, no, because on each of the five points Pope Francis does not directly deny Church doctrine, rather he leaves it ambiguous, or leaves it out. The first of the five points is an example of ambiguity: the Pope does not say, “Divorcees may receive Communion,” but, “In certain cases divorcees may receive Communion.” Here the “in certain cases” is open to a broad or narrow interpretation. It is ambiguous, and that ambiguity is apt to undermine Church Law, because there are many divorcees and all too many priests and prelates who will be happy to take the broad interpretation.

In all four remaining points the Pope undermines Catholic doctrine not by denial, but by omission. For instance (fourth point), he does not say, “There is no such thing as an objectively sinful act,” because the Church has always named a series of objectively sinful acts, starting with God’s Ten Commandments. Rather the Pope says, “Objective sinfulness does not necessarily mean subjective guilt.” Now of course the Church has never denied that there can be circumstances for this or that act which take away its guilt, but to put the subjective excuse in the foreground is to put the objective sin in the background. Sinners will love it!Yet the Catholic Church has always ranked the objective nature and moral rightness or wrongness of acts above the subjective blameworthiness of this or that person performing the act. “The exception proves the rule,” says one proverb, and another, “Hard cases make bad law.” On the contrary the subjectivism of Pope Francis undermines Church law (and common sense) with hard cases, even while he avoids directly contradicting Church law. Fr Gleize concludes that the four Cardinals’ five doubts are fully justified.

However, the Pope is covering his tracks by not making dogmatic or anti-dogmatic statements. He himself writes in AL that its purpose is to “collect in-put from the two Synods on the family, together with further considerations capable of guiding thought or dialogue or pastoral practice.” This is professedly not a dogmatic purpose. Therefore it is difficult to pin on Pope Francis the ticket of “formal heretic.” But just as Vatican II professed to be merely a “pastoral,” i.e. non-doctrinal, Council, and yet it blew Catholic doctrine and the Church sky-high, so Pope Francis is in AF not professing that he is teaching doctrine, and yet he is blowing Catholic morals and the family sky-high. It is the classic Communist or Neo-modernist means of subversion, using practicalities to undermine truth, not in principle but in practice. Compare Rome to Bishop Fellay: “Get practical recognition first, we’ll talk about doctrine afterwards.” Compare Bishop Fellay to the SSPX: “We are not changing doctrine,” while he himself is hardly breathing a word of criticism any more of Pope Francis’ destruction of the Church. Would Archbishop Lefebvre have kept silent? To ask the question is to answer it.

Fr Gleize concludes that Pope Francis may not be a “formal heretic,” but he is certainly “favouring heresy.” “Formal heretic” should be the worse of the two tickets, but not at this wrong end of the Church’s Fifth Age, when the hypocrisy of the Church’s enemies is more refined than ever. Heaven help us more than ever! Pray the Fifteen Mystery Rosary every day!

Kyrie eleison.

Bankster’s Confession

Bankster’s Confession on June 2, 2017

What a drama is that of every soul, using its free-will every day of its short life on earth, to choose either the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ to attain eternal bliss, or the deceits of the Devil so as to crash at death into the torments of Hell, for ever and ever. “God is not mocked” (Gal. VI, 7), but He cares for every single human soul, doing all he can to bring it to Heaven, short of taking away its free-will. Yet most souls prefer Hell (Mt. VII, 13–14)! However, on the Internet (youtu.be/cRuKmxQSPSw) is the drama of a soul struggling towards the light – a modern Dutch banker who fell deep into the snares of the Devil.

Ronald Bernard’s difficult father led him to believe as a child that the world and men are “far from great.” So the highest ideal of his youth was to make as much money as possible. In several lines of business his natural gifts made him successful, but one day a broker with whom he worked told him that if he really wanted to make money, he should go into finance, just so long as he could “deep-freeze his conscience.” RB laughed, because “self-preservation” had taught him long ago to control his conscience. He went into finance, where the same gifts made him rise higher and higher.

He says he never reached the very top, but he was next to it. His client banks needed agents to manipulate large money flows in such a way that nobody except those in the know could trace what was going on. Thus the elite maintain their position while the rest of society is suppressed, says RB. And “if you want to know what is really going on, follow the money.” The game, as he calls it, of manipulating huge sums of money he loved, and for five years he was very good at it. By playing it he learned how in reality the bankers, governments, secret services, terrorist organisations, etc., etc., are all playing together, so that “the whole world as we think we know it is just an illusion that we believe in.”

However, the human misery which he also saw being caused by this primacy of money slowly brought his conscience back to life. When a colleague told him how a deal which they had brought off to dump lira had bankrupted a family father’s business and driven him to suicide, at first RB laughed, but then he discovered that most of the people he was dealing with were Luciferians who took Lucifer very seriously. He on the contrary found their ceremonies amusing – until the day when he was invited to take part in a ceremony of child sacrifice. The Luciferians were wanting to get a grip on him by potential blackmail if he took part. He remembered his own sad childhood. He refused. Then he realised that “there is a whole invisible world,” and he began reading and discovering and making connections. Not out of stupid prejudice but out of bitter experience, he recommends to anyone wanting to see modern life as it really is to read the Protocols of the Sages of Sion. He says there is a group of people wielding ultimate power who are “carrying an intense hatred, anger . . . an all annihilating force that hates our guts, hates creation, hates life” and means to destroy us completely. Catholics ignore such a statement of reality at their peril. The Rosary is their defence.

As for RB, he tried to soldier on, but the tension between his work and his conscience had become unbearable. His body shut down, and he needed a year to recover, because amongst other things, on his way out of high finance he was “treated” to stop him from ever giving away names of corporations or colleagues he had known. He realised why so many of his colleagues had taken to drink or drugs – or were already dead, whereas the opening up to him of the whole non-material world had given him to see that “he” was more than just his body, and this helped that “more” to survive his body’s total collapse.

Despite many steps taken towards the light, RB names in this interview neither God nor Jesus Christ, but even that omission may be a mercy of God, to reach towards the millions of Internet souls who will run a mile at the mere mention of God’s Holy Name. It is up to Catholics who have the Faith to pray for so many souls that are deeply ensnared in the multiple illusions of modern life.

Kyrie eleison.

Defending Marriage

Defending Marriage on May 27, 2017

Many of you must already know of the Open Letter of seven senior priests of the Society of St Pius X, a Letter co-signed by Superiors of three other Traditional Congregations, in which all ten protested three weeks ago against an attempt by Roman authorities to interfere in marriages celebrated within Tradition by Traditional priests. As usual, Society authorities have taken the side of Conciliar Rome, and are in the process of punishing their seven “subversive” priests. But the true subversion is coming from that Rome which is subverting Christian family and marriage, for instance by Amoris Laetitia. Society leaders are giving yet another proof of their suicidal blindness. Here is the gist of the well-written Letter:—

Addressed to Society lay-folk to prevent them from being confused by Rome’s interference, the Open Letter begins by establishing that marriages celebrated within the Society for the last 40 years have been and are certainly valid. This is because, to strengthen marriages, the Council of Trent decreed that they must be witnessed by a parish priest or his delegate to be valid. However, if for 30 days it is not possible without “grave inconvenience” to find such a priest, then the couple may marry validly in front of merely lay witnesses, by what is known as the extraordinary form of marriage (Canon 1098, Old Code).

Now for 40 years the Society has been fighting the neo-modernism of Vatican II which is poisonous for the Faith and highly infectious, and which has infected almost the entire Church since the 1960’s. So the Society has instructed souls to stay away from the Novus Ordo Church and its clergy, as a whole. For instance in Amoris Laetitia the Pope himself made statements and proposals directly harmful to families and Catholic marriages. Here is the “grave inconvenience” for the Faith which is why for 40 years, when couples have wished to get married, the Society, seeing the danger for their Faith, has steered them away from Novus Ordo parish priests and towards the extraordinary form of marriage, usual within the Society and certainly valid.

However, how could neo-modernist Rome see a “grave inconvenience” in exposure to their neo-modernising priests? Therefore in future, says the Ecclesia Dei Commission, as one more step in Rome’s absorption of the Society into the Newchurch, the extraordinary form of marriage is no longer to be used by Society priests, and instead Society marriages are to be witnessed by a Novus Ordo priest appointed or delegated for that purpose by the local Novus Ordo bishop, without whose participation Society marriages will continue to be judged invalid by the Newchurch authorities. This means bringing the extraordinary form of marriage under the local bishop’s control. But after repeated bitter discussions, even the framers of the New Code of Canon Law (1983) judged that such a measure was too opposed to the natural right of couples to get married, and New Canon 1116 maintains the extraordinary form. That is why the ten senior priests who signed the Open Letter conclude that they will continue to use the extraordinary form, without resorting to any Newchurch bishop. Nor, they add, will they resort to Newchurch tribunals to judge of marriage cases, because these tribunals all too easily grant annulments for inadequate reasons. All ten priests who signed the Open Letter are to be congratulated!

And the Society’s reaction? On April 4 the document of the Ecclesia Dei Commission on SSPX marriages became known, spitting in effect on the Society. Immediately Society Headquarters in Menzingen welcomed the document, treating it in effect as rain from heaven. On May 7 the ten senior priests made public their protest against the Ecclesia Dei interference. On the same day the Society’s French District Superior branded their protest as “subversive,” and on May 10 the seven Society priests who signed the Open Letter he stripped of their senior rank within the District, and Fr. de la Rocque, pastor of the Society’s flagship parish in Paris, St Nicolas du Chardonnet, he gave three days to clear out.

Such leadership proved that the Society is sinking. The Open Letter proved that it is not yet sunk.

Kyrie eleison.