Eleison Comments

Liberalism = Religion

Liberalism = Religion on December 2, 2017

Not only is liberalism a serious sin that dishonours Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in fact a religion. We are dying of liberalism and of its consequences. For two centuries it has spread everywhere, in our schools, in our societies. It is a poison that destroys the commandments of God, together with everything that makes the beauty and greatness of a Christian civilization. In his Encyclical Humanum Genus Leo XIII said about Freemasons: “We must tear off their mask and show them as they are, so that we avoid them and their errors.” I believe that liberalism is a fruit of Freemasonry which also needs to be unmasked, until we fully understand its dangers.

Liberalism has its goddess: it is liberty. At the time of the French Revolution, liberals worshipped the goddess of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, that is to say, liberty, the liberty of Man, this liberty which has its statue at the entrance of New York harbour, which they celebrated in an incredible way not long ago. Man is free, finally freed from all law, and in particular from the law of God. Liberty is the goddess of the religion of liberalism.

Liberalism has its priesthood, in the person of Freemasons, a secret, organized, extremely efficient priesthood. There are thousands and thousands of Freemasons. The exclusively Jewish sect of B’nai B’rith alone, with its very frequent access to churchmen in Rome, and its presence at the meeting of Assisi, has five hundred thousand members throughout the world. The Grand Orient is also widespread.

Liberalism has its dogmas: they are the Declaration of the Rights of Man. As the Popes have taught, these rights of liberalism are the instruments invented by Freemasonry to use against God, to free man from God. Henceforth man is free to sin, to disobey God . . . liberty of the press . . . is just one of several supposed Rights of Man which have been condemned by the Popes for a century and a half.

Liberalism has its morality which is simply immorality: no brakes on liberty. For twenty years liberals have succeeded in introducing into the legislation of almost every State all those principles which go against Catholic morality, such as abortion, free union, etc. – living in sin is favoured by tax systems.

Liberalism has its politics: notably democracy, the democracy of numbers. It is the people who are – supposedly – in charge. But in fact, “democracy” is about better subjugating them, dominating them, dispossessing them for the benefit of an omnipotent State, of a totalitarian socialism which gradually destroys the right of ownership, which makes the citizen work for a third of the year for the State. Citizens become in effect slaves of the totalitarian State. Liberty so-called is the politics of Liberalism.

Liberalism has its education: education must be atheistic, secular, and one throughout the nation. In France, it was not the bishops who defended the freedom of non-governmental education, but families. If there had not been two million people who went to Paris to defeat the socialist law on education, there would be in France today only government education, and private education would have disappeared.

Liberalism has its economics, directed by international financial associations. To the extent that States apply a liberal morality, a liberal economy, a liberal education, liberal laws, even if they incur enormous debts, they are supported by the International Monetary Fund. On the contrary States resisting liberalism are financially undermined and economically ruined, if possible. The Vatican itself was ruined by International Finance. Freemasons infiltrated the pontifical finances, and transferred the Vatican fortune to Canada, where it disappeared. Immediately the Freemasons and International Finance intervened with the offer of any financial support needed. Here are the pressures that can be exerted on Rome in the appointment of bishops or cardinals, on anything that the Pope does. He is now practically in the service of masonic liberalism. We have to say it like it is.

So said Archbishop Lefebvre (abbreviated) in Barcelona in 1986. Need one word be changed today?

Kyrie eleison.

How Discern? – II

How Discern? – II on November 25, 2017

After Joseph’s first question concerning confusion in the Church in general (cf. these “Comments” of last week), his second question concerned the Society of St Pius X in particular. Here it is:—

You wrote last week that judged by their fruits, Vatican II was not Catholic, while Archbishop Lefebvre was. However, in the Society of St Pius X which he founded, there seems to have arisen a new way of thinking which one might articulate in a series of propositions. For example –

1 However badly the Pope and bishops behave, they are still the valid authorities of the Church.

2 Pope Francis may be a modernist, but he still has the power to bring the SSPX back into the Church.

3 The Conciliar bishops are not all bad. They can have Christian reactions, show awareness of the Church crisis, defend Catholic morals in public, call for respect for God in the liturgy, show devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and so on.

4 An agreement with Rome can be envisaged as long as we are “accepted as we are.”

5 We are at fault if we are systematically refusing any agreement whatsoever with Rome.

6 It is more useful to speak of Archbishop Lefebvre’s piety than of his opposition to the Council.

7 Better to be on good terms with the SSPX than to get on bad terms for the sake of fallible opinions.

8 Conciliarists are indisciplined and disobedient. SSPXers need to be disciplined and obedient.

In conclusion, given the complexity of the situation in which Catholics find themselves today, can members or followers of the Society be blamed for thinking along the lines of these propositions?

Answer, it all depends on how much those members or followers know. For instance, older SSPXers knew that the Council was a new religion, and that therefore the Archbishop’s opposition to it was a matter of Faith, intrinsically more important than piety, because how can there be piety without faith? Those veterans of the Society are much to blame (unless and until at last they react in public), because they are allowing what Joseph above calls “the new way of thinking” to take over the Archbishop’s Society, so that Society youngsters have that much less chance of grasping what is wrong with the eight propositions above. A new generation of Society priests is as pious as one could wish, but (always with exceptions) it is clueless as to the crisis now devastating the Church for more than half a century:—

1 True, the Pope and bishops, according to appearances, seem to be the valid authorities of the Church, but their behaviour as to the Faith is so bad that many serious Catholics call in question that validity.

2 Into what Church would the Pope bring the Newsociety? Into the Newchurch? “They have expelled me from the Newchurch?” said the “excommunicated” Archbishop – “So what? I never belonged to it!”

3 Indeed the Conciliar bishops are not all bad, but they are nearly all modernists, which means that many of them have lost their Catholic faith without even realising it. Modern man is so corrupt that when his Catholic religion is made to fit his modernity, he does not even realise that it is no longer Catholic.

4 “Accepted as we are” was for the SSPX one thing in, say, 1987. It is quite another thing in 2017!

5 If only Rome were to come back to the true Faith, there would be no further need for any agreement.

6 Thanks be to God for the Archbishop’s piety also, but by far his most important quality was his faith.

7 “Fallible opinions”? There is such a thing as truth! Has anybody of any importance in the Newsociety actually studied the documents of Vatican II? Do they deny it represents a new religion?

8 SSPXers must be disciplined and obedient to what? To the new Conciliar man-centred religion?

The problem with all of these propositions is that the SSPX was born in the thick of the great war being waged by the modern world on God, but since the Archbishop’s death in 1991, its leaders have lost all effective grip on who is waging that war, and how and why. Joseph, read “Pascendi,” again and again, until you fully grasp it!

Kyrie eleison.

How Discern? – I

How Discern? – I on November 18, 2017

A young man with a good mind is asking a good question about the crisis in the Church, and another good question about the crisis in the Society of St Pius X. Here is how Joseph frames his first question:—

On the one hand the Conciliar crisis was one is a series of crises afflicting the Church, such as Protestantism, Liberalism, and Revolutions, with two World Wars, and therefore errors made their way at the Council which were clearly condemned by the Church before Vatican II. And after the Council its novelties were applauded by classical enemies of the Church, such as Freemasons and Socialists, while the Church’s missionary spirit has clearly been extinguished. On the other hand the ideas of the Council are the work of highly intelligent and supposedly Catholic churchmen, and one cannot all the time say that the Pope is not Pope, or that the majority of modernist Bishops are invalidly consecrated. Therefore can one say that the Conciliar crisis involves shadowed areas which still make it difficult to see clear? And if we cannot arrive at definite conclusions, can we be sure we are holding onto the true Faith?

The best reply comes from Our Lord Himself, speaking in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. VII, 15–20) – “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Obviously Our Lord knew that there would be constant attacks on His Church with repeated attempts of the Devil to sow confusion in His followers’ minds. The confusion that has followed on Vatican II is not different in kind from previous crises in Church history, even if by the defection of the churchmen at Vatican II the confusion today is unprecedented in degree – never before have the mass of Catholic shepherds been so lost, nor therefore the Catholic sheep.

Nevertheless, to find one’s way out of the confusion, the same infallible principle still applies: actions speak louder than words, and the fruits of a man’s actions are the surest guide to who he is and what he really intends. Especially in the case of modernism a man can be deceiving himself as to what he wants or intends, because nobody is so deeply detached from reality as a modernist. “The end of the world will be characterised by men doing evil while thinking they are doing good,” said Fr Faber in mid-19th century. In the 21st century we are at the wrong end of this centuries-long process of mankind deceiving itself as it has turned away from God. Then would God be leaving His sheep defenceless against such unprecedented wolves in sheep’s clothing as modernists are? No, because to judge by the fruits is something that anybody can do, with a minimum of common sense and upright will.

Therefore, Joseph, you observe that today’s Church authorities are highly intelligent men and supposedly Catholic, and you quite reasonably assume that they are the valid authorities of the Church, because even if you know that their fruits are so little Catholic as to make many a Catholic dispute that validity, notwithstanding who else is there who is authorised to speak and act for the Universal Church? But at the same time you observe that their ideas are in line with grave anti-Catholic errors from the past, and that they are now applauded by classic enemies of the Church, such as Freemasons. Arguments on one side and on the other. Doubts and shadows. How do you resolve the confusion?

Answer, by your own further observation that the missionary spirit has disappeared from the Church since Vatican II. Here are the fruits. The Council preached ecumenism ( Unitatis Redintegratio ), religious liberty ( Dignitatis Humanae ) and the relative acceptability of false religions such as Hinduism, Islam and Judaism ( Nostra Aetate ) – how could the Catholic missionary spirit not collapse after the Council? And have not countless monasteries, seminaries, convents, dioceses and parishes also emptied out and closed down since Vatican II? Did new ones open anywhere? Yes, under the leadership of the one Catholic bishop worldwide who from the beginning repudiated openly the Council and all its works, Archbishop Lefebvre. Here were the selfsame fruits of the selfsame Catholic principles, faithfully applied in defiance of Vatican II. Joseph, you need look no further.

Kyrie eleison.

Menzingen Commands

Menzingen Commands on November 11, 2017

By no means all readers of these “Comments” are in favour of criticism of the words and deeds of the Headquarters at Menzingen of the Newsociety of St Pius X. However, there are many who see that just as Archbishop Lefebvre was, for the good of the Catholic Church, fully justified in taking his fruitful stand against its being wrecked by the Second Vatican Council, so one is fully justified, for the same salvation of souls, to criticise in public the slide of that Newsociety into the arms of Rome’s Conciliar officials. The June issue of Menzingen’s in-house journal for Society priests, “Cor Unum,” published yet another hard-hitting justification of that slide. Menzingen is obdurate. Menzingen must be corrected, in public.

There follows in italics a fair summary of some of the main arguments, which can be checked (in French) on the Internet at the website Résistance catholique francophone:: Cor Unum juin 2017

Archbishop Lefebvre made Society relations with Rome the concern of the Superior General (SG) alone.

That was because he knew that his own priests under him could not be relied upon to understand the extreme need for prudence in dealing with the Roman officials. The present SG proves how right he was.

The General Chapter of 2006 entitled the Society authorities to dismiss from the Society any priest disagreeing with their policies in public – “This warning is to be taken seriously.”

That is just how Paul VI “dismissed” Archbishop Lefebvre. Does Menzingen see who it is imitating? And did the priests voting in 2006 foresee where their authorising such dismissals was going to lead?

No matter how good are the dissenting arguments, public dissent always harms the common good.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre harm the (true) Church’s common good by his two decades of dissent? Truth is the ultimate measure of authority, especially in the Catholic Church, and not the other way round!

Archbishop Lefebvre saved the Church by forming priests in accordance with Catholic Tradition.

Not exactly. Forming good priests was his way of saving the Catholic Faith. But priests now being formed by Menzingen to go along with Conciliar Romans risk saving neither Faith nor Church.

The Archbishop always recognized, and wanted Society priests to recognize, the Church authorities in place, both before and after he consecrated four bishops in 1988.

Yes, but in 1988, after the Romans had once and for all proved that they would not look after the Faith, his attitude towards them changed radically: “Up till now, diplomacy, but from now on doctrine,” he said, as Menzingen well knows, but Menzingen just does not see doctrine’s importance as the Archbishop did.

Exactly. Dissenters from Menzingen are making questions of prudence into matters of Faith.

No. To submit believing Catholics to Conciliar – i.e. disbelieving – Romans, is directly a matter of Faith.

But how can such Romans be converted if the Society’s believing Catholics refuse all contact with them?

How can Catholics keep the Faith if they submit to contagious, even innocently dangerous, modernists?

But not everything in today’s mainstream Church is Conciliar. It includes conservatives, who like us.

But the conservatives have no power. All power in Rome is in the hands of Freemasons who are bitter and resolute enemies of Catholic Tradition, of Our Lord’s Church, of Our Lord and of God. And everything in the mainstream Church is being taken ultimately in the Conciliar direction, especially by Pope Francis.

Kyrie eleison.

Real Islam

Real Islam on November 4, 2017

When Britain had an Empire, its administrators were in direct contact with peoples, races and religions all over the world, and they were apt to speak from experience. Today, by and large, the rulers of Britain have only their liberalism and its unreal ideology, which is why so few of them know what they are talking about. On the contrary Fr. Henry Boulad is an old-school Jesuit priest born 86 years ago in Alexandria, Egypt, of an old Syrian Christian family of the Melkite rite, former Professor of Theology in Cairo, Superior of the Jesuits in Alexandria and of the Jesuits in Egypt, with, obviously, a direct life-long experience of Islam and Muslims. The terrorist attacks last spring on two Christian Churches in Egypt impelled him to give an interview in France and to write a book from which the following remarks are adapted. He certainly knows what he is talking about! –

“I accuse Islam but not individual Muslims, who are the prime victims of Islam. I have made up my mind to denounce the source of the terrorism: the main source of Islamic radicalism in the world is the University of al-Azhar” in Cairo, Egypt, where the deadly ideology is taught as the official doctrine of Islam. I accuse the University of al-Azhar in Cairo, supposedly the embodiment of moderate Islam, of creating a spirit of fanaticism, intolerance and hatred in millions of students and Muslim clerics coming from all over the world to receive a formation in its institutes. By this means al-Azhar becomes one of the main sources of terrorism worldwide.

I accuse Islam itself and not just “extremist Islamism,” because Islam is by nature both political and radical. 25 years ago I wrote that Islamism is merely Islam stripped bare, in all its logic and rigour. It plans for a society aiming for a worldwide caliphate based on Shariah law, which is the only legitimate law, as coming from God. It is a plan taking in the entire globe, all-encompassing and wholly totalitarian. I accuse all those who pretend that the crimes committed by Muslims “have nothing to do with Islam,” of being deliberate liars. These crimes are committed in the name of the Koran and its clear instructions. The mere fact that the Muslim call to prayer and the call to kill non-Muslims are preceded by the same cry “Allah-ou Akhbar” (God is great), is highly significant.

I accuse learned Muslims of the 10th century of promulgating the decrees, now irreversible, which have led Islam into its present frozen state. The first of these decrees cancelled every kind of precedence for the Koran’s verses from Mecca calling for peace and harmony, and it gave priority instead to the verses from Medina which call for intolerance and violence. Two further decrees were promulgated to make this first decree irreversible: the Koran was decreed to be the uncreated word of Allah, hence immutable; and any further effort at reflection was forbidden by “the gate of ijtihad (reflection) being closed once and for all.” These three decrees, made sacred, have fossilized Muslim thinking, and contributed to the keeping of Muslim countries in a state of backwardness and chronic stagnation.

I accuse the Vatican II Decree “Nostra Aetate” of launching an inter-religious dialogue meant to be open, welcoming and understanding of Muslims, because for 50 years we have not taken one step forward, and now we are stopped dead. The dialogue with a sheikh from al-Azhar ended up with his proclaiming that “all Christians are going to Hell.” Nothing is moving, just as nothing has moved for the last 11 centuries. Dialogue, yes, but I want a dialogue based on truth. Charity without truth goes nowhere! I accuse the Catholic Church of pursuing a dialogue with Islam based on seeking to please, on making compromises and on double-dealing. After 50 years of initiatives all going one way, the Church’s monologue has got nowhere. By giving way to the “politically correct,” by pretending that the dialogue must not offend the Muslims because we must “live together,” all thorny but vital questions are studiously avoided. But true dialogue begins with the truth. I have asked to meet Pope Francis. No reply.

Kyrie eleison.

Sorcerers Control?

Sorcerers Control? on October 28, 2017

In a recent interview the Managing Director of Mercedes Benz, a state-of-the-art German firm for the production of high quality motor cars, painted a picture of mankind’s near future in which computer software will disrupt most traditional industries, and in which their own main competitors will no longer be other motor car firms but Google, Apple and Amazon! Law, he says, nursing, car driving, insurance, real estate will all be substantially affected by computers. By 2027 10% of everything produced will be 3D printed. By 2037 70 to 80% of jobs will disappear. Cheap smart-phones will make world class education available worldwide, and so on, and so on. But such dramatic predictions need to be put in their place, which is secondary. Machines are only machines, and computers are only machines.

It is ever since the Industrial Revolution broke out over mankind in the 18th and 19th centuries that men began to wonder what the inhuman machines meant for the future of human beings. Since then many a wise observer has raised serious doubts as to the ultimate impact of the materially more and more marvellous inventions, but mankind as a whole has only hurtled forwards, trusting that the onrush of machines, compounded by electronics and computers, could only be more and more beneficent. Yet is it a wise or happy man whose nose is always buried in his smart-phone?

The basic problem is that machines are purely material while human beings are primarily spiritual. So the most useful of machines can only sub-serve what is primary or most important in the life of human beings. Man is indeed composed of material body as well as spiritual soul, so that material machines can certainly serve his body, but that body is merely the carrier of his spiritual soul for the duration of his brief life on earth, and then at death either the soul without supernatural grace drags the body down to the eternal torments of Hell, or the soul with the grace of Christ lifts the body, normally through the temporary torments of Purgatory, to the permanent bliss of Heaven. Either way, whatever the body may have done or not done to the soul during life, after death it is the state of the soul which determines the fate of the body, and not the other way round.

However, in our terrible times even Catholics can lose their grip on these elementary realities of body and soul, life and death, so let us turn to music to illustrate the limitations of matter and machines. In a modern recording studio there may be dozens of high-performing machines and thousands of brilliant buttons, knobs and dials making up ever more perfect machines for the recording of what? For the ever more faithful reproduction of sound? What sound? The sound of a human being either singing or playing an instrument. And why record it? Because the recording will sell and make money. And why will it make money? Because music is a unique language for expressing emotions in the human soul, and be it Furtwaengler conducting a classical orchestra, or the Beatles strumming on guitars, the human musicians are by their musical gifts expressing through the material means of orchestra or guitar in the material-spiritual language of music those spiritual emotions which a whole public wants musicians to express for it. And if the musicians are soulless, the most brilliant of recording engineers will never make a living. In every human art, the mechanics are necessarily subordinate to the artists.

Therefore the more spiritual are the lives and activities of men, the less seriously will they take merely material upheavals in human affairs, such as the managing Director of Mercedes Benz evokes. On the other hand the more men turn away from God, the larger such upheavals bulk in their lives. Readers, take a spiritual Rosary into your material hands, and leave well behind you the looming disasters of our materialistic “civilisation.”

Kyrie eleison.