Eleison Comments

Trump’s Election

Trump’s Election on December 10, 2016

The essential thing to say about the election last month of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States is that it is a God-given reprieve from years and years of liberal government, but unless the American people themselves turn back seriously to Almighty God, then the reprieve will be swept away by a return of the liberals in force to destroy the United States once and for all, as Hilary Clinton would have done, had she been elected.

Now it is true that not many people today think of politics in terms of Almighty God, but that is exactly the problem. To shut him out of life, especially out of politics, has been a crusade for Freemasons and liberals ever since the end of their 18th century. Liberty from God has been the crusade of their substitute religion, secular humanism. Similarly in the 20th century Communism with or without the name has triumphed against nature all over the world because it acts like a religion, being, as Pius XI calls it, the messianism of materialism. And liberalism and Communism are why the entire Western world has been tilting to the left for hundreds of years.

And that is no doubt why a large number of voters in that American election voted for the candidate who lost. She was known all over the nation for her lying, immorality and treason. Her criminal record was notorious, including the suspicion of her having been responsible with her husband for the murder of well over fifty men and women who had got in the way of their ambition and careers. How could anybody halfway decent have even thought of voting for her, let alone more than half of all Americans who voted (she did not win the Electoral College)? Paul Craig Roberts himself, excellent commentator on the American political scene, is baffled by that question. The missing answer is surely that that woman incarnated the war against God. For liberals, liberty is their religion. That she proudly broke all of God’s commandments was an argument not against her, but for her. She is a Saint of liberalism.

Now her conqueror, Donald Trump, is not, to all appearances, a specially godly man, and he is still liberal in various ways – who is not? – but he has within him a good dose of that old-fashioned decency and generosity which used to be typical of the best in America and Americans. Therefore he is instinctively against ungodly people, and after years and years of self-righteous liberals under a series of liberal Presidents trampling all over decent Americans, he had had enough, and he stepped into politics “to give back to this country some of what it has given to me.” And after the same years and years of what had in fact been a one-party System, because there had not been since Governor Wallace’s time “a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats,” Trump bucked the System, gave voice to the people’s frustration, and a host of decent souls voted him into office. But the System is furious.

Therefore he must now think hard. He has become President-elect on the strength of decent instincts against liberal ideology. But that is a flash in the pan, because to fight against ideology with instincts is like fighting tanks with a pea-shooter. To fight a false ideology one needs a true ideology, and to fight against war on God one needs peace with God, which will be on God’s terms and not on man’s. Now God is all-powerful and infinitely good, and he can undo the worst that his enemies can attempt to do against him with the merest flick of his little finger, so to speak. But he is not going to grant victory over the Synagogue of Satan if he knows that the people that he is saving are going to go straight back to Satan. The people must come away from Satan and turn back sincerely to God, who is not deceived.

At the very least Donald Trump himself must pray – ACTS – with Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving and Supplication. God has been with him, to grant this reprieve. Let us all include him and President Putin in our own prayers, to prolong the reprieve. Otherwise it could soon be over.

Kyrie eleison.

NOM Miracles?

NOM Miracles? on December 3, 2016

In the United Sates last year there arose a serious controversy as to whether God can work miracles within the framework of the Novus Ordo Mass. Now if God does work supernatural miracles, it is obviously for them to be believed in, so that they will strengthen people’s supernatural faith. And if he wants something outside of the natural order to be believed in, he is obviously going to provide enough evidence, like Lazarus walking out of his tomb in front of a large crowd of bystanders. And in this respect the most convincing evidence is of a material and physical sort, such as can in no way be the product of any human mind (however pious), like the fireworks of the sun in Fatima in October, 1917. Then what is the material and physical evidence of a eucharistic miracle having taken place in any Novus Ordo Mass?

One such miracle is alleged to have taken place in the parish church of Sokulka, Eastern Poland. On October 12, 2008, a priest, ordained five years ago by a Polish bishop consecrated in 1980, dropped a Sacred Host on the altar step while distributing Holy Communion. He stopped to pick it up and placed it in the small vessel containing water next to the Tabernacle. After Mass it was locked inside the sacristy safe for the Host to dissolve in the water, so that the Real Presence would no longer be there and the water could be safely discarded. This procedure is altogether normal for such accidents in the Catholic liturgy.

But when on October 19 a parish Sister went to check on the dissolving Host, she saw in its centre some matter intensely red in colour, like a blood clot. She immediately informed the parish priest who came with other priests to observe what looked like a piece of living flesh. All observers were amazed. Next came the local Archbishop, of Bialystok, with several diocesan officials. All of them were deeply moved. By the Archbishop’s instructions, on October 30 the Host was removed from the water, transferred onto a small corporal and placed in the Tabernacle to dry out. To this day it retains the form of a blood clot.

On January 7, 2009, a sample from the Host was taken to be examined by two pathomorphologists, separately, at the nearby Medical University of Bialystok. Their unanimous judgment, but independent of one another, was that “of all the tissues of living organisms, the sample most resembles human myocardial tissue,” from the left ventricle of the heart, typical for a living person in a state of agony. Furthermore both pathologists found, presumably under their microscopes, that the fibres of the myocardial tissue and the structure of the bread were so tightly bonded together that any possibility of a human fabrication was ruled out. On January 29 this material and physical evidence was presented to the Metropolitan Curia in Bialystok, where the Church’s official judgment upon the supernatural origin of the occurrence is patiently awaited. In that wait, said the Archbishop in a sermon of October, 2009, decisive will be the spiritual fruits among Catholics. Already there has been a significant rise in the piety and religious practice of local Catholics, and from abroad there have been hundreds of pilgrimages, with numerous miracles of healing and conversion also taking place.

If the material evidence is to be believed, then in Sokulka God worked one more in a long series down the ages of eucharistic miracles to help souls to believe in something normally difficult enough to believe in, namely that he is Really Present beneath the appearances, once consecrated, of bread and wine. But how is that possible when Traditional Catholics know that the New Mass is the single major cause of the Church’s destruction by loss of faith since Vatican II? An answer may be that the Sacred Heart, knowing that the shepherds were mainly responsible for the ambiguous NOM, refused to abandon his sheep, and continues to feed them with what is still Catholic amidst the ambiguity. And amidst all the Newchurch’s relative carelessness in dealing with the Holy Eucharist, the Sokulka event is also a daunting reminder to shepherds and sheep alike – “Remember whom you are handling – it is I, your God!”

Kyrie eleison.

Five “Dubia”

Five “Dubia” on November 26, 2016

In a scandal of a gravity unprecedented even in Pope Francis’ scandal-ridden reign as Catholic Pope since 2013, when challenged by four honourable Cardinals on his seeming denial of the very basis of the Church’s teaching on morals, he has just given answers in public which virtually affirm the freedom of man from the moral law of Almighty God. With this papal affirmation of the Conciliar religion of man as opposed to the Catholic religion of God, a schism in the Universal Church draws that much closer. For half a century since Vatican II, the Conciliar Popes have managed to remain in a way the one head of two opposing religions, but that contradiction could not last indefinitely, and it must soon result in a split.

In 2014 and 2015 Francis held Synods in Rome to consult the world’s bishops on questions concerning the human family. On March 19 of this year he published his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on “Love in the Family,” the eighth of whose nine chapters raised controversy from the very start. On September 15 four Cardinals in particular sent to the Pope a private and perfectly respectful letter in which they asked him as Supreme Pontiff to clear up five “dubia” or doubtful points of doctrine, left unclear in the Exhortation. Here is the essence of the five points:—

1 From the Exhortation’s #305, can a married person living like husband and wife with a person not their lawful spouse from now on be given sacramental Absolution and Communion while they continue to live in their quasi-married state?

2 From #304, need one still believe that there are absolute moral norms which prohibit intrinsically evil acts, and which are binding without exception?

3 From #301, can one still say that a person living in violation of one of God’s commandments, e.g. in adultery, is in an objective state of grave habitual sin?

4 From #302, can one still say that the circumstances or intentions surrounding an act intrinsically evil by its object can never change it into being subjectively good, or acceptable as a choice?

5 From #303, must we still exclude any creative role of conscience, so that conscience may still never authorize exceptions to absolute moral norms which forbid acts intrinsically evil by their object?

To these five designedly yes-or-no questions the answer of the Catholic Church from Our Divine Lord onwards has always been clear, and has never changed: Communion may not be given to adulterers; there are absolute moral norms; there is such a thing as “grave habitual sin”; good intentions cannot make evil acts good; conscience cannot make evil acts lawful. In other words, to the five yes-or-no, black-or-white questions, the Church’s answer has always been, 1 No, 2 Yes, 3 Yes, 4 Yes, 5 Yes.

On November 16, just ten days ago, the four Cardinals made their letter public (cf. Mt.XVIII, 15–17). On Nov. 18, in an interview given to the italian newspaper Avvenire, Pope Francis gave the exact opposite yes-or-no answers: 1 Yes, 2 No, 3 No, 4 No, 5 No. (He did affirm each time that “Such things are not black-or-white, we are called to discern,” but he was merely attempting thereby to confuse the unmoving questions of principle with moving questions of application of principle, which come after the questions of principle.)

All credit to the four Cardinals for obtaining light and truth for many confused sheep that wish to get to Heaven: Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meisner. They may be immersed in the Novus Ordo, but they have obviously not lost all courage or sense of their duty. There can be no question of their having acted out of any but the best of motives in pressing the Pope to make himself clear. And where does that clarity leave the Church? It must be on the brink of schism.

Kyrie eleison.

Excellent Communiqué?

Excellent Communiqué? on November 19, 2016

On October 31 Pope Francis held in Sweden an ecumenical meeting with leading Lutherans to prepare for next year’s 500th anniversary of Luther’s revolt against the Catholic Church. After the meeting the Pope signed with the President of the Lutheran World Federation a joint Declaration, which is yet another utter scandal, coming as it does from the man who is meant to be the Vicar of Christ. On November 2, in protest, the Superior of the French District of the Society of St Pius X issued a Communiqué to condemn that scandalous Declaration. Much of the Communiqué is excellent, and it should be what is needed from Society Superiors in order to place a serious obstacle in the way of the Archbishop’s Society being betrayed to the Roman neo-modernists, but the conclusion is weak, and so the Communiqué may have the opposite effect.

Fr Bouchacourt opens his Communiqué by stating that the scandal of the Pope’s pro-Lutheran Declaration is such that he “cannot keep silent.” And the whole passage where he denounces Luther is beyond reproach. Here it is:—

How can we be “profoundly thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation” (quotation from the joint Declaration) , when Luther manifested a diabolical hatred towards the Sovereign Pontiff, a blasphemous scorn for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as a refusal of the saving Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ? He also destroyed the doctrine on the Eucharist by refusing Transsubstantiation, turned souls away from the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and denied the existence of Purgatory. No, Protestantism brought nothing to Catholicism! It ruined the unity of Christendom, separated whole countries from the Catholic Church, plunged souls into error, putting their eternal salvation in peril. We Catholics want Protestants to return to the unique fold of Christ which is the Catholic Church, and we pray for this intention. In these days when we celebrate all the Saints, we call out to Saint Pius V, Saint Charles Borromeo, Saint Ignatius and Saint Peter Canisius who heroically fought the Protestant heresy and saved the Catholic Church.

But compared with this denunciation, Fr. Bouchacourt’s conclusion is relatively lame:—

We invite the faithful of the District of France to pray and do penance for the Sovereign Pontiff so that Our Lord, whose Vicar he is, may preserve him from error and keep him in the Truth of which he is the guardian. I invite the priests of the District to celebrate a Mass of reparation and to organise a Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament, to ask pardon for these scandals and to beg Our Lord to calm the tempest which has been shaking the Church for more than half a century now. Our Lady Help of Christians, save the Catholic Church and pray for us!

Fr Christian Bouchacourt, SSPX French District Superior.

This conclusion is pious, and perfectly respectful towards Pope Francis, but does it give any idea of the gravity of the Pope’s disorientation when the Pope so praises one of the greatest anti-Christian heretics in all Church history? It is difficult to imagine Fr Bouchacourt not having obtained from Bishop Fellay prior permission to publish his Communiqué. Was it Bishop Fellay who had no problem with the Luther of 500 years ago being denounced, but insisted on toning down the criticism of the major wrecker of the Church here and now? In any case the Communiqué serves Bishop Fellay’s purpose of deceiving Traditional priests and laity and putting them to sleep by suggesting that the supposedly imminent Personal Prelature will prevent none of them from denouncing Papal scandals, etc . . .

Then does Fr Bouchacourt realize how, like his predecessor, he may be serving, even against his own will, the betrayal of the Society? Let us be “simple as doves” but also “as wise as serpents” (Mt. X, 16).

Kyrie eleison.

Churchmen Aware? – II

Churchmen Aware? – II on November 12, 2016

Last week these “Comments” raised the question whether the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SG for short) knows what he is doing when he constantly makes contradictory statements, now in favour of Catholic Tradition, now in line with the Romans and their Conciliar Revolution. At best the SG would be merely a confused and confusing liberal, torn between Catholicism and Conciliarism. At worst he could be a true wolf in sheep’s clothing, using words merely as political instruments to enable the Romans to absorb Archbishop Lefebvre’s once Catholic Society into their Conciliar Newchurch. The Faith is at stake. It is important for many priests and laity alike to see clearly whether the SG is shepherd or wolf, or somewhere in between. See the latest issue of the French bi-monthly magazine, “Sous la Bannière,” for a very clear answer by a Resistant French priest, Fr Olivier Rioult.

He starts out from the SG’s June 29 communiqué which followed on the SSPX Superiors’ meeting held just previously near Écône, and he quotes from it sentences which might re-assure some Catholics that the SSPX is coming back on Traditional track. But, says Fr Rioult, the SG has in the past so often said one thing and done another that his words are of no value so far as truth is concerned. They are, as for countless modern politicians, merely instruments of policy to be used or abused as the occasion requires, in this case to make the SSPX submit to Newchurch authorities without its even realizing what is happening. The proof is in the SG’s actions. Actions speak always louder than words. What the SG really means is best judged by his actions, which work steadily in favour of Conciliar Rome.

Here are some of them – the acceptance of the “excommunications” being “lifted” in 2009; the acceptance of official jurisdiction for confessions, and of official jurisdiction for the SG to deliver first instance judgments of cases within the SSPX; the submission to quoting of names for priestly ordinands in the USA, and acceptance of diocesan toleration for priestly ordinations in Germany. Going in the same direction within the SSPX is his steady demotion or purging of opponents to his Roman policy, and his promotion of docile substitutes, often youngsters relatively unfit for the heavier responsibilities. And Fr Rioult points out that this series of actions is clearly in line with the joint statement of the SG and Rome’s Number Two, Cardinal Müller, issued after their meeting in September of 2014, that they would “proceed in stages . . . taking the time necessary to iron out difficulties . . . with a view to achieving full reconciliation.”

This step-by-step procedure, says Fr Rioult, has the great advantage for both parties of avoiding any clear-cut moment such as the joint signing of a public document which would risk alerting followers of Tradition to what was going on. As it is, the SG’s contradictions create confusion, and if only they are “subtle” or “delicate” enough, put Catholics to sleep who are not watching and praying. Thus the SG’s words are merely laid down as a smokescreen to disguise especially from SSPX priests what he is really up to, because if enough of them were awake and aware, it would be that much more difficult for him to persuade Rome that he could bring the whole Society into the Newchurch, which is what Rome wants, to put an end to the main body of resistance to their New World Order religion. Already in 2012 the SG had the bitter experience of setting up everything, as he thought, for the sell-out, only to have Rome refuse the agreement because at that moment in time his three fellow-bishops in the SSPX were all against it, as Rome well knew. The Newchurch needs to cripple Tradition, once and for all.

Pray for SSPX priests, that they see through the Menzingen mafia, block it, and finally get rid of it.

Kyrie eleison.

Churchmen Aware? – I

Churchmen Aware? – I on November 5, 2016

A reader of these “Comments” just raised a question once often asked, now probably less often, but still of interest: is the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SG for short) aware of how he contradicts himself? – in July of this year he called for a new Rosary Crusade “exclusively” to obtain the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart through the Consecration of Russia, while more recently he claimed that Rome wants the SSPX to fill important positions in the Church to help it to overcome modernism. The contradiction is clear, because the churchmen presently holding position in Rome are certainly opposed to the Consecration as asked for by Our Lady, and the reasons for that run deep.

Write to Fr Guy Castelain at Le Moulin du Pin, F53290 Beaumont-Pied-de-Boeuf, France, for a copy of the excellent editorial in his SSPX bulletin of this month, where he lays out ten reasons why Vatican II is the main obstacle to Our Lady’s Consecration of Russia. In very brief, the Consecration represents political involvement against political neutrality, the reign of Christ against his dethronement, Catholicism against religious liberty, the Pope against collegiality, the one true religion against ecumenism, the Immaculate Heart against a glorification of human dignity forgetting original maculation or sin, the one true Church against salvation in other religions, peace by the Catholic Pope against peace by “the Spirit of Assisi,” and so on. No wonder Pope Francis told Vladimir Putin who came to see him and expressed an interest in the Consecration: “We do not speak about Fatima”!

Now human politics and politicians can solve by compromise many a human clash between man and man, but Fr Castelain’s ten reasons prove that the clash between Fatima and the Conciliarists is no less than the clash between the “old” religion of Rome, as fresh as eternity, and the “new” religion of Vatican II, as stale as sin. Here is one of those clashes between God and man where political compromise is out of the question. In 1973 had not Our Lady warned in Akita, Japan, that “. . . the Church will be filled with agents of compromise . . .” The question for the SG then becomes, is he aware that he is an “agent of compromise”? Does he or does he not see that he is promoting an irreconcilable contradiction? If he does see it, then he is a liar, either when he promotes Fatima or when he protects the Conciliarists, or both. If on the contrary he does not see it, then he is blind.

A number of Catholics are by now convinced that his latest call for a Rosary Crusade is merely a political ploy to deceive his more Traditional followers. Certainly in his first term as SG plenty of his words and deeds indicate that he did then see the clash as clearly as Archbishop Lefebvre saw it. But there must have come a turning-point since then when instead of holding to the interests of God he wished also to serve the interests of men. It cannot be done (Mt.VI, 24; Gal. I, 10), but like many of us, he wanted to have his cake and eat it, and nature is expert at dressing itself up as grace, says the Imitation of Christ. So there must have followed a time of transition when he was wilfully blind, but if wilful blindness goes on for too long, it turns into habitual blindness, which is a terrible punishment from God. Assuredly between 2006 and 2008 Our Lady obtained for him more than enough graces to see what he was doing, but like the Conciliarists and Macbeth, instead he “waded on in blood” (Act III, Scene 4) – that of the Church. Like the Conciliarists in Rome, he certainly needs our prayers.

Readers, if you wish to see clear, pray the Rosary, and if in our dark times you wish never to stop seeing clear, pray all 15 Mysteries of the Rosary every day. The Mother of God cannot fail you.

Kyrie eleison.