Eleison Comments

Authentic Thomism

Authentic Thomism on July 30, 2016

The way in which modernism can combine apparent sincerity and good faith with dissolution of the truth is so dangerous for the real faith of Catholics that it can hardly be described or analysed too often. The recent question of a Traditional layman provides another opportunity to do so. He asks whether a priest of the Society of St Pius X is wise who reads regularly a Conciliar Thomist review, on the grounds that the SSPX has not provided as of yet any such regular reading matter on the thought and doctrine of the Church’s great philosopher and theologian, St Thomas Aquinas. The answer is that this priest had better, at the least, be very careful, because Conciliar Thomism is a contradiction in real terms which can, in modernist terms, easily be made to seem – and here is the problem – non-contradictory.

Conciliar Thomism is a contradiction in real terms because the teaching of St Thomas strives, and in huge measure succeeds, to conform to the one and only order planted in real things outside our minds by the one and only real God. On the contrary, Vatican II proceded from the supposition that modern man has destabilised this God-centred and static order in things (see the opening section of “Gaudium et Spes”), and therefore for God’s religion to make any sense to modern man, it must be re-cast in man-centred and dynamic terms which make Thomism no longer uniquely faithful to reality, but somewhat out of date.

In modernist terms Thomism may remain a historic monument of human thinking, a superb intellectual system, whose logic and consistency are wholly admirable. Thus SSPX seminarians, for instance, can learn it like a telephone directory, but if SSPX seminaries are being brought under the spell of Vatican II, the seminarians will no longer see Thomism as the one and only way to combat modern errors, and they will easily be charmed and seduced by many other more “up-to-date” ways of thinking about the world. In brief, modernists will not challenge Thomism on its own ground, indeed they can claim to agree with it entirely on its own ground. They will merely claim that in modern times the ground has shifted, and so Thomism is no longer uniquely valid, or is no longer the one and only way of getting at truth. Thus followers of Vatican II can really think that they agree with Thomism, but they do not agree with it at all.

Let elementary arithmetic once more illustrate the point. Two and two are four, and in real life, in reality, they can be nothing else, neither three nor five. But a modern arithmetician might say, “To say that two and two are uniquely or exclusively four, is too narrow-minded. It is much more creative and progressive to say that they can also be five or six or – let us be open-minded – Six Million!” And because this modern arithmetician does not exclude two and two being four, but gladly includes it in his broad-mindedness, he can sincerely believe that his arithmetic does not contradict the old arithmetic. But who cannot see that in reality he is totally undermining the “old” and true arithmetic? That arithmetic which corresponds to the one reality outside our minds not only includes two and two being four, but also absolutely excludes their being anything else. And this arithmetic alone corresponds to that one reality, or, is true. Thus the believing and thinking which alone correspond to God’s one order of natural and supernatural reality existed of course for many centuries before St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). He merely put it all together in an incomparable system. But it is not the system that makes it true. What makes it uniquely true as a system is its unique correspondence as a system to reality.

Therefore if the writers in this Thomistic review are also professed followers of Vatican II, they will surely not believe that Thomism is, in the sense presented here, unique. In which case they might be called telephone-book “Thomists,” but they are certainly not true Thomists. Will the priest mentioned above always be able to distinguish? Not if he is letting himself right now be led towards Vatican II.

Kyrie eleison.

Academia Diagnosed

Academia Diagnosed on July 23, 2016

When your Excellency asked me as a student of history whether I agreed with you that the agnostic phenomenism condemned in Pascendi is the greatest single clue-in to the modern scene, I briefly concurred. Then I asked myself how men, especially learned men, could ever take seriously such nonsense as the mind knowing nothing beyond the phenomena, or appearances. And I recalled how, after sitting in University classrooms for the past 3 1/2 years, and listening carefully to some brilliant professors who seem to have a sense of reality, and to many who do not, I myself had begun to wonder why some have a great sense of reason and others with the same or similar Doctorate Degrees have adopted such wild and unreasonable ideas. Let me give you the answer of this long-time observer of the academic scene . . . .

It dawned on me after a little thought that the professors who were the most logical were Catholics, because they may be conservatives at best, but they have a realistic view of the world. The ideas and concepts they teach are, for the most part, sensible. On the other hand, the instructions of a majority of professors are muddled, confusing, and nonsensical. They profess bizarre and outlandish ideas and back them up with half-truths. They adopt almost any trendy notion, such as Global Warming or Climate Change ( the new “Evolution”), and present it as truth. Their reasoning behind these notions is pure nonsense and cannot stand up to close scrutiny. I began to wonder, how can such learned men be so ignorant? After much thought I came up with what I am sure is the true answer.

Since the professors who are more sensible are men at least striving to be Catholic, it would stand to reason that they possess something that the heathens do not. Before the revolt by Martin Luther, most scholars or learned men were Catholics who used their reason and possessed common sense, so that most taught and believed the same truth. When Luther ravaged the Church, he also ravaged many learned clerics and university professors. In particular, his new religion eliminated the Sacrament of Confirmation by which we know that Catholics receive the seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost, four of which are for the mind: Knowledge, Wisdom, Understanding, and Counsel. All four are now lacking to today’s agnostic professors. These may be well-educated, learned people, but they cannot use their learning in a reasonable way, or apply it to reality. As Pius X says, they develop fantasies and present them as truths, and furthermore convince themselves that they are brilliant, when in fact they are wallowing in ignorance. They are the 2+2=5 cult! And proud of it.

On this theory, today’s destruction of academia would go back to Luther’s abandoning of the Sacrament of Confirmation, and to Europe’s universities becoming less and less Catholic. Eventually thousands of professors were unleashed on the world of academia who were educated beyond their ability to reason. Lacking Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, and Counsel in their highest sense as Gifts from God, they developed in universities the panoply of today’s errors, or “isms.” For instance, to claim that Global Warming will destroy man and the world is sheer nonsense, yet it is taught and believed in modern Universities, as if it were 2+2 = 4. And these poisonous ideas are gobbled up by the wide-eyed youth in Universities, like biscuits at High Tea, especially the idea that Truth is merely what each of us believes it to be, and Reason be damned.

So it would follow that when Vatican II chose to follow in Luther’s footsteps by abandoning Tradition and by so “renewing” the sacrament of Confirmation as to threaten its validity, Catholics too imperilled the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and lost correspondingly the ability to reason, because Newchurch Confirmation is now meant simply to make them “better Christians.”

Kyrie eleison.

Brexit – Spexit?

Brexit – Spexit? on July 16, 2016

There is such a thing as the “Zeitgeist,” or spirit of the age. A proof might be the parallel that can be drawn between Britain’s June 23 vote to renounce the communistic embrace of the European Union, and the SSPX Superiors’ meeting from June 25 to 28, with Bishop Fellay’s Communiqué of June 29 declaring that the Society was now renouncing the embrace of neo-modernist Rome – “Spexit,” for short. For just as last week’s “Comments” suggested that Brexit was admirable but doubtfully efficacious, so one may fear that the June 29 St-Pius-Exit may have reassured many good Catholics that the Society is back on track, whereas within days official Rome and Bishop Fellay were saying that contacts continue . . .

The basis of the parallel is the apostasy characterising the Church’s Fifth Age, from 1517 to 2017 (or beyond), by which the peoples of the world have slowly but steadily turned their backs on God to replace him with Man. But their conscience is not at ease in the process. Therefore outwardly they pay homage to the good old order, but inwardly they pine for the freedom from God and for the materialistic benefits of the New World Order. Thus a good old instinct drove the British to vote for independence from Communism, but being nearly all atheistic materialists they are Communists without the name, and so hardly now know what to do with their Brexit. So one may fear that there is more to “Spexit” than meets the eye.

For instance, the excellent Hispanic website “Non Possumus” pointed out that when the Communiqué of June 29 looks forward to a Pope “who favours concretely the return to Holy Tradition” (2+2=4 or 5 ), that is not the same thing as a Pope “who has returned to Tradition” (2+2=4, and exclusively 4). Nor is it reassuring that on July 2 Bishop Fellay called for a fifth Rosary Crusade, foreseen on June 24 as a possibility by Fr Girouard in Western Canada. Recalling how Bishop Fellay presented as two gifts of the Mother of God both in 2007 the dubious liberation of the true rite of Mass by Summorum Pontificum and in 2009 the “lifting” of the non-existent “excommunications,” Fr Girouard fears that a unilateral recognition of the Society by official Rome could likewise be presented as a response of hers to this new Rosary Crusade. Here is how Fr Girouard imagines the recognition being presented by Bishop Fellay:—

“In the Crusade, we have asked for the protection of the Society. Thanks to the 12 million Rosaries, the BVM has obtained for us, from the Heart of Her Son, this special protection! Yes the Holy Father has signed this document where he recognizes us and promises to give us his personal protection, so that we will be able to continue “as we are.” This new gift from God and the BVM is truly a new means given us by Divine Providence to better continue our work for the extension of the Social Kingdom of Christ! It is also the reparation of a grave injustice! This is truly a sign that Rome has changed for the better! Our venerable founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, would have accepted this providential gift. Indeed, we can be sure that he has united his prayers to those of the BVM to obtain it from Our Lord, and that he is now rejoicing with her in Heaven! In thanksgiving for this wonderful gift of Providence, let us renew officially the consecration of the Society to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and let us have a Te Deum sung in all our chapels!”

In such a vision, adds Fr Girouard, anyone refusing the reunion of the Society with Rome will be made to seem to be resisting God and to be scorning his Mother.

Such fears are for the moment only imaginary. What is certain is that the “Spexit” of June 25 to 28 will in no way have shaken Bishop Fellay’s resolve to steer the Archbishop’s society into the arms of neo-modernist Rome. For him, that is the only way forward, as opposed to “insulting good Romans” and “stagnating” in a resistance that is out of date and no longer relevant to the evolving situation.

Kyrie eleison.

Brexit – Really?

Brexit – Really? on July 9, 2016

Many readers of these “Comments” must be supposing that as an Englishman who does not at all like the New World Order, I must be rejoicing over the recent vote by the British people, albeit by a relatively narrow margin, to leave the communistic European Union. Alas, I have to admit that all I have ever learnt over the last tens of years about that NWO makes me doubt that the apparent exit of Britain will amount finally to any real re-affirmation of what was once best in Great Britain. Across the Atlantic likewise, I may love Trump and hate Hilary, but surely the two have been put together to make up for us one Punch and Judy show.

Take for instance, concerning Brexit, the June 24 article of a high-grade American truth-teller, Paul Craig Roberts (see paulcraigroberts.org) on why “Despite the vote, the Odds are Against Britain leaving the EU.” He writes: “The British people should not be so naïve as to think that the vote settles the matter. The fight has only begun.” He warns the British people to expect: their government to come back to them and say, the EU is giving us a better deal so let’s stay in; the Fed, ECB, BOJ and NY hedge funds to hammer the pound sterling as proof that the Brexit vote is sinking Britain’s economy (that hammering has already happened); the Brexit vote to be presented as having weakened Europe in front of “Russian aggression” (which is a sheer NWO fabrication); leading Brexiters to come under pressure to reach a compromise with the EU; etc., etc. And Roberts says readers can imagine for themselves many more such probabilities, reminding them how Ireland voted against Europe years ago until it was pressured to vote for.

However, at http://​henrymakow.​com/​2016/​06/​brexit-what-is-the-globalist-game.​html, in my opinion another article goes deeper still, because Henry Makow goes further behind the Punch and Judy show, because he has the advantage of being what the globalists no doubt call an “anti-semite,” or rather a “Jew-hater” because Makow is himself a Jew. Truly, only those with some handle on the Messiah, or the Christ, can take the measure of the Antichrist.

The article’s thesis is that “Brexiters lamented how the Establishment was ranged against them, but in truth the reverse was the reality.” To prove this thesis the article names by name numerous British politicians, both Tory and Labour, who are more or less fervent globalists and who campaigned for Brexit (it should be easy enough to check the names for anyone who wishes). Similarly in the British media, the article names numerous journals and journalists, normally presstituted for globalism, who campaigned for Brexit. Then what was Brexit for? The article credits Putin with getting much closer to the truth when he suggested that it was to “blackmail” Europe into making better terms with Britain. The article goes further: Brexit was designed to force Europe to “surrender completely to Anglo-American Zionist war-mongers and corporate privateers,” and the article concludes that Brexit was “most certainly no triumph against globalism.” And Makow himself adds: “Evidently the powers-that-be have decided that England outside Europe rather than inside can be a more effective instrument of Masonic central bank world tyranny.”

Maybe such speculations (but not their level) are off the mark, but for sure and certain, what are either Europe or Britain worth without God? To build without him is to build in vain, says the Psalmist. Yet who in all the Brexit debate ever even mentions his name? If Brexit is to amount to anything truly positive, it will need a leader with vision. Without God, where will he come from?

Kyrie eleison.

Country Advantages

Country Advantages on July 2, 2016

Since no human being was ever created by God on this earth for any other reason than to go to Heaven (I Tim. II, 4), then the goodness of God is at work all the time, in one form or another, more or less strongly, to attract all souls towards Heaven. And if a man begins to respond to that attraction, he is bound to realize sooner or later that the mass of souls surrounding him today are either unaware of that attraction or are positively resisting it. And the more serious he may become about getting to Heaven himself, the more seriously he must wonder what are the factors in the world around him which make so many souls careless of Heaven, or at least of getting there.

Some of these factors may be immediately apparent to him, like the recent advance of unnatural vice and its triumph in the worldwide legalisation of same-sex “marriage.” Other factors he may need rather more time to appreciate because they are not so obviously opposed to virtue and because they soaked into the environment much longer ago, like living in cities or sub-cities, i.e., suburbs. Now only a fool would claim that every country-dweller is full of virtue while every city-dweller is full of vice. On the other hand country living is obviously closer to Nature than is city living, so that if Nature was created by God to be the indispensable carrier of that Supernature without which no soul can enter Heaven, then country-dwellers will, as such, be closer to God than city-dwellers, and a city-dweller wishing to get to Heaven must at least take stock of the fabric of his life in the city.

“Learn from your enemy,” said the Latins. Communism is one of the most terrible enemies ever of Catholicism, and two outstanding Communists are famous for their hatred of country-dwellers, or peasants. For Lenin (1870–1924), leader of the Russian Revolution in 1917, a major obstacle in the way of the godless Revolution was the old-fashioned peasant, rooted in the earth, profoundly aware of his nothingness as a creature surrounded by the mystery of Creation on which he depended, whereas the city-dweller living in an artificial and man-made world of factories, machines, and human robots, a world laden with various kinds of resentment (raging against the rain is an exercise in futility while “road rage” is growing all the time), was wholly apt for Revolution (here is why de Corte says modern politicians are constantly promising “change”).

For Antonio Gramsci (1860–1937), master of the Revolution’s key transition after Lenin and Stalin from “hard” Communism to “soft” Globalism, the peasantry represented likewise a redoubtable enemy which the Revolution had to overcome. With its “common sense” and its “natural order” the peasantry had been the foundation of a whole system of values that had to go. Religion, family, homeland, army, nature, culture, had to give way to a whole new way of thinking in accordance with a New World Order. To shift men away from their old mentality, their total culture was to be subverted no more by a violent assault upon their economics, but by a “march through the institutions,” all their institutions. The Revolution would remould their education, arts, entertainment, news, sports, etc., every feature of their culture in the broadest sense, to undermine the total way of life previously embodied in the peasantry. And Gramsci’s Revolution has so succeeded in overthrowing the old natural order that the farmers now working the land are so dependent on machines and the banksters that they are hardly peasants in the old sense any more.

But the Revolution today is such outright war on “everything that calls itself God” that there is no possible human way of reconstructing any peasantry to stand up to it. The best possible peasantry, merely as such, is not the solution. The problem is not merely cultural. The real problem is our apostasy from God. The real solution starts with prayer, which the seemingly almighty Revolution is nevertheless powerless to stop.

Kyrie eleison.

Derail Drive

Derail Drive on June 25, 2016

A number of Catholics who love the Church and understand what the Society of St Pius X could and should be doing for it, were encouraged by recent words of one of its bishops. They thought that maybe yet it can be pulled back from the brink of an agreement by which it would put itself under the control of some of the Church’s (objectively) worst enemies in all its history – the neo-modernist officials of today’s Rome. Indeed there were many good things said by Bishop de Galarreta in his Ordinations sermon on June 3 at the last priestly Ordinations to be held in Winona, Minnesota, before its move to Virginia, but no friend of the Catholic Faith should raise his hopes too high.

His sermon began by connecting the Catholic priesthood to Our Lord Jesus Christ as the one and only Way, Truth and Life. But, he went on, there is today in the Church a relativism in doctrine which opens the door to relativism in morals and to such scandals as the recent Roman Synod’s even just considering the giving of Holy Communion to couples divorced and “remarried.” The bishop said these scandals were rooted in Vatican II, and he castigated the Council as being a bad tree of which they are merely the logical bad fruit. Now Mgr Pozzo raised hopes several weeks ago that the Society in order to obtain official recognition from Rome might not have to accept the Council, but the Bishop rightly pointed out that both Pope Francis and Cardinal Mueller have since dashed such hopes, by making clear that their recognition of the Society will still require that acceptance.

The Bishop concluded, “Therefore it is also clear that the (Society’s) fight continues. As our Superior General, Bishop Fellay, has said, if we have to choose between faith and a compromise, the choice is already made – no compromise.” Fighting words, but the Bishop immediately added a possible escape-hatch of a kind familiar to us from him: “God may certainly change the circumstances and put us in a different situation, which is what we all hope for.” For could not “changed circumstances” include some clever understanding agreeable to both Rome and the Superior General, which the latter would accept? (Nor was it any use Bishop de Galarreta’s quoting just beforehand words of the Superior General against his own policy, because his own words do not normally pin down this Superior General.)

What strongly suggests that the fighting words do not in fact correspond to the Superior General’s own intentions is the speed with which the text including them was taken down (to be doctored or trashed?) so soon after it was put up on the official website of the Society in the USA. What lesser official of the Society could have given the order virtually to disown words of one of its own bishops? Such an idea is rather confirmed by a conference given on June 5 by the Society’s second-in-command to parishioners of the Society’s church in Houston, TX, and not since disowned by Headquarters (comments in italics):—

Fr Pfluger said that there is nothing wrong in going with Rome (illusion); that the Society will go as it is (illusion): that we must move with the times, and now is the time to be in Rome (illusion); that Archbishop Lefebvre also contradicted himself many times in his time (illusion – see June 11’s “Eleison Comments”), and finally that here and now we must trust Bishop Fellay (after all his “terminological inexactitudes”? – illusion!). But the Society’s First Assistant is more than free to say such things, because they are faithful to the Society’s drive at the very top to put itself under Roman control.

In conclusion, dear readers, for the sake of all the good that the true Society could and should be doing for the Universal Church, by all means pray for a miracle to derail that drive towards Rome, and put any pressure you can on Superiors taking part in the end of June meeting (not yet a General Chapter, but preparing the fatal one) that they make themselves the instruments of God in the derailing of that drive.

Kyrie eleison.