Eleison Comments

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.

“Anti-Semitism” Trickery

“Anti-Semitism” Trickery on June 18, 2016

There are treacherous words which seem to mean one thing and are used to mean quite another. One of the most treacherous words of all is “anti-semitism.” The word seems to mean opposition to all Jews purely and simply because they are Jews, and in this sense it rightly condemns something bad, because some Jews are wicked, but certainly not all. On the other hand it is often used to condemn absolutely any opposition to anything that any Jews do, and then the word is wrongly condemning something good, because whenever Jews do anything bad then opposition to them is good. But do Jews do things bad? Obviously. They created Islam for Arabs, Freemasonry for Gentiles and Communism for the modern world, all three primarily to fight Jesus Christ and Christianity, and so send souls to Hell.

A book which all Catholics should read who wish to defend the Church against Islam, Freemasonry and Communism, now Globalism, is The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay. The book was written just before Vatican II to be put into the hands of all Council Fathers, to warn them of the great danger in which the Church would find herself at the Council. Sure enough. The Council Fathers ended up praising Islam (Unitatis Redintegratio), adopting Freemasonic principles (Dignitatis Humanae) and never mentioning, still less condemning, the evil system of Communism. Here is how in his Chapter on “Antisemitism and Christianity” Maurice Pinay analyses the treachery of the word “antisemitism”:—

Down the ages the Jews have always used vague words with a variety of meanings, writes Pinay, to snare Gentile minds and so prevent them from defending themselves against the Jewish drive towards world domination in that 2,000-year war on Christianity which he carefully documents throughout his book. So in a first stage, by three arguments they seek to prevail upon Gentile leaders to condemn “antisemitism” in its first sense, given above, of opposition to everything and everybody Jewish: firstly, Christ, by establishing the equality of all men before God, condemned any such degrading of a whole race; secondly, Christ told all men to “love one another”; thirdly, Christ and his Mother were both Jewish.

But in a second stage the Jews, having once obtained the Gentiles’ condemnation of a vague “antisemitism,” then proceed to give the word a quite different meaning, the second sense above, of any and all opposition to anything whatsoever that Jews do. Thus “antisemites” become: all patriots exerting their right of self-defence against Jewish subversion of their country; all defenders of the family against the errors and vices of all sorts fomented by the Jews to dissolve it (e.g. abortion, pornography); all Catholics defending their holy religion against every form of corruption being openly or secretly promoted by the Jews to undermine it; all truth-tellers unmasking Jews as the originators of Freemasonry and Communism (now of Globalism and feminism, etc.); and all people in general opposing Jewish subversion of the Church and of Christian civilisation. And by their control of politics, finance, films and above all by their media, the Jews have succeeded in giving such an electric charge to this one little word “anti-semite,” that it is enough to electrocute anyone that it touches.

But who is foolish enough to have allowed them to control politics and finance? Who has allowed them to virtually monopolise the film industry and the media? Who thinks it is so smart to have done away with all censorship and is now co-operating with them to enable them to censor the Internet? Gentile liberals in every case, who are therefore being enslaved, by the minute, in their New World Order. Doctor, cure thyself! For who that reads their newpapers or watches their television programmes has anybody to blame but himself for letting them take over his mind, and his civilisation?

Catholics, read The Plot against the Church. If anybody is accusing you of being an “antisemite,” it is quite possible you have reason to be proud.

Kyrie eleison.

Archbishop’s Aim

Archbishop’s Aim on June 11, 2016

In this fateful month for the Society of St Pius X, June 2016, when we hear that some 30 Superiors will meet in order to decide whether to accept Rome’s latest offer of official recognition, it is surely a good moment to correct misunderstandings as to the intentions of its Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991). Some claim that his course was unsteady, that he “zig-zagged,” veering from side to side. Others pretend that above all he sought Rome’s recognition for his Society. Without having to claim that he was infallible one needs to remind the forgetful Society of what he was all about: both errors are corrected by the same observation, namely that his basic motivation was to glorify God and to save souls by serving God’s one true Church by defending the Faith, and to defend the Faith by founding the Society of St Pius X to form priests who would preserve the doctrine, sacraments and Mass of Catholic Tradition.

Now the great obstacle in the Archbishop’s way was the churchmen of Vatican II whose main priority was (and remains) to please not God but modern man, who has moved far away from God. So, now as then, they turned away from God (at least objectively, subjectively God knows), and sought to change God’s Church and her Faith, doctrine, sacraments and Mass by a humanistic “renewal.”

In disgust or despair the Archbishop might have taken himself off into a corner with his Society, and left these churchmen to perish with their Conciliar Revolution. But firstly, from the 1974 Roman visitation of Écône onwards, they came after him with his work because they could not let it demonstrate their perversity. They could not afford to leave him alone. And secondly, if he could do anything to bring Tradition to the Romans and the Romans back to Tradition, it would benefit through them the worldwide Church and not just his little Society. For indeed, however misguided they were, they still occupied “the seat of Moses” (cf. Mt XXIII, 2), and so from 1975 onwards the Archbishop went to and from Rome, until their prevarication in 1988 over granting another bishop to the Society proved once and for all that they could no longer be spoken to with words but only with actions.

But “Stat Crux dum Volvitur Orbis,” meaning that the Cross stands still while the whole world is in revolution. Anchored in Tradition, the Archbishop was basically standing still, but he was dealing with churchmen and a situation of the Church which had slipped that anchor and was henceforth adrift. So as they drifted left, so he needed to steer right, whereas if they seemed to veer right again (as in late 1987 and early 1988) so he veered left (e.g. in the Protocol of May 5, 1988), but it was always their veering or the evolving situation (e.g. the deteriorating Novus Ordo Mass) that determined his “zig-zagging,” and not the other way round. His own aim was steady – the defence of the Faith.

It was for this same reason that, once the churchmen’s prevarication on that same 5th of May in 1988 was clear beyond any reasonable doubt, then after a night’s reflection he renounced on May 6th that Protocol which could have obtained Rome’s official recognition for the Society, and he cut off all merely diplomatic relations with Rome, not primarily to save his Society but to protect Catholic Tradition for the entire Church. Doctrine had to take over from diplomacy, and from then on until his death two and a half years later, even while behaving with respect towards the Church officials whom he had castigated as “antichrists,” he declared that the Faith had to come first in the form of the pre-Conciliar Popes’ anti-liberal and anti-modern doctrinal Encyclicals. By his fidelity to Church doctrine he was in the driving-seat, and the Romans knew it. What a contrast with his successors at the head of the Society, fawning on the betrayers of Church doctrine and Tradition, and humiliated by them! Let these successors of the Archbishop just read again what was like his farewell address to them of September 6, 1990.

Kyrie eleison.

Church Abandoned?

Church Abandoned? on June 4, 2016

As day by day the chaos increases in almost everything and everybody around us, and inside the Church it seems as though everybody is against everybody, it is certainly reassuring to find that the Psalmist of maybe 3,000 years ago cried out to God to come to the aid of his people, in similar distress from his enemies. Then as now they rose up in their pride against him, their pride “ascends continually,” they have done their best to wreck his Temple and his religion, and he has allowed them much success. Here is Psalm 73 (74), with minimal notes of explanation in italics:—

A. How can God be allowing the triumph of His enemies against His own Church? [1] O God, why hast Thou cast us off unto the end: why is Thy wrath enkindled against the sheep of Thy pasture? [2] Remember Thy congregation ( Catholic Church), which Thou hast possessed from the beginning. The sceptre of Thy inheritance which Thou hast redeemed: Mount Sion (Catholic Church) in which Thou hast dwelt. [3] Lift up Thy hands against their (God’s enemies) pride unto the end; see what things the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary. [4] And they that hate Thee have made their boasts, in the midst of Thy solemnity. They have set up their ensigns for signs, [5] and they knew not (the holiness of God) both in the going out and on the highest top ( Temple gates and summit). As with axes in a wood of trees, [6] they have cut down at once the gates thereof, with axe and hatchet (Vatican II) they have brought it down. [7] They have set fire to Thy sanctuary: they have defiled the dwelling place of Thy name (Catholic Church) on the earth. [8] They said in their heart, the whole kindred of them together: Let us abolish all the festival days of God (Catholic liturgy) from the land. [9] Our signs we have not seen, there is now no prophet: and He will know us no more (God has given up. We are on our own.) [10] How long, O God, shall the enemy reproach: is the adversary to provoke thy name for ever? [11] Why dost thou turn away Thy hand: and Thy right hand out of the midst of thy bosom for ever?

B. But God is the Master of salvation, of history and of all Nature. [12] But God is our king before ages: he hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth. [13] Thou by Thy strength didst make the sea (Red Sea crossing) firm: Thou didst crush the heads of the dragons (Egyptians) in the waters. [14] Thou hast broken the heads of the dragon (Egyptian king): thou hast given him to be meat for the people of the Ethiopians. [15] Thou hast broken up the fountains and the torrents: Thou hast dried up the Ethan (running strongly, e.g. Jos. III) rivers. [16] Thine is the day, and Thine is the night: Thou hast made the morning light and the sun. [17] Thou hast made all the borders of the earth: the summer and the spring were formed by Thee.

C. O God, forget not your own humble people, and crush your proud enemies. [18] Remember this, the enemy hath reproached the Lord: and a foolish people hath provoked Thy name. [19] Deliver not up to beasts the souls that confess to Thee: and forget not to the end the souls of Thy poor. [20] Have regard to Thy covenant (New Testament): for they that are the obscure of the earth have been filled with dwellings of iniquity. [21] Let not the humble be turned away with confusion: the poor and needy shall praise Thy name. [22] Arise, O God, judge thy own cause: remember Thy reproaches with which the foolish man hath reproached Thee all the day. [23] Forget not the voices of Thy enemies: the pride of them that hate Thee ascendeth continually.

Kyrie eleison.

“Normalisation” Illusions

“Normalisation” Illusions on May 28, 2016

Let all SSPX Superiors taking part in their upcoming meeting to consider Rome’s latest offer towards reconciliation ponder well Fr Girouard’s comments on Fr Schmidberger’s recent statement (see EC 457):—

A) In paragragh IV, Fr. Schmidberger says that Abp Lefebvre was seeking recognition even after the 1988 consecrations. He fails to mention that the Archbishop laid down conditions: a total return by Rome to the anti-liberal and anti-modernist documents of Traditional Popes. The same paragraph states that the SSPX did not seek a rapprochement with Rome. That Rome started it in 2000. Fr. S. fails to mention that the GREC meetings, seeking to “normalize” the Society, started in 1997, with the blessing of Bishop Fellay.

B) In paragraph V, the letter states that Rome has greatly lowered her conditions for a normalization, and that it is therefore the right time for us to accept. Fr. S. fails to understand that the lowering of the demands by Rome is because: 1-The SSPX has already been re-branded and is therefore more agreable to Rome; 2-Rome knows that more liberalization of the SSPX will happen naturally after the normalization.

C) In paragraph VI (Answers to objections) # 3, Fr. S. says the SSPX will not keep silent after the normalization. But in fact, they already are doing so! And they have been for years! The SSPX reactions to Assisi 3, to the World Youth Days, to the “canonizations/beatifications” of Popes J.XXIII, JPII, and Paul VI, to the Synods on the Family and the latest encyclical of Pope Francis (Amoris Laetitiae), and other scandals, have been nothing more than subdued and soft “slaps on the wrist.” So it will be worse after the normalization, as the SSPX will fear to lose what it will have taken such pains to acquire.

D) In Par. VI, #4, Fr. S. says we have to make ourselves as useful as possible to the Church, which means the SSPX needs to be normalised, to make the Church better by the SSPX being inside. My answer to this is the same as above in B and C: Once absorbed into the official modernist structure, the SSPX, which has already lost its “saltiness,” will be overwhelmed by bad influences, and its message and actions will have steadily less effect.

E) In Par. VI, # 5, Fr. S. says that the whole point of the situation is: “Who will convert whom?” And that we need to be strong, and we will be the ones converting the modernists once we are inside. This is the same kind of reasoning as somebody who would rent a room in a brothel in order to convert the prostitutes and their clients! It is a sin of presumption.

F) In Par. VI, #6, Fr. S. says that we are not facing the same problems and temptations as the other Traditional communities who have rallied to Rome and then betrayed the fight, because often with guilt these communities started the process, whereas in the case of SSPX, it is Rome that started it in 2000. My answer to this is like in A: GREC started the process in 1997, with the blessing of Bishop Fellay.

G) In Par. VII (Conclusion), Fr. S says that we must not fear, because the Society has been consecrated to the BVM, and She will protect us. He fails to mention so many Congregations and persons consecrated to Her who have perished since Vatican II! Just think of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, the Servites of Mary, and so forth and so on! The BVM is never going to help those who put themselves voluntarily into an occasion of sin and destruction! To believe the contrary is to mock Her and to mock God! Once again, a sin of presumption! This is not the best way, to say the least, to work at the conversion of Rome and the re-building of the Church!

All that will be left to say, once the Society is “normalised,” is: RIP SSPX, and God have mercy on us!

Kyrie eleison.

Doctrinal Feelings

Doctrinal Feelings on May 21, 2016

Last week’s “Comments” (EC 461) will not have been to everyone’s taste. Readers may have guessed that the unnamed author of the long quote was of the same sex as the also quoted St Theresa of Avila (“suffer, or die”) and St Mary Magdalene de Pazzi (“suffer and not die”), and the anonymous quote may have seemed excessively emotional. But the contrast with Pope Benedict’s feelings quoted the week before (EC 460) was deliberate. Whereas the man’s text showed feelings governing doctrine, the woman’s text showed doctrine governing feelings. Better, obviously, the woman putting God first, like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (“Father, let this chalice pass me by, but not my will . . .” ), than the man putting feelings first, and changing the Catholic doctrine and religion into the Conciliar religion.

The surprising contrast highlights that the primacy of God means that doctrine comes first, whereas the primacy of feelings means that man comes first. But life is not about avoiding suffering, it is about getting to Heaven. If then I disbelieve in God and worship Mammon instead (Mt. VI, 24), I will disbelieve in any after-life and I will pay for more and more expensive drugs to avoid suffering in this life, because there is no other life. And so the Western “democracies” create one ruinous welfare State after another, because the surest way for a “democratic” politician to get elected or not is to take a stand for or against free medicine. Care for the body is all that is left in the life of many a man who has no God. Thus godlessness ruins the State: “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it” (Ps. CXXVI, 1), whereas “Happy is that people whose God is the Lord” (Ps. CXLIII, 15). Religion governs politics and economics alike, any false religion for their ill, the true religion for their true good.

On the basis of his October interview (EC 460), Benedict might reply: “Yes, but what use is a religion that fewer and fewer people believe in? On modern man the Catholic religion of all time has lost its grip. Yesterday’s doctrine may be as true as true can be, but of what use is it if it no longer speaks to man as he is today, where he is today? Doctrine is for souls, but how can I speak to contemporary man of redemptive suffering or of the Redemption, when suffering makes no sense to him at all? The Council was absolutely necessary to recast doctrine in a form intelligible to men as they are today.”

And to this position implicit in Benedict’s interview, here might be an answer: “Your Holiness, doctrine is for souls, yes, but to save them from eternal punishment and not to prepare them for it. Doctrine consists of words, words express concepts, concepts are ultimately of things real being conceived. Your Holiness, are God, man’s immortal soul, death, Judgment, and the inevitability of eternal salvation or damnation realities outside my mind? If they are realities independent of myself, have any of them changed since modern times? And if they have not changed at all, then do not the doctrines expressing them express also, together with the doctrine of original sin, a real danger for every man alive of falling into Hell? In which case however unpleasant the realities may feel, what possible service do I do for my fellow-men by making the doctines feel nicer, so as to disguise the eternal danger instead of warning him about it? Of what importance are his feelings compared with the importance of his grasping, and assimilating, the true doctrines, so as to be blissfully happy and not utterly tormented for all eternity – for all eternity?

But in our apostate world the mass of men want only to be told fables (II Tim. IV, 4) to put a cushion under their sins. The result is that to keep the moral world in balance, there must be a number of mystic souls, known to God alone, who are taking upon themselves acute suffering, for Christ and for their fellow-men, and it is a fair bet that most of them are women.

Kyrie eleison.