Eleison Comments

Sedevacantism Again – II

Sedevacantism Again – II on October 8, 2016

For any Catholic soul realizing today the gravity of the crisis in the Church and agonizing over it, the simplicity of sedevacantism dismissing as invalid the Church and Popes of Vatican II can become a serious temptation. Worse, the seeming logic of the ecclesiavacantists’ and sedevacantists’ arguments can turn that temptation into a mental trap which can at worst lead a Catholic to lose his faith altogether. That is why these “Comments” will return in more detail to the main argument of the scattershot of arguments laid out in the article by BpS from 1991 mentioned here last week. Here again is that argument:—

Major: the Catholic Church is absolutely indefectible (it has God’s own guarantee that it will last to the end of the world – cf. Mt XXVIII, 20). Minor: But the Conciliar or Novus Ordo Church, overwhelmed by neo-modernism and liberalism, represents an absolute defection. Conclusion: the Novus Ordo Church is absolutely not Catholic and its Popes are absolutely not Popes. In other words the Church is absolutely white while the Newchurch is absolutely black, so Church and Newchurch are absolutely different. To minds which like to think in black and white with nothing in between, this argument has much appeal. But to minds which recognize that in real life things are often grey, or a mixture of black and white (without black ceasing to be black or white ceasing to be white), the argument is too absolute to be true. Thus in the Major there is an exaggeration of the Church’s indefectibility, and in the Minor there is an exaggeration of the Newchurch’s defection. Theory can be absolute, but reality rarely is absolute. Let us look at indefectibility and the Conciliar defection as they are in reality.

As for the Major, sedevacantists frequently exaggerate the Church’s indefectibility, just as they frequently exaggerate the Popes’ infallibility, because that is what they need to support their emotional horror at what has become of the Catholic Church since the Council. But in reality just as that infallibility does not exclude great errors of some Popes in Church history and only applies when the Pope is either, Ordinarily, saying what the Church has always said, or, Extraordinarily, is engaging all four conditions of the 1870 definition, so the Church’s indefectibility does not absolutely exclude some huge defections at given moments of Church history, such as the triumphs of Islam or Protestantism or of the Antichrist (Lk. XVIII, 8), it only excludes absolutely a total defection, or total failure (Mt. XXVIII, 20). Thus indefectibility is not as absolute as BpS pretends.

As for the Minor, it is true that the defection of Conciliarism is considerably more grave than that of either Islam or Protestantism because it strikes at the head and heart of the Church in Rome, which they did not do. Nevertheless even half a century of Conciliarism (1965 to 2016) has not made the Church totally defect, or fail. For instance Archbishop Lefebvre – and he was not alone – held high the Faith from 1970 to 1991, his successors did the same, more or less, from 1991 to 2012, and the embattled “Resistance” upholds his line still, and before the Church humanly collapses in a not too distant future, unquestionably its indefectibility will be divinely saved, just as before world’s end – Mt. XXIV, 21–22. Thus Conciliarism as a defection of the Church is not as absolute as BpS pretends, either.

So his syllogism needs to be recast – Major: the Church’s indefectibility does not exclude huge defections but only a total defection. Minor: Vatican II was a huge but not total defection of the Church (even if Catholics aware of its danger must totally avoid it, for fear of contamination). Conclusion: the Church’s indefectibility does not exclude Vatican II. In brief, God’s own Church is bigger than all the wickedness of Devil or man, even Vatican II. The Conciliar defection may well be of an unprecedented gravity in all Church history, but the Church’s indefectibility and the Popes’ infallibility come from God and not from men. Like liberals, the sedevacantists are thinking humanly, all too humanly.

Kyrie eleison.

Again, Sedevacantism – I

Again, Sedevacantism – I on October 1, 2016

It may irk a number of readers of these “Comments” if they return once more to the theme of the Conciliar Popes not being Popes at all, but the recent translation into French of an article from 1991 in English shows how the arguments for sedevacantism need repeatedly to be demonstrated as being not so conclusive as they may appear. Liberals need no such demonstration, because for them sedevacantism is no temptation. However there are select Catholic souls drawn by the grace of God out of liberalism towards Catholic Tradition for whom sedevacantism becomes positively dangerous. The Devil does not care whether we lose our balance to the right or to the left, so long as we lose our balance.

For indeed the error of sedevacantism may in theory be an error neither as deep nor as grave as the universal mind-rot of liberalism, but in practice how often one observes that minds snap shut with sedevacantism, and that what started out as an acceptable opinion (what Catholic can say that the words and deeds of Pope Francis are Catholic?), tends to become an unacceptable dogmatic certainty (what Catholic can judge with certainty of such a question?), and from there to impose itself as the dogma of dogmas, as though a person’s Catholicity is to be judged by whether or not he believes in our having had no real Pope since, say, Pius XII.

One reason offered by previous “Comments” for this often observed internal dynamic of sedevacantism may be the Gordian-knot simplicity with which it slices through an agonizing and faith-threatening problem: “How can these destroyers of the Church be true Catholic Popes?” Answer, they are not Popes at all. “Oh, what a relief! I need no longer agonize.” The mind snaps shut, sedevacantism is to be shared as though it were the Gospel with whoever will listen (or not listen), and at worst it can be extended from the Popes to all cardinals, bishops and priests, so that a once believing Catholic turns into a “home-aloner” who gives up attending Mass altogether. Will he succeed in keeping the Faith? And his children? Here is the danger.

Therefore to keep our Catholic Faith in balance and to avoid the traps laid today to its right as to its left, let us look at the arguments of BpS in the 15-page article mentioned above. (“BpS” is an abbreviation which many readers will identify at once, but it need not be spelled out here because we are more concerned with his arguments than with his person.) In his article at least he does think, and he does have a Catholic’s faith in the Papacy, otherwise the Conciliar Popes would be no problem for him. This logic and faith are what is best in sedevacantists, but neither BpS nor they are working from the whole picture: God cannot let go of his Church, but he can let go of his churchmen.

For here is his argument in a nutshell – Major: the Church is indefectible. Minor: at Vatican II the Church went liberal, which was a major defection. Conclusion: the Conciliar Church is not the real Church, which means that the Conciliar Popes who led or followed Vatican II cannot have been real Popes.

The argument looks good. However, from the very same Major and Minor can come a liberal Conclusion: the Church is indefectible, the Church went liberal, so I too, as a Catholic, must go liberal. That sedevacantism thus shares its roots with liberalism should make any sedevacantist think twice. BpS notices the common roots, and calls them “ironic,” but they are much more than that. They point to liberals and sedevacantists making the same error, which must be in the Major. Indeed both alike misunderstand the Church’s indefectibility, as they mistake the Popes’ infallibility. See these “Comments” next week for a more detailed analysis of BpS’s argument.

Kyrie eleison.

Beautiful Cheese

Beautiful Cheese on September 24, 2016

In Australia just one month ago the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X painted a glowing picture of his – as he hopes – imminent subjection of the Society to the officials of Conciliar Rome. From a long discourse here are a few significant remarks he made, summarised or quoted in full (in italics):—

[ . . . ] Rome is offering us a new structure. At its head will be a bishop, chosen by the Pope from a list of three Society members, named by the Society. He will have authority over priests, over any religious wanting to join the new structure and over Catholics belonging to the new structure. These will have an absolute right to receive from Society priests all the sacraments, including marriage. This bishop will be able to set up schools and seminaries, to ordain ( priests ), to establish new religious Congregations. The structure will be like a super-diocese, independent of all local bishops. In other words, for you faithful, there will be no change from what you are already enjoying with the Society. The only difference will be that you will be officially recognized as Catholics.

You can easily imagine that there will be clashes with the local bishops. So we must be prudent, but as things stand you cannot imagine anything better than this offer, which is such that you cannot think it is a trap. It is not a trap , and if anyone makes us such an offer it can only be because he wishes us well . He wants Tradition to prosper and to flourish within the Church. It is impossible that such an offer could come from our enemies. They have many other ways to crush us, but not that way [ . . . ].

The remarks highlighted here in heavy print call for comment:—

* A “new structure” means presumably that Archbishop Lefebvre’s structure for the Society will, essentially, be abandoned. Rome is creating a completely new entity. Good-bye, dear SSPX.

* A “bishop chosen by the Pope” is extremely important. And the head of the “new structure” will presumably go on being chosen by the Pope. Ask the Fraternity of St Peter what that means. It meant in the 1990’s their own choice of Superior General being overridden by Rome, so that Rome’s own choice was forcibly installed (Fr. A. D.), to bring St Peter’s to heel.

* Note also how this bishop will be able “to ordain (priests)” but not bishops. Rome will thus retain the whip-hand over the new entity.

* “There will be no change”? But of course there will! Rome will henceforth be in control.

* “You will be officially recognized” – but what Catholic needs any recognition by such destroyers of the Church as her present neo-modernist officials? Any such recognition can only be a bad sign.

* “Not a trap . . .”? This whole paragraph is truly remarkable. The author of these “Comments” feels obliged to turn to Mickey Mouse and to his beloved partner, Minnie Mouse, for comment:—

Mickey: Darling, can you smell that delicious cheese that I can smell? Oh look, here it is!

Minnie: But Mickey, it’s a mousetrap, set by the owner of the house to get rid of us. Can’t you see that?

Mickey: It cannot be a trap! I tell you, if anyone offers us such good cheese, it can only be because he wishes us well. It’s clear that he wants us mice to prosper and flourish inside his house.

Minnie: (imploringly) Oh darling, can’t you remember how many of our cousins died this way?

Mickey: For the last time, I tell you – and I am never wrong – it is impossible for such delicious cheese to come from our enemies! They could never use that way to crush us.

Minnie: (with a deep sigh) There is no better way to crush us! And how many more of our friends and relatives are going to follow your lead? Oh, masculine pride!

Forgive the frivolity, dear readers – there is reason to fear we are dealing with a real Disneyland!

Kyrie eleison.

Church’s Infallibility

<u>Church’s</u> Infallibility on September 17, 2016

From earth to Heaven go up problems. From heaven to earth come down solutions. Many a Catholic problem needs only to be taken on high to become rather less problematic. A classic example might be the problem of the Conciliar Popes, a problem with which we have been confronted since 2013 as never before, at least so brutally. There is in any case a mystery involved, but if we do not climb high enough, we fall easily prey to one of the two classic temptations: either he is the Pope so I must obey, or I cannot obey so he cannot be Pope. But if I climb above the humanity of the Pope to the divinity of the Church, then I realise that so-called Papal infallibility is actually Church infallibility, which leaves much more room for this or that Pope, or even a series of Popes, to be rather less than satisfactory. Let us go straight to the 1870 definition of infallibility, itself infallible. Here is the text, with some words highlighted, and figures inserted:—

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra , that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, 1 by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he 2 defines 3 a doctrine regarding faith or morals 4 to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. —?Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv.

In this text we see clearly the famous four conditions for the Pope to be speaking infallibly, but we see also immediately following the two words here highlighted which seem to be not often noticed, but which make very clear where the Pope’s infallibility comes from: it comes not from himself but from the Church. Let us draw a familiar comparison from modern life, from a housewife plugging her electric iron into a socket in the wall. For the iron to be heated, she must plug it into the socket, but the electricity which will then heat her iron comes obviously not from herself but from the local power station.

For a Papal definition to be infallible, the Pope must plug the four conditions into the Church, so to speak, and he is the one and only person on earth that can do that, which is why it is called “Papal infallibility,” but the infallible protection from error which he then obtains comes not from himself but from the Holy Ghost through the Church, somewhat as the electricity comes not from the housewife but from the power station through the socket. And so just as the housewife may have all kinds of personal qualities or defects, but just so long as she puts the plug into the socket, they make no difference to her iron being heated or not, similarly the Pope may be a Saint or much less than a saint, but if he is the duly appointed or elected Pope, then from the moment that he engages the four conditions, his definition will be necessarily free from error.

What this means is that whenever the Pope does not engage those four conditions, strictly speaking he can talk nonsense just like the rest of us, without the Church ceasing to be infallible. And in fact her Ordinary Infallibility is much more important than this Extraordinary Infallibility of Papal definitions, as previous issues of these “Comments” sought to illustrate with another familiar comparison, that between a mountain and its snowcap (see ECs 343 and 344, Feb 8 and 15 of 2014). The snowcap may provide greater visibility, but to be visible where it is seen it totally depends on the mountain’s bulk beneath it. So once we take the problem on high, it is not so important for the Church if the Conciliar Popes are out of their minds. We may suffer here below from fallible Popes, but Mother Church remains serenely infallible.

Kyrie eleison.

Islam’s Origins

Islam’s Origins on September 10, 2016

In recommending to readers “Plot Against the Church” by Maurice Pinay, a book which proves with a wealth of documents that the main external enemy of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years has been the Jews, these “Comments” stated that Jews were behind Islam, Freemasonry and Communism. No readers contested that they were behind Freemasonry and Communism, but a few asked what shows that they were also behind Islam. Indeed since Islam arose in the seventh century after Christ there is for Islam nothing like the documentation that exists for the modern roots of Freemasonry and Communism. In fact experts on Islam will say that even many original documents on the beginning of Islam may have been destroyed, precisely to cover up its true origins. We are left with the text of the Koran itself and historical arguments to point to Jews as the originators of Islam.

As for the text of the Koran, one who studied it closely before the Council, Hanna Zakarias, came to the conclusion in his book “True Mohammed, False Koran” that it was entirely the work of a Jewish Rabbi. To support his thesis that Islam is simply Judaism explained to Arabs by a Rabbi to convert them to the one true God of the Old Testament, Zakarias maintains that there is no story, no detail in the Koran that is not specifically Jewish, referring to the Old Testament, the Talmud or other Jewish literature. Only a Jew, he argues, could so glorify Israel as the Koran does, at the head of the nations, sole receiver of the one Revelation of the one true God. Thus passages in the Koran honouring for instance John the Baptist and the Blessed Virgin honour them purely as Jews, cutting out all connection to Christianity (Sourat XIX, 1–21). As for Jesus, he may have been the son of Mary, but he was certainly not the Son of God.

On the contrary a post-conciliar student of Islam, Laurent Lagartempe, states in his book “Origins of Islam” that there are many questions as to the historical person of Mohammed, and he argues that the Koran is a medley of disparate texts, more or less stabilized only two centuries after the beginning of Islam, to justify the new religion, and to act as its holy text to rival with the Old and New Testaments of Moses and Jesus Christ respectively. But Lagartempe does not contest a significant presence of Judaism in the Koran, nor its influence.

As for the historical arguments for Jews being behind Islam, Pinay’s book documents the well-known part played by Jews in helping the Arabs to conquer Catholic Spain between 711 and 788, reconquered by the Catholics only in 1492. Lagartempe reasonably supposes that the preceding Arab conquest of North Africa from 647 to 710 was also helped by the Jews, because those countries south of the Mediterranean, once a thriving part of Christendom, have ever since remained mostly under Arab control.

However, perhaps the main argument for Jews being behind Islam is of a more general order, and hardly disputable, resting on the quite special role played in history by the people of the Messiah, Our Lord Jesus Christ. To begin with, the training of the Israelites for that role by God himself stretched over 2,000 years from Abraham to Christ. See in the Old Testament how specially God both rewarded and punished them, to form them as the cradle of the Messiah to come. This formation gave to the Jews a quite special familiarity with the one true God, and they have never entirely lost it ever since. And that familiarity gives them a special ability to fabricate substitute religions that seem to satisfy men’s real religious needs.

Alas, they refused their Messiah when he came, and that refusal gives them a special motivation to fabricate false religions to pull human beings away from Christ and away from eternal salvation. Here is why Maurice Pinay can show how they have fought down all the centuries against the Catholic Church. Today they are indisputably behind the Muslim invasion of the once Catholic nations of Europe, to dissolve the last remnants of the Faith, and so stop those nations from opposing their New World Order.

Kyrie eleison.

Mary’s Glory

Mary’s Glory on September 3, 2016

Between the Catholic Feasts of Our Lady’s Assumption into Heaven (August 15) and Our Lady’s Birthday (September 8), it may be a good moment to reflect upon a major Protestant objection to the devotion of Catholics to Our Lady, namely, all attention, honour and prayer directed towards Our Lady is so much taken away from Our Lord – he alone is our Redeemer, so to him alone should all our devotion, worship and prayer be directed. The following quotation, coming as from Our Lord himself, puts many such objections in a different perspective:—

The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself.

She is the Mother. How sweet it is for children to look upon their mother! I gave her to you for that reason, so that you would have a gentle Majesty to behold, splendid enough to seize and to hold your gaze but not so brilliant as to dazzle your sight. Only to souls chosen out by me for special reasons which you cannot dispute have I shown myself in all the brilliance of the God-Man, absolute Intelligence and Perfection. However, the gift of that vision had to be accompanied by another gift to make living souls capable of enduring such knowledge of me without being annihilated by it.

Whereas all of you can look upon Mary. Not because she is like you, far from it! Her purity raises her so high that I, her Son and her God, treat her with veneration. Her perfection is so great that all Paradise bows before her throne which bathes in the changeless smile and everlasting brilliance of Our Threeness. But this brilliance which permeates and imbues her more than it does any other creature of God is tempered by the purest veils of her stainless flesh through which she shines like a star, gathering together all of God’s light and spreading it around like a gentle illumination upon all his creatures.

And then she is for ever your Mother. And she has all forms of the Mother’s kindness, making excuses and interceding for you and patiently leading you on. Great is Mary’s joy when she can say to a soul that loves her, “Love my Son.” Great is my own joy when I can say to a soul that loves me, “Love my Mother.” And greatest of all is our double joy when we see either a soul at my feet leaving me to go to my Mother, or one of you held in my Mother’s arms leaving her to come to me. Because the Mother is jubilant when she can give to her Son more souls enamoured of her, and the Son is jubilant when he sees more souls loving his Mother. For when it comes to our glory neither of us seeks to overcome the other, the glory of each of us being complete in the glory of the other.

That is why I say to you, “My child, love Mary. I give her to you. She loves you, and with nothing but the gentleness of her smile she will light up your existence.”

If Catholics knew how to let her light shine through them, they would draw numberless souls towards her Son and towards God, as truly devout Protestants can only wish.