Eleison Comments

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.

“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.