Eleison Comments

Billot – I

Billot – I on December 21, 2013

For years I have been giving a conference on the Seven Ages of the Church, based on the Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser’s Commentary on the book of the Apocalypse. Holzhauser, a German priest of the first half of the 1600’s, said that he wrote it under inspiration. The conference has been popular, especially because it fits the craziness of our age into a harmonious pattern of the history of the Church. What I had not realized, however, is that Holzhauser’s vision is shared by a famous classical theologian, making it more difficult to dismiss Holzhauser as a mere visionary or “apparitionist.”

It is in an Epilogue to the first volume of his classic Treatise on the Church of Christ that Cardinal Louis Billot (1846–1931) lays out in some detail the correspondence affirmed by Holzhauser between seven main periods of Church history and the seven Letters to the seven churches of Asia that make up Chapters II and III of the book of the Apocalypse. Billot’s Epilogue never mentions Holzhauser, but it is difficult to imagine that there is no connection. However, Billot takes care to start out the correspondence not from any vision or inspiration, but from the Greek names of the seven churches. The suitability of these names to the Church’s evolving history is either a remarkable coincidence, or more likely a trace of Providence at work – God, the Master of History!

Thus Billot says that Ephesus (Apoc. II, 1–7) signifies in Greek a “starting out,” obviously suitable to the Apostolic Age (33–70 AD) with which the Church began. Smyrna (Apoc.II, 8–11) names the second church and means “myrrh,” corresponding to the passion and sufferings of the Church’s Second Age (70–313 AD), that of the Martyrs. Pergamus (Apoc. II, 12–17) was a city famous for literature, so that “pergamum” came to mean material on which to write, corresponding to the cluster of great Church writers belonging to the Church’s Third Age, that of the Doctors (313–800). Thyatira names the next church (Apoc. II, 18–29), and means “splendour of triumph,” corresponding to the 1,000-year triumph of the Catholic Church, reaching from Charlemagne (742–814) to the French Revolution (1789).

These thousand years might also be reckoned from around the conversion of Clovis (496) to the outbreak of Protestantism (1517). But whether one marks the decline of Christendom from the Reformation or the Revolution, in any case Sardis, naming the fifth church (Apoc. III, 1–6), was the city of Croesus, a fabulously rich man, evoking an abundance of money, material prosperity and spiritual decadence, such as characterize modern times. Indeed the warnings to the church of Sardis correspond perfectly to our own age today, as we shall see with Billot in further “Comments.”

We move clearly into the future with the sixth church, that of Philadelphia (Apoc.III, 7–13), meaning “love” (Phil-) of “brotherhood” (- adelphia). Cardinal Billot has this name correspond to a last great triumph of the Church, marked notably by the conversion of the Jews as prophesied by St Paul (Rom.XI, 12), and by their reconciliation with the Gentiles, brothers at last in Christ (Eph.II, 14–16).

But the church of Philadelphia is warned that tribulation is coming (Apoc.III, 10), which corresponds to the seventh and last Age of the Church, that of Laodicea (Apoc. III, 14–22), named from judgment (dike) of the peoples (laon). It will be the Age of the last and most terrible trial of the Church, the persecution of the Antichrist, followed by the General Judgment of all souls that will ever have lived, and so of all peoples.

Kyrie eleison.

Father Rioult – II

Father Rioult – II on December 14, 2013

Let me quote Fr Olivier Rioult from his October 6 interview in Paris (cf. EC 333) on another question, much disputed within today’s Catholic Resistance – the question of organization. Fr Rioult was asked whether he thought it was possible to set up a new worldwide organization, or would he rather opt for some kind of free association such as has grouped together sedevacantists for a number of years? Here is his answer, this time in his very own words:—

“In the months to come I may be setting up a broad kind of association based on friendship with other Catholics in the Resistance, whether or not they are sedevacantists, sedevacantism being for me an opinion. But the situation is not ripe here and now for such an association. In any case whatever is Catholic is ours. So any Catholics ready to operate as Catholics and to resist the modernism reigning supreme within the Church, we will work with. Therefore yes, to a broad kind of association sharing the same common good: the Faith and worship of the Catholic Church, the defence of the Faith. Having this same common good can create friendship amongst all our groups.

“I think that the closer we come to the end times, the more Catholics will have to be anarchists, not in principle but in practice. By which I mean, they will have to be against all the powers that be, because these will all have been neutralized, undermined or subverted, operating contrary to the natural order. Hence, in practice, Catholics will have to stand up to them all, in Church or State . . . because they will all be twisted out of shape, under Masonic influence . . . serving in any case the Prince of this world. So I think it will be very difficult to create any more worldwide structures. The French Dominican priest, Fr Roger Calmel, had a clear view of things. As far back as 1970 he said that the natural leaders in any given place will have to make their ministry shine out in that one place, being tied by bonds of no more than friendship to the leaders in any other place.

“In 1970, in the French periodical “Itineraires” (#149), he wrote: “The fight for the Faith will have to be fought by little groups refusing to enter into any structured or universal organizations. Within these various groups, such as a small school, a humble convent, a prayer group, a gathering of Christian families or the organizing of a pilgrimage, the authority is real and accepted by everybody . . . All that is needed is for each Catholic to reach as far as his grace and authority will carry him in the little sphere which is certainly his to lead, and which he will take charge of without having over him any grand administrative structures to make him do so’. “

If Fr. Calmel wrote that in 1970 for the circumstances of 1970, one might say either that he was seeing too far ahead, or that Archbishop Lefebvre proved by organizing the Society of St Pius X what could still be done in 1970. But I do think that Fr. Calmel was right in the long run. One might say, watching what happened to the Society last year, that it was bound to run into the sand. Archbishop Lefebvre, like Pope St Pius X, conducted a marvelous rearguard action, but one notes how much less the Archbishop could achieve, coming70 years later than the Pope, and now we are 40 years on from the Archbishop. In a world marching to its ruin the realization of Fr. Calmel’s prophecy could not be indefinitely delayed.

Dear readers, if we wish to stay with Our Lord, we have no choice but to gird our loins. In my opinion, Fr Calmel and Fr Rioult are right. Mother of God, Help of Christians, help!

Kyrie eleison.

Transatlantic Resistance

Transatlantic Resistance on December 7, 2013

From a late autumn journey I made through centres of Catholic Resistance in Canada, the United States and Mexico, it seems as though the Resistance may be weak in numbers but it is strong in the Faith, which means that it certainly has a future. Once more the story of a faithful remnant is being repeated. With God it is quality and not quantity that counts.

Québec, once the most Catholic province of Canada, was devastated by Vatican II, but after the Council the Society of St Pius X built up important Traditional centres in Montreal and in Lévis, near the city of Québec. In Lévis now the Traditionalists are being divided, as souls strong in the Faith pick up on the Society’s dangerous change of course towards the Newchurch. The split amongst Traditionalists is a great shame, but the Faith must come first, as souls can see that are being given the grace to join the Resistance. It has the future that the Newchurch has not.

A major interest for the future of the Resistance in the USA is Fr Joseph Pfeiffer’s seminary initiative in Kentucky, which had six seminarians when I passed through in early November. I admire the fact that Fr Pfeiffer is envisaging a different kind of priestly formation for today’s insane circumstances. Since internment camps have been prepared all over the USA for any “rebels” who will seriously oppose the New World Order, it makes sense to me to be thinking of making future priests learn by heart a catechism and a Bible history, as written for children! For have the Society’s classical seminaries produced many priests strong enough in the Faith to see the need for Resistance? As after Vatican II, how many “good” priests are just following along.

In Texas I addressed a meeting of right-wing patriots who have for many years rallied around the Spotlightnewspaper, now the American Free Press, to defend their country from anti-patriots. By no means all of them are Catholics, but they do grasp that there is a serious problem in their nation’s politics. In any case they listened attentively to the argument that politics are merely a spill-over from religion, or from its lack, and that the only solution is a return to Catholicism.

In northern Mexico a former SSPX priest from Chile, Fr René Trincado, is building up thriving Resistance chapels which I visited in Chihuahua and Saltillo, and it looks as though another major Resistance centre will soon emerge in Guadalajara, a major city which was at the centre of the famous Catholic uprising of the Cristeros in the 1920’s. In fact the Resistance is an unorganised and spontaneous uprising of Traditional Catholics all over the world. Their sense of the Faith is reacting instinctively to the change of direction towards the mainstream Church being imposed from the top of the Society. Unity in a return to that Newchurch is unity in suicide of the Faith.

My last stop was Mexico City, scene of Hernan Cortes’ famous military conquest of Mexico in 1521 Even more deserving of fame is Our Lady’s miraculous spiritual conquest of the land by her apparitions in Guadalupe ten years later, creating a brand-new Catholic country. To this day her shrine attracts millions of pilgrims, and it is the same instinct of the Faith that is enabling another former SSPX priest, Fr Hugo Ruiz, to begin building up what will surely become an important Resistance centre in his nation’s capital city.

In brief, the world may be plunging into chaos and the mainstream SSPX may be giving up on the effort to resist that plunge, but a remnant of souls are realizing what is happening, and they are taking action to preserve the Faith. It may have to go into hiding, but it will not die.

Kyrie eleison.

Father Rioult – I

Father Rioult – I on November 30, 2013

Why was there not an uprising amongst priests of the Society of St Pius X when their leaders’ loss of grip on Catholic doctrine and subsequent betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre’s work became absolutely clear from March of last year onwards? Fr. Olivier Rioult, trail-blazer of the “Resistance” in France, gave several good reasons last month in an interview accessible in French on pelagiusasturiensis.wordpress.com. The following summary is freely adapted from the original text:—

Basically, original sin: Once the original fight for Tradition in the 1970’s and ‘80’s had succeeded in guaranteeing the survival of the essentials of the Faith, Traditionalists sat back on their laurels to enjoy their cosy enclaves, and they settled into a comfortable routine which they are now reluctant to lose. They have lost the spirit of fighting for the Faith.

Secondly, that particular form of original sin which is liberalism: Over the last ten years Society leaders have given the lead in weakening the fight against liberalism, error and immodesty. But to cease swimming against the current is to drift backwards, and a number of SSPX priests – by no means all – have grown weaker in their convictions and their preaching.

Thirdly, activism: some colleagues can also let themselves be run off their feet by their priestly tasks, leaving themselves no time or inclination to read or study. Turning into mere administrators and communicators, they weaken their convictions and preaching.

Fourthly, Bishop Fellay’s trickery: for years his double-talk deceived everybody except a small minority of clear-sighted souls who could absolutely not get a hearing. Only last year did his mask come off with the March “Cor Unum” and with his reply of April 14 to the three bishops. The great majority of Traditionalists he had put to sleep (as he is now doing again).

Fifthly, fear of the unknown: when the whole world around you is going mad, and you find an enclave of sanity, and then that enclave also begins to go mad, it requires unusual strength of character to face up to the reality and not prefer some illusion or other, and of illusions there are plenty! Thus many priests realize that they are living through a drama calling for some crucifying decisions, but they lack the necessary fortitude to launch into the unknown.

And last but not least, bad leaders: of course there have always been liberals within the SSPX as within the mainstream Church, but for as long as the leaders hold firm, these can be held in check. However, when in the mainstream Church John XXIII and Paul VI favoured their liberalism, the result was a tidal wave , and now that SSPX leaders have turned liberal, liberalism is sweeping through the Society as it would never have done under good leaders, true leaders.

These reasons given by Fr Rioult are all true, but none of them are stronger than that Faith which is “our victory over the world” (I Jn.V, 4). Indeed one might say that all the reasons come down to the lack of a strong enough Faith on the part of the priests, because they are living in a world in which the grip on Truth of every soul alive has been loosened, and if Truth is not true, how can Faith be true?

Then what is the simplest way to strengthen one’s grip on Truth, as we absolutely need to do in today’s crazy circumstances? In my opinion:—

“Watch and pray, watch and pray,

Fifteen Mysteries every day.”

Kyrie eleison.

Faith First

Faith First on November 23, 2013

The great lesson taught by Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) to Catholics who had ears to hear was that the Faith is higher than obedience. The sad lesson we have learned since is that obedience keeps on being rated higher than the Faith. These “Comments,” driven continually by today’s confusion in Church, world and Society of St Pius X to get back to basics, have often attempted to explain why the Faith must come first.

Take for instance the arguments of an honourable SSPX priest who recently sent me an e-mail, accusing me of wrongly assessing the present state of the SSPX. My resistance to the – as I call it – Newsociety is, he says, 1) too personally motivated, 2) forgetting the good of the Church, 3) inconsistent with positions I have taken before, 4) lacking Catholic realism, 5) against Church indefectibility, 6) for each man being his own Pope, 7) for a modernist vision of the Church, 8) Protestant, 9) against union with Rome, and finally 10) pushing souls away from the Church.

Now, I am no Archbishop Lefebvre, and I do not pretend to be, but does my colleague realize that all of these arguments (except the third) he could have applied thirty years ago to the Archbishop’s resistance to the official Church authorities in Rome? Yet the Archbishop’s resistance was 1) motivated only by the urgent need to defend the Faith, 2) for the good of the Universal Church, 4) in a completely realistic way (as the Catholic fruits of his Society proved), 5) not disproving but proving, by his very resistance, the Church’s indefectibility, 6) for the Church of all time being the measure of the Popes, 7) against all craziness of neo-modernism, 8) against modernism’s renewal of Protestantism, 9) for union with the Catholic Rome of all time, and finally 10) helping many truly Catholic souls to keep the Faith instead of losing it.

And what justified the Archbishop’s resistance back then? What proved then that he was not, despite the appearances, a rebel like Luther, but truly Catholic, and a great servant of the Church? His doctrine, his doctrine, his doctrine! Whereas Luther denied a mass of Catholic teachings, the Archbishop affirmed every one of them. It was in the name of the doctrine of the Faith that the Archbishop took his stand against the Conciliar Popes and Church authorities who were radically undermining that doctrine by renewing and adopting the dreadful errors of modernism.

So what justifies now a certain resistance to the leadership of the SSPX? How can those who resist claim to be the truest servants of the SSPX? Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine! The mid-April Declaration of 2012 was proof of an appalling doctrinal deficiency at the top of the SSPX, and while the Declaration was withdrawn, its contents have not been retracted but even defended, as being for instance “too subtle”! Nor have the official SSPX documents of July 14, 2012 or June 27, 2013 properly undone the damage. The proof is that the governing policy of SSPX HQ has not changed. Dear colleague, your own Society was founded on putting Faith before apparent obedience, and now you want to defend that Society by putting apparent obedience to the Society before the Faith? Study the documents, and watch the actions!

Kyrie eleison.P.S. Meanwhile does anybody have a complete set of Spanish or French translations of this “Commentary” from when they began to appear, in the early EC 100’s? Please let us know.

Tomorrow’s Leaders

Tomorrow’s Leaders on November 16, 2013

There are two good reasons why not even very pious Catholics should scorn economic questions. Individually, to run their own household they need common sense in this domain, now heavily discounted. And socially, they need some grasp of what is going on in the society around them, because that truth is heavily distorted by the conscious or unconscious agents of the anti-Christian New World Order (NWO), which aims to make all souls finish in Hell.

More than once readers here have had recommended to them the common sense and truthfulness of an American commentator, Dr Paul Craig Roberts. He has recently written an article arguing that the real crisis in the USA government is not its shutdown, being then much talked about, but its constant underlying inability to balance its budget, because of too little income and too much expenditure. The too little income he attributes not to the expense of Social Security, which pays its way, but to decades of out-shoring America’s manufacturing to foreign lands with cheap labour, which has so impoverished American consumers that tax revenues have severely dropped. Too much expenditure he attributes to the draining cost of one foreign war after another. So he diagnoses that for the American government to solve its real crisis, the jobs must be brought home and the foreign wars stopped. But “powerful organized interests oppose any such measures, and so Congress will do neither.”

In fact Dr Roberts adds that in his opinion the American economy cannot be salvaged in its present form because unwise use of technology is exhausting the environment. Moreover economists being “incapable of original thought” and “elected representatives being dependent on the private interests that finance their election campaigns,” then “at this time collapse seems the most likely forecast.” And there will only come something more intelligent from the ruins, he says, if there will be leaders to show the way.

The Doctor paints a dark picture, but its common sense and truth must be heeded. The common sense is that a major budget problem must be solved by a major increase in revenue or by a major cut in costs, or both. It cannot be solved by going into ever more colossal debt. One truth he mentions is the foolishness of economists without common sense, for example their pretence that manufacturing jobs, being outmoded, might just as well be out-sourced. Another truth is the power of the “organized interests” that push for foreign wars, and of the “private interests” that control the supposedly democratic elections.

But what motive can these interests have for wishing to drive the United States economy into collapse? Agents of the NWO are working hard to break down the United Sates and all Western nations with any national identity or pride, so that they will let themselves be the more easily absorbed into the NWO. Economists will be made dumb in the Schools of Economics, and elected representatives will be handsomely paid to enmesh their countries in debt, because Scripture says that the debtor makes himself servant, or slave, of the creditor. Thus the problem of Western governments is being made deliberately so insoluble that the temptation to distract the enslaved peoples with World War III will eventually become irresistible. Was it not resisted only just in the recent push for the attack on Syria? Catholics, you are going to have to be tomorrow those leaders that Dr Roberts hopes for today. Only you have the complete picture. Study and pray.

Kyrie eleison.