Tag: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Faith Crucial – II

Faith Crucial – II posted in Eleison Comments on January 13, 2018

Your Excellency,

Talking with an Indult priest (one who says the true Mass but obeys the Church officials in Rome) I have become confused about Archbishop Lefebvre and the stand which he took in defence of the Faith. I thought he was right, but now I am not so sure. Here are some of that priest’s arguments:—

1 The Archbishop disobeyed Rome. That proves that he was proud.

2 Had he given up his Society and seminaries to obey Rome, he would have been heroic.

3 If he disobeyed Rome to save Tradition, he did evil in order to bring about good, which is wrong.

4 To obey a Pope as misguided as Pope Francis is, is a martyrdom by which one imitates Christ.

5 For Bishop Fellay to step into the jaws of the Roman lion is, in spiritual terms, heroic.

Dear Sir,

In sane times the Catholic Church gives to souls a clear direction as to what is true or false, right or wrong, and you would need to be in no confusion. But ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) these have not been sane times, because the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism. So ever since the 1960’s, Catholics have been confused from top to bottom of the Church, by trying to go in two directions at once. For instance, your Indult priest says the Mass of the true religion, while meaning to obey the Romans set upon the false religion. No wonder it confuses you to listen to him. And you will remain confused until you fully grasp the difference between God’s true religion and men’s Conciliarism – God may want you to do some more homework.

A Catholic is a Catholic by the Faith he believes in, by the sacraments he receives and by the hierarchy which he obeys. But he is firstly Catholic by his Faith, without which he would have no concern for the Catholic sacraments or hierarchy. Therefore the Catholic Faith is fundamental to a Catholic, and it is that Faith which the Roman officials abandoned at Vatican II in order to get off the wavelength of God and onto the wavelength of modern man. Therefore Conciliarism is fundamentally different from Catholicism and it creates a quite different viewpoint from which to consider pride, heroism, obedience, and so on. The Catholic viewpoint is true, the Conciliar viewpoint is false. Now, to the Indult priest’s arguments:—

1 The Archbishop was not proud, because he was defending God’s truth and putting God before men. On the contrary, heretics like Luther and Conciliarists are proud because they are defying God to please men.

2 He was heroic not by giving way to Rome, but by resisting Rome, in order to put God first.

3 When he did what he did in order to save Tradition, he was doing not evil but good to achieve good.

4 Catholic martyrdom lies in suffering harm and death not just for any cause, but only for the true Catholic Faith. The Archbishop suffered a true martyrdom not by giving way to the Popes who had gone wrong, but by doing all he could to make them see how they were abandoning the true Faith.

5 His successors on the contrary, by doing all they can, since 2000 at least, to bring the Archbishop’s Society under the control of the Conciliar Romans, are in no terms heroic because they are putting men before God. Nor are they martyrs, nor are they truly imitating Christ, but they are indeed proud.

Dear Sir, I hope that by now you can see that everything in the Church must ultimately be judged in the light of the Truth and of the Faith. This is because a man’s faith or lack of it is his basic attitude to God. A man may choose to go to Hell if he wants, but if he wants to go to the one true Heaven of the one true God, then he must start by believing in Him, according to the true Faith.

Kyrie eleison.

SSPX, 2018?

SSPX, 2018? posted in Eleison Comments on January 6, 2018

As the world plunges downhill, more and more people are opening their eyes and are wondering where it will end. As the Catholic Church is led resolutely downhill by a pope who seems intent only on rubbing out the last traces of the pre-Conciliar Church, more and more Catholics are opening their eyes and are driven to wondering if the Council (1962–1965) was not some kind of problem for the true Catholic Church. Then they look towards the Society of St Pius X, because it was founded in 1970 by Archbishop Lefebvre precisely to ensure the continuation of the pre-Conciliar Church, and what do they find? A group of priests more and more sympathetic to the post-conciliar Church, less and less clear on Vatican II, and sliding into the arms of the Conciliar Romans. Result? Many of these souls looking for the Truth are more confused than ever. So where are the Church and the Society of St Pius X headed in 2018?

Souls looking for the Truth must read (for instance Ralph Wiltgen’s The Rhine flows into the Tiber, or Archbishop Lefebvre’s Letter to Confused Catholics). That is how many Catholics found their way in the 1970’s and 1980’s towards the Traditional movement where they found again the true Church which they knew they had lost after the Council’s “renewal.” And in Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) they found a leader with a clear and Catholic vision of what had happened at the Council – it had taken place under pressure from the modern world to conform to the world, whereas from the beginning of the Church through to the 20th century, it was always the Church that had put the world under pressure to conform itself to God. In this perspective, Vatican II represented an upheaval, a turning upside down, without precedent in all Church history, but the Council Fathers were nearly all more or less beglamoured by the modern world. It is this upheaval which set the course of the official Church from the Council until today. And given that the enemies of God and man were behind the modern world and behind Vatican II, and given that by a just punishment of God they are now deeply entrenched within the offices of the Vatican, then in 2018, short of a miracle or of grave events intervening, the official Church will continue on its downward plunge.

And the Society of St Pius X in 2018? At the beginning of July, in six months’ time, the SSPX holds its elections for those who are to be for the following 12 years its three senior officials, the Superior General and his two Assistants. If the 40 leading priests of the Society who vote in those elections wish to continue the Society’s slide into the arms of Conciliar Rome, i.e. the official Church, then no doubt they will vote for Bishop Fellay to be Superior General so that he can finish the work of replacing the Archbishop’s clear vision of the need to resist Vatican II with his own confused vision of blending Catholic Tradition with Vatican II, which is like blending fire with water. For just as Paul VI (1963–1978) dreamt of saving both Church and modern world by blending them in Vatican II, and almost crushed the life out of the Church by his tyrannical dream, so Bishop Fellay has drained the life out of the Society by clamping upon it his parallel dream of saving both Tradition and Council in a messianic reconciliation of his own making. The vision is quite different from the Archbishop’s. Then how will the 40 priests vote? Upon their vote depends how the Society will develop in 2018, at least from July onwards.

However, there was a reason for Vatican II, and that was the ever widening gulf between God’s true Church and modern man. The strain of holding them together became unbearable, and the Council Fathers snapped. Archbishop Lefebvre stood his Catholic ground and founded the Society, but his successors at its head have in turn snapped under the strain. Today’s godless world surrounds all of us, and its siren charms are highly seductive. Catholics must “watch and pray” – they need to read, and to continue reading, and they must have a strong prayer life by which to cleave to God – 15 Mysteries of the Holy Rosary, every day.

Kyrie eleison.

Liberalism = Religion

Liberalism = Religion posted in Eleison Comments on December 2, 2017

Not only is liberalism a serious sin that dishonours Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in fact a religion. We are dying of liberalism and of its consequences. For two centuries it has spread everywhere, in our schools, in our societies. It is a poison that destroys the commandments of God, together with everything that makes the beauty and greatness of a Christian civilization. In his Encyclical Humanum Genus Leo XIII said about Freemasons: “We must tear off their mask and show them as they are, so that we avoid them and their errors.” I believe that liberalism is a fruit of Freemasonry which also needs to be unmasked, until we fully understand its dangers.

Liberalism has its goddess: it is liberty. At the time of the French Revolution, liberals worshipped the goddess of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, that is to say, liberty, the liberty of Man, this liberty which has its statue at the entrance of New York harbour, which they celebrated in an incredible way not long ago. Man is free, finally freed from all law, and in particular from the law of God. Liberty is the goddess of the religion of liberalism.

Liberalism has its priesthood, in the person of Freemasons, a secret, organized, extremely efficient priesthood. There are thousands and thousands of Freemasons. The exclusively Jewish sect of B’nai B’rith alone, with its very frequent access to churchmen in Rome, and its presence at the meeting of Assisi, has five hundred thousand members throughout the world. The Grand Orient is also widespread.

Liberalism has its dogmas: they are the Declaration of the Rights of Man. As the Popes have taught, these rights of liberalism are the instruments invented by Freemasonry to use against God, to free man from God. Henceforth man is free to sin, to disobey God . . . liberty of the press . . . is just one of several supposed Rights of Man which have been condemned by the Popes for a century and a half.

Liberalism has its morality which is simply immorality: no brakes on liberty. For twenty years liberals have succeeded in introducing into the legislation of almost every State all those principles which go against Catholic morality, such as abortion, free union, etc. – living in sin is favoured by tax systems.

Liberalism has its politics: notably democracy, the democracy of numbers. It is the people who are – supposedly – in charge. But in fact, “democracy” is about better subjugating them, dominating them, dispossessing them for the benefit of an omnipotent State, of a totalitarian socialism which gradually destroys the right of ownership, which makes the citizen work for a third of the year for the State. Citizens become in effect slaves of the totalitarian State. Liberty so-called is the politics of Liberalism.

Liberalism has its education: education must be atheistic, secular, and one throughout the nation. In France, it was not the bishops who defended the freedom of non-governmental education, but families. If there had not been two million people who went to Paris to defeat the socialist law on education, there would be in France today only government education, and private education would have disappeared.

Liberalism has its economics, directed by international financial associations. To the extent that States apply a liberal morality, a liberal economy, a liberal education, liberal laws, even if they incur enormous debts, they are supported by the International Monetary Fund. On the contrary States resisting liberalism are financially undermined and economically ruined, if possible. The Vatican itself was ruined by International Finance. Freemasons infiltrated the pontifical finances, and transferred the Vatican fortune to Canada, where it disappeared. Immediately the Freemasons and International Finance intervened with the offer of any financial support needed. Here are the pressures that can be exerted on Rome in the appointment of bishops or cardinals, on anything that the Pope does. He is now practically in the service of masonic liberalism. We have to say it like it is.

So said Archbishop Lefebvre (abbreviated) in Barcelona in 1986. Need one word be changed today?

Kyrie eleison.

Menzingen Commands

Menzingen Commands posted in Eleison Comments on November 11, 2017

By no means all readers of these “Comments” are in favour of criticism of the words and deeds of the Headquarters at Menzingen of the Newsociety of St Pius X. However, there are many who see that just as Archbishop Lefebvre was, for the good of the Catholic Church, fully justified in taking his fruitful stand against its being wrecked by the Second Vatican Council, so one is fully justified, for the same salvation of souls, to criticise in public the slide of that Newsociety into the arms of Rome’s Conciliar officials. The June issue of Menzingen’s in-house journal for Society priests, “Cor Unum,” published yet another hard-hitting justification of that slide. Menzingen is obdurate. Menzingen must be corrected, in public.

There follows in italics a fair summary of some of the main arguments, which can be checked (in French) on the Internet at the website Résistance catholique francophone:: Cor Unum juin 2017

Archbishop Lefebvre made Society relations with Rome the concern of the Superior General (SG) alone.

That was because he knew that his own priests under him could not be relied upon to understand the extreme need for prudence in dealing with the Roman officials. The present SG proves how right he was.

The General Chapter of 2006 entitled the Society authorities to dismiss from the Society any priest disagreeing with their policies in public – “This warning is to be taken seriously.”

That is just how Paul VI “dismissed” Archbishop Lefebvre. Does Menzingen see who it is imitating? And did the priests voting in 2006 foresee where their authorising such dismissals was going to lead?

No matter how good are the dissenting arguments, public dissent always harms the common good.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre harm the (true) Church’s common good by his two decades of dissent? Truth is the ultimate measure of authority, especially in the Catholic Church, and not the other way round!

Archbishop Lefebvre saved the Church by forming priests in accordance with Catholic Tradition.

Not exactly. Forming good priests was his way of saving the Catholic Faith. But priests now being formed by Menzingen to go along with Conciliar Romans risk saving neither Faith nor Church.

The Archbishop always recognized, and wanted Society priests to recognize, the Church authorities in place, both before and after he consecrated four bishops in 1988.

Yes, but in 1988, after the Romans had once and for all proved that they would not look after the Faith, his attitude towards them changed radically: “Up till now, diplomacy, but from now on doctrine,” he said, as Menzingen well knows, but Menzingen just does not see doctrine’s importance as the Archbishop did.

Exactly. Dissenters from Menzingen are making questions of prudence into matters of Faith.

No. To submit believing Catholics to Conciliar – i.e. disbelieving – Romans, is directly a matter of Faith.

But how can such Romans be converted if the Society’s believing Catholics refuse all contact with them?

How can Catholics keep the Faith if they submit to contagious, even innocently dangerous, modernists?

But not everything in today’s mainstream Church is Conciliar. It includes conservatives, who like us.

But the conservatives have no power. All power in Rome is in the hands of Freemasons who are bitter and resolute enemies of Catholic Tradition, of Our Lord’s Church, of Our Lord and of God. And everything in the mainstream Church is being taken ultimately in the Conciliar direction, especially by Pope Francis.

Kyrie eleison.

Catholic Soldier

Catholic Soldier posted in Eleison Comments on September 2, 2017

Once again good news and bad news, this time for English-speaking readers, from the United States. The good news is that there is a Traditional and Resistant quarterly magazine, beautifully produced on paper, sent by snail mail, and which is as politically incorrect as can be, because it is militantly Catholic. It is called Oportet Christum Regnare (Christ must reign), and it is edited by Mr. Hugh Akins, a veteran of the Vietnam war in the 1960’s, wounded then and shot at since in most probably an assassination attempt, because his brand of Catholicism must seriously displease the enemies of God who run the world today. The bad news is that the magazine is attracting barely enough subscriptions to be able to pay its way. That is a pity, because it throws a rare light on Church and world, a light most useful to any Catholics who seriously wish to save their souls. Akins’ light on the modern world is clear from his summary of his own very courageous book, written a few years ago: Synagogue Rising, OCR # 6, p.67:—

The book upholds the Church’s traditional teaching on the Jewish question, documenting the Jewish threat, bringing that threat up to date in relation to the most burning issues and events of the 20th and 21st centuries, including two World Wars, the rise of communism, the rape of the Holy Land, the plundering of the Church at Vatican II, the 9/11 attack on America by Israel, the whole war-on-terror hoax with the planned onset of World War III, and then the connection of all of that to the Jews, the modern apostasy, Fatima, Russia, world peace or the annihilation of nations . . . . To disseminate the truth that sets men free, one will not be concerned with being branded an “anti-semite.” Anti-semitism, so-called, has nothing to do with hatred of the Jews, but rather is a very effective Jewish smear-tactic designed to silence all opposition by discrediting anyone who dares to expose the diabolical intrigues behind the Talmudic and Zionist war against Christ and His Church ( . . . )

This light of Akins on the world goes hand in hand with his light on the Church. By God’s will the Church is inserted in our fallen world. Studying the history of that Church, Akins must have come across the pattern of the bimillennial enmity of the Jews towards Our Lord and His Catholic Church, and knowing how relentlessly this theological enmity is disguised and hidden from view, Akins, like Pope Leo XIII with Freemasonry, must have felt himself obliged to “strip off the mask.” May angels protect him!

But his value for Catholics in particular is that he understands, and in OCR keeps on explaining, not only why the Archbishop was the main upholder of true Catholicism after the “plundering of the Church at Vatican II,” but also why today’s so-called Resistant priests are the main upholders of the Archbishop’s work, despite the appearances. At least as much as he denounces the Church’s external enemies, Akins also identifies and condemns and gives reasons for condemning her internal enemies, within the Society of St Pius X as within the mainstream clergy. Akins is a soldier of Christ, fighting the true war both in Church and world, for the salvation of souls. That war is fiercer by the day. The paper copies of Oportet Christum Regnare may cost more than electronic sources of information, but they are more lasting, and will be a permanent asset of lasting and valuable orientation in a home library.

For subscriptions to Oportet Christum Regnare, or back issues, or much good Catholic reading, in particular for Synagogue Rising, contact Hugh Akins at hughakins@comcast.net, or order directly from the Catholic Action Resource Center/League of Christ the King website at www.ca-rc.com.

Kyrie eleison.

P.S. Not tomorrow, but next Sunday, September 10, after Holy Mass at 10h00, Dr David White, retired Lecturer on World Literature at the U.S.A. Naval Academy, will give three lectures at Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs, England, on Fr Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889), English Jesuit and important poet of the Victorian Age. Use him as a bridge leading from your Faith into the neglected but nourishing world of the English poets. Trains afterwards at 17h26 and 17h42 from Broadstairs back to London.

 

Menzingen’s Mistake – III

Menzingen’s Mistake – III posted in Eleison Comments on July 22, 2017

Another Society of St Pius X priest (Fr. PR, for public relations) has descended into the arena to defend his Superiors’ pursuit of official recognition of the Society by Rome. Fr. PR’s defence is also well presented, but again it suffers from the same essential fault as does the pursuit of the recognition which he is defending – a lack of realism. Principle is one thing, practice is another, even if it is governed by principles. To be a master of principles is not to be a master of practice, and vice versa. It is noteworthy how Fr. PR’s defence of his Superiors’ pursuit of recognition starts out by saying that in this defence he, Fr PR, is only interested in the principles: firstly, whether one can in principle accept recognition from a modernist, and secondly, just how far one can in principle collaborate with a modernist.

To prove that one can accept recognition from a modernist Pope, he argues that Archbishop Lefebvre sought it from Paul VI until the latter’s death in 1978, and in 1988 he only refused collaboration with John-Paul II in practice, but not in principle. Nor did the Society’s General Chapter of 2012 demand of Benedict XVI a profession of Catholic Faith, to do which betrays at any time a schismatic spirit. But, one replies, the clash between the Archbishop and Paul VI from 1974 onwards is well-known, and behind the Archbishop’s refusal in practice of the Protocol of 1988 were the principles of his Faith. 2012 was just the moment when the Society abandoned the Archbishop by abandoning his stand on the Faith in principle, and as for a schismatic spirit, who was in reality in schism? – the Archbishop or the modernists? As for Pope Francis, Fr PR argues that he is the Pope; that the Church is what not he, but what Our Lord, made it; that collaboration with him is with him only as Catholic Pope. But, one replies, in real life, as the rot of an apple is and is not apple, so the Conciliar Church is and is not the Church. In real life, the Society is not dealing only with the Catholic Church or a Catholic Pope, but directly with Conciliar rot.

Thus when Fr PR, examining secondly how far one can collaborate with a modernist, answers that one can do so insofar it is for the good of the Church, he constantly abstracts from today’s reality. Thus:—

* The Church is indefectible – Sure, but Conciliar churchmen are defecting all the time.

* The Society is serving the Church, not churchmen – Sure, but it has to go through false churchmen.

* A Catholic prelature could not be refused – Sure, but not if it is managed by false churchmen.

* The Pope need only stick to its terms – Sure, but what protects a piece of paper from such managers?

* The Pope’s authority is from God – Sure, but not in order to destroy the Church (II Cor. XIII, 10).

* The Society was right to accept jurisdiction for confessions and marriages – Fr. PR, are you so sure? What if that was just the cheese on a mousetrap?

* Such a practical question as this last question on our situation right now “is not in the power of this article to judge,” replies Fr. PR, but the very possibility that it might not be a trap proves for him that accepting or not Rome’s canonical recognition “should not be judged only on the basis of one’s unity with the Pope’s faith.” And so he concludes that “canonical recognition should be accepted if it is for the good of the Church and rejected if it is not, regardless of the Pope’s faith.”

But, Father, ask yourself – this Pope’s “faith” being what it is, would or would not a canonical recognition bring the Society under mainstream, i.e., modernist, Superiors? Yes, or no? In real life, do you really think that this Pope would grant a prelature which would not bring the Society under Rome’s control? In other words, under the control of people who no longer believe in objective truth? There is much beauty in Catholic principles, but they have to be applied in a real, often all too real, world.

Kyrie eleison.