Tag: Blessed Mother

Blessed Cave

Blessed Cave posted in Eleison Comments on October 16, 2010

How absurd it is to separate grace from nature! The two are made for one another! How much more absurd to conceive of grace as though it makes war on nature! It makes war on the fallen-ness of our fallen nature, but not on the nature, coming from God, which underlies that fallen-ness. On the contrary, grace exists to heal that underlying nature from its fallen-ness and falls, and to elevate it to divine heights, to a partaking in the very nature of God (II Pet. I, 4).

Now nature without grace may lead to Revolution, but grace scorning nature leads to a false “spirituality,” for instance Jansenism, which also leads to Revolution. Of the gravity of this Protestantising error, which sets grace against nature instead of against sin, I was reminded on a seven-day visit to Italy which took in a visit to four mountainous sites, to which four great medieval Saints, all in the Breviary and the Missal, fled, to get close to God – in Nature. They were, in chronological order, St. Benedict (March 22, Subiaco), St. Romuald, (Feb.7, Camaldoli), St. John Gualbert (July 12, Vallombrosa), and St. Francis of Assisi (Oct.4, la Verna).

From Camaldoli and Vallumbrosa, high in the hills around Florence, two monastic Orders took their name and origin in the 11th century. In la Verna, high in the Tuscan Apennines, St Francis received the stigmata in 1224. All three locations are now reached with relative ease in bus or car, but they are still surrounded by forestland, and they are high enough above sea-level that they must be bitterly cold in winter. That is where these Saints went to commune with God, far from the comfort of cities with their “madding crowd,” still madding enough even in the rather smaller cities of those days.

Perhaps the site which struck me most was Subiaco, an hour’s car journey east of Rome, where St Benedict as a young man spent three years in a cave perched on a mountainside. Born in 580 A.D., as a young student he fled from the corruption in Rome, and took to the hills at the age of 20 or, some say, 14! – if so, what a teenager! From about 1200 A.D. a full-scale monastery began to be nested in the mountainside around the spot made sacred by this young man, but one can still guess what he found there in his search for God: clouds and sky above, the torrent rustling in the valley far below, nothing but wild woodland on the mountain-face opposite, and for company nothing but the birds wheeling to and fro off the steep cliff-face . . . alone with Nature . . . God’s Nature . . . alone with God!

Three years, alone with God . . . those three years so enabled one young Catholic to possess his soul, with Christ, in Nature, that his famous Benedictine Rule enabled the collapsed Roman empire to mutate into soaring Christendom, now in turn collapsing as “Western civilization.” Where are the young Catholics today, who will save Christendom by re-possessing their own souls by re-possessing, with Christ, their nature?

Mother of God, inspire our young men!

Kyrie eleison.

Discussions’ Usefulness – II

Discussions’ Usefulness – II posted in Eleison Comments on July 31, 2010

Some people have wondered whether the writer of “Eleison Comments” came under any kind of pressure to quote three weeks ago (EC 156) Bishop de Galarreta’s arguments in favour of the doctrinal discussions currently taking place between Rome and the Society of St Pius X. The answer is that there was no kind of pressure. Then maybe the Eleison Commentator is going soft in the head? The answer is, no more than usual.

The reason why readers wondered is of course that the “Comments” have more than once argued that there is little hope of any agreement coming out of the discussions, on the grounds that you cannot mix oil and water. If you shake furiously a bottle containing both, the oil and water will mingle for as long as the shaking goes on, but as soon as it stops, the oil and water separate again. It is in their nature. Being lighter, oil is bound to float on top of water.

It is likewise in the nature of the true Church’s divine doctrine and neo-modernism’s humanistic doctrine to be able to mingle but not mix. The “letter” or documents of Vatican II made them mingle, but not even Vatican II’s masterpieces of mingling, e.g. “Dignitatis Humanae” on religious liberty, could get the two to mix. The aftermath of Vatican II, in accordance with its “spirit,” demonstrated this. That “spirit of the Council” is still tearing the Church apart. Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” is a recipe for continuing to shake furiously, or should we say resolutely, but the religion of God and the religion of man will still not mix. They still fly apart.

Then why did the “Comments” quote Bishop de Galarreta favouring the discussions? For two reasons. Firstly, as to the discussions’ main effect, in none of his arguments – read them carefully – did he expect or hope that oil and water can be made to mix. On the contrary, when he said that he looked forward to the discussions being terminated in the spring of next year, he surely implied that the shaking of the bottle should not go on indefinitely, especially if that were to foster in anybody the illusion that oil and water can eventually be made to mix. Secondly, all of his arguments mentioned side-effects of the discussions, whereby the contacts which they bring about between Rome and the SSPX act as anti-freeze, both in the radiator of Romans wishing to freeze off the SSPX, and in the radiator of SSPXers wishing to freeze off Rome.

The Eleison Commentator has the honour of agreeing with his colleague that Rome-SSPX contacts are good for the Universal Church, so long as there is no question of the SSPX failing in its Providential mission of helping to guard from today’s Rome the Deposit of the Faith for the time when tomorrow’s Rome will come back to its Catholic senses. “Heaven and earth shall pass away,” says Our Lord, “but my words shall not pass away” (Lk.XXI,33). God forbid that the SSPX should ever join that Rome which is mingling the oil of God with the water of man!

Mother of God, keep us faithful to our mission!

Kyrie eleison.

Modern Art – II

Modern Art – II posted in Eleison Comments on July 17, 2010

By its very ugliness, modern art points to the existence and goodness of God. After three months (cf. EC 144), let us return to this paradox, in the hope that if any soul admits the common sense difference between beauty and ugliness in art, that soul may be helped further to see that if God did not exist, that difference would not exist either.

The word “art” means skill, or the products of human skill. It can cover paintings, drawings, sculpture, fashions in clothing, music, architecture, and so on. The expression “modern art” usually refers to paintings and sculpture in particular, as generated from the early 1900’s onwards by a movement of artists who deliberately rejected, and reject, all standards and measures of beauty as understood before the 20th century. The difference between pre-modern and modern art is as real and clear as the difference here in London between the classical Tate Museum on Millbank, and the Tate Modern, a completely new museum, floated ten years ago a short boat-ride downstream from its progenitor on the opposite bank of the Thames. It is as though modern art cannot sit still under the same roof as pre-modern art. They war on one another, just as do old church buildings and the New Mass.

Now modern art in this sense is characterized by its ugliness. Common sense agrees here with the Communist leader Kruschev, who is reported to have commented on a modern art exhibition in Russia, “A donkey could do better with its tail.” And what is ugliness? Disharmony. In Arianna Huffington’s admirable book, “Picasso, Creator and Destroyer,” she demonstrated how each time Picasso fell in love with another of his six (main) women, his calmer paintings reflected something of their natural beauty, but as soon as he fell out of love again, his rage tore that beauty to pieces in “masterpieces” of modern art. She shows how the pattern repeats itself in Picasso like clockwork!

Thus beauty in art comes from a harmony in the soul, be it a merely earthly harmony, whereas ugliness proceeds from a disharmony in the soul, as of hate. But harmony has no need of disharmony, on the contrary, whereas disharmony, as the word suggests, presupposes some harmony on which it is, essentially, making war. Thus harmony is prior to disharmony, and every disharmony testifies to some harmony. But more profoundly harmonious than any paintings of lovely women can be paintings of the Madonna, because the harmony in the soul of the artist painting the Mother of God can go far higher and deeper than the harmony inspired by any merely human model, however lovely. Why? Because the beauty of the Madonna derives from her closeness to God whose divine harmony – perfect simplicity and unity – infinitely surpasses the human harmony of the loveliest of mere creatures.

Therefore poor modern art points to the harmony it lacks, and all harmony points to God. Then let nobody resort to the ugliness of modern architecture to house the Tridentine Mass. One would guess he was wanting, or waiting, to go back to the disharmony of the Novus Ordo Mass!

Kyrie eleison.

Discussions’ Usefulness

Discussions’ Usefulness posted in Eleison Comments on July 10, 2010

Many Catholic souls presently worried by the on-going discussions taking place between Rome and the Society of St Pius X might be somewhat re-assured if they could hear, as I did two months ago, Bishop de Galarreta giving his reasons why these discussions should proceed to their appointed end (but no further). They present little danger and several advantages, he says.

After the introductory meeting last October, there were discussions proper in January, March and May of this year. Each meeting has a before, a during and an after. Beforehand, the team of four SSPX representatives submits to the four Roman theologians a declaration of Catholic doctrine on the matter in hand, together with the problems raised by the contrary doctrine arising out of Vatican II. At the meeting itself, the Romans give their answers, and the ensuing oral discussion is recorded. Afterwards, the SSPX draws up a written summary of the recorded discussion. So far only the liturgy and religious liberty have been discussed, but the Bishop envisages all further necessary discussions being terminated by the spring of next year.

In evaluating these discussions, he distinguishes between the mere fact of their taking place, and their content. As to their content, he says that the SSPX team is disappointed by the oral discussions because, as another member of the team told me, “They lack theological precision. Two lines of thinking which cannot meet produce not a dialogue but rather two monologues. However, the Romans are nice to us, so the meetings are not so much vinegar as mayonnaise. We say what we think. We are under no illusions.” But the Bishop does say that the discussions’ written product from before and after the meetings will constitute a valuable dossier for the demarcation of Catholic Truth from Conciliar error, and for the tracking down of the latest evolution of that error. “Since the time of John-Paul II it has become more subtle,” he says.

As to the mere fact of the discussions, the Bishop sees several further advantages. Firstly, it is good for Romans to get to know representatives of the SSPX, and vice versa – such contact can cut out much of the Devil’s beloved smoke and mirrors. Nor does the Bishop see great danger in the contact, because these particular Romans are not perverse, he says, and it is clear where they are coming from and where they want to go. Secondly, the mere fact that Rome at the highest level is seriously discussing SSPX doctrine gives to the SSPX credit in the eyes of many a mainstream priest of good will, otherwise inaccessible for Tradition. And thirdly, some of Rome’s best brains are occasionally stopped in their tracks by the old arguments being newly put forward by the SSPX. In other words Catholic Truth may be only beginning, but it is beginning, to impose itself once more.

Dear readers, let us have patience, and a boundless trust in the Providence of God – after all, it is his Church! And let us pray to the Mother of God to maintain in each of us the love of that Truth which alone can save our souls, and without which Catholic Authority can never be restored.

Kyrie eleison.

Catholic Balance

Catholic Balance posted in Eleison Comments on June 26, 2010

When last week’s “Eleison Comments” began by seeming to sympathize with the “sedevacantists” who believe that the Popes since John XXIII have not been Popes at all, and ended by seeming to sympathize with Cardinal Kasper for making fun of the unauthoritative Society of St Pius X, I know that there was at least one reader that was confused, and I suspect that she was not alone. But everything drops into place if one assumes that from Vatican II onwards, Catholic Truth has been split from Catholic Authority.

Now the Catholic Authority of the churchmen should be welded to the Catholic Truth of Our Lord, because that human Authority only exists to protect and teach that divine Truth. But at that dreadful Council (1962–1965), centuries of Protestant heresy and Liberal dissolution of truth had at last so wormed their way into the hearts and minds of a large majority of the Council Fathers that they gave up on the purity of Catholic Truth, and to this day they have been using all their Catholic Authority to impose on Catholics the Council’s new and false religion of man.

Whereupon Catholics have been torn apart, both from one another and in themselves, as was inevitable. For either they have had to cling to Catholic Truth, and more or less abandon Catholic Authority, which is the solution of the “sedevacantists.” And when one looks primarily at Catholic Truth, one may well sympathize with them, so horrible has been the betrayal of Truth by the highest churchmen, ever since that Council began. Or Catholics have chosen to cling to Catholic Authority, and more or less abandon Catholic Truth, which is the solution of Cardinal Kasper. And when one looks primarily to Catholic Authority, one may well sympathize with his loyalty to Benedict XVI, and understand the Cardinal’s smile when he finds himself rebuked for not being Catholic by the wholly unauthoritative Society of St Pius X, still practically excommunicated.

Yet Archbishop Lefebvre chose a third way, in between the two extremes of either Truth or Authority. His way, in which he has been followed by that SSPX, was to cling to Catholic Truth, but with no disrespect towards Church Authority, nor any blanket disbelief in the status of its officials. It is a balance certainly not always easy to keep, but it has borne Catholic fruit all over the world, and it has sustained a faithful remnant of Catholics with true doctrine and the true sacraments for the 40 years we have so far spent in the Conciliar desert (1970–2010).

In that desert we Catholic sheep may have to be scattered for a while yet, as long as the Shepherd in Rome is struck (Zech.XIII,7, quoted by Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane –Mt.XXVI,31). In this Gethsemane of the Church, we do need compassion on our fellow sheep. That is why I can sympathize with “sedevacantists,” and even with liberals (up to a point!). But that no way means that the third way as traced out by Archbishop Lefebvre has ceased to be the right way.

May the Great Mother of God long protect the little Society!

Kyrie eleison.

Conciliar “Theologian” – II

Conciliar “Theologian” – II posted in Eleison Comments on June 12, 2010

When last week “Eleison Comments” laid out six errors of one of the leading theologians of Vatican II, Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu, it said that the order of the errors had been changed from the original order in Si Si No No, and it suggested that thereby hangs a tale. That tale is the disastrous dethroning of the mind by modern times.

In Si Si No No, Sentimentalism ranked first among the errors. Then came Subjectivism, Historicism, the Turn to Man (Anthropocentrism), Evolutionism and Immoralism. To start with Sentimentalism is to start with man as one finds him today, i.e. wallowing in his feelings. Here are two examples amidst hundreds, or thousands: in religion, “God is much too nice to send a single soul to Hell”; in politics, “It is not patriotic to question who was behind 9/11.”

“Eleison Comments” chose rather to rank the errors in order not of immediacy but of depth. Then Anthropocentrism in the sense of turning away from God comes first, because turning away from God is at the root of all sin and error. Next come the three errors attacking the mind, Subjectivism, Historicism and their consequence, Evolutionism. They too come before Sentimentalism because – and here is the interesting point – only after the rightful king has been dethroned can the usurper take his place. Only after the mind is disabled can feelings take over. Ranking last on both lists is Immoralism, or the denial of right and wrong, because all disorder in the soul and mind ends up in disorder in action.

To grasp the natural primacy of the mind over feelings, a primacy which for many a modern soul is not obvious, let us resort to a comparison with a sailing-ship. If the captain by deliberately letting go of the rudder leaves his ship at the mercy of wind and wave until eventual shipwreck, nevertheless whenever he chooses to take the rudder in hand again, it belongs to the nature of the rudder to enable him to steer the ship, and by making good use of wind and wave to reach port. Similarly if a human being by deliberately letting go of his reason leaves his soul at the mercy of feelings and passions, adrift towards eternal Hell, it nevertheless belongs to the nature of his mind, whenever he chooses to re-activate it, to guide him to Heaven, however precarious at first may be his reason’s command of his passions and feelings.

Then how is a man to put his mind back on its throne? By turning back to God, because it was his turning away from God that let loose the dethroning of his mind in the first place, since to turn away from God he soon after had to begin dismantling his reason. And how does a man most easily turn back to God? Let him start with one “Ave Maria,” let him move on to a few, then to a decade of the Rosary, and finally to five decades a day. If he does that, he will begin to think again.

Mother of God, save our minds!

Kyrie eleison.