Catholic Church

Calming Confusion

Calming Confusion on December 12, 2009

It has taken three issues of “Eleison Comments” to disentangle why the alleged death-bed testimony of Cardinal Lienart (EC 121) could easily be true, given that it corresponds exactly to how the validity of the Catholic sacraments has been imperilled by the Conciliar sacramental Rites introduced after Vatican II (EC 124, 125, 126). A friendly critic thinks that I have been too concerned to defend the validity of the Conciliar sacraments. But I no more want to exaggerate their validity than their invalidity.

For indeed no reasonable person who loves the truth wants to do anything other than conform his mind to reality, because truth is defined as “the matching of mind and reality.” If a situation is black, I want to call it black. If it is white, I want to call it white. And if it is varying shades of grey in between, I want to make that grey in my mind no more grey-black nor grey-white than it is in reality.

Now it is true that any one sacrament administered in real life will have been either valid or invalid. There are no more shades between valid and invalid than there are between pregnant and not pregnant. But if we consider the Conciliar sacraments being all the time administered throughout the Newchurch as a whole, we can only say some are valid, some are invalid, but they have all been placed on a slide towards invalidity by the Conciliar Rites’ total thrust to replace the religion of God with the religion of man. That is why the Newchurch is on its way to disappearing altogether, and why the Society of St. Pius X can in no way allow itself to be absorbed into it.

But at what exact point on that slide any given priest or priests, for instance, so lose the true idea of the Church that they can no longer Intend to do what the Church does, God alone knows. It may well be that to reach that point takes more than I suggested in EC 125. Maybe it takes less, as our critic suggests. In any case, since only God can know for sure, I do not need to know. All I need to have clear in my mind is that the Conciliar Rites have put God’s sacraments on a slide away from God, and once it is clear to me that they are helping to destroy the Church, that they were even designed to destroy the Church, I should stay away from them.

Meanwhile, as to just how far down the slide is this or that priest, or even the Newchurch as a whole, I will apply the great principle of St. Augustine: “In things certain, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity.” And within the framework of certainties such as, within the Newchurch neither already nothing, nor everything still, is Catholic, I mean to extend to my fellow-Catholics the same liberty to judge of things uncertain as I hope they will extend to me. Mother of God, obtain the rescue of the Church!

Kyrie eleison.

Unique Delinquency – III

Unique Delinquency – III on December 5, 2009

For a Catholic sacrament to be validly administered, the Minister must have the Intention “to do what the Church does” (EC 124). That Intention requires that he have a minimally correct idea of what the Church is and does (EC 125). It remains now to be shown that Vatican II undermined that Intention by corrupting that idea, and in such a way as it can never before have been corrupted in all Church history.

This is because Vatican II was the officialization, or rendering official within the Catholic Church, of the anti-Catholic humanism going back at least to the Renaissance in the1400’s. For centuries after, the Catholic churchmen adoring the true God had stoutly resisted the modern world’s substitute adoration of man, but as that world over 500 years grew only more pagan, the churchmen finally gave up resisting in the 1960’s, and with Vatican II they set about following the modern world instead of leading it. There had always been in the Church followers of the world, but never before had that following been made official in the Universal Church!

However, the Council Fathers would not and could not give up the old religion altogether, partly because they still believed in it, partly because they had to keep up appearances. That is why the Council documents are characterized by their ambiguity, mixing the religion of God in the place of God with the religion of man in the place of God. This ambiguity means that both conservative Catholics can appeal to the letter in the Council texts to maintain that Vatican II does not exclude the old religion, and progressive Catholics can appeal to the spirit in the same texts to maintain that the Council was promoting the new religion – and here both conservatives and progressives are right! Thus the old religion was still present in Vatican II, but the skids had been put under it, and it has been disappearing ever since.

A similar ambiguity afflicts the sacramental Rites re-written in the spirit of the Council which paid outward respect to the religion of God but inwardly was embracing the religion of man. The old religion can still be there because the sacramental Forms (words essential for validity) are as a rule not automatically invalid, but at the same time all of the Rites surrounding these Forms are sliding towards the new religion. So, given the soft but fierce pressure of the modern world to put man in the place of God, and given that all sacramental Ministers have our poor old human nature which under pressure easily prefers the easy way, then these new Rites are tailor-made to undermine eventually the Ministers’ sacramental Intention and therewith the sacraments’ validity.

Catholics, avoid the new Rites, but keep the balance of truth. Say neither that these Rites are automatically invalid, nor, because they can be valid, that they are harmless. Even if they are valid, they undermine the Faith. As for the clergy that use them, say neither that they have lost the Faith if they use the new Rites, nor that they are harmless if they do use them. These Ministers may well still have the Faith, but they risk harming you if they use Rites designed to undermine your Faith. Seek out the old Rites, and the clergy that use them. By so doing you will help to save the honour of God, His true religion, and numbers of souls lost without that religion.

Kyrie eleison.

Unique Delinquency – II

Unique Delinquency – II on November 28, 2009

Last week’s “Eleison Comments” argued that the problem with the administration of sacraments in the Church following on Vatican II is that the Conciliar Revolution with its new sacramental Rites is apt to undermine not only the faith but also the sacramental Intention of any Newchurch Minister of a sacrament. It remained to be shown that the Conciliar Church undermines Catholic sacramental Intention in a way in which it can hardly have been undermined for 2000 years!

For indeed that Intention without which no sacrament is valid is the human Minister’s intention to do what the Church does, because by that Intention the Minister puts his instrumental action under the power of God, indispensable source of the sacramental grace which merely flows through the Minister’s action to the recipient of the sacrament.But a human intention depends on what idea I have of what it is that I am intending, and that idea may or may not correspond to reality. For instance I may intend to fly over the North Pole, but if I am not very good at geography I may find myself flying over the South Pole instead.

So if sacramental validity depends on my Intention “to do what the Church does,” that intention will in turn depend on my idea of what the Church does, which will certainly depend on my idea of what the Church is. Supposing then that I intend to administer a sacrament, but have been given a radically false idea of what the Church is and does – how can I have a valid sacramental Intention?

Now never before in all 2,000 years of Church history was an Ecumenical Council designed like Vatican II (1962–1965) to give to Catholics from top to bottom of the Church a false idea of what the Church is and does. This is because never before in these two millennia had mankind so universally replaced the realities of God with the fantasies of man that the fantasy finally swamped God’s own churchmen. To be sure, the fantasy was skilfully designed by them at the Council so as to make as comfortable and imperceptible as possible the slide from Catholicism into what we might call Chocolatism, the feel-good religion, but Chocolatism in its pure state is just officialized apostasy.

So never before in all Church history has it been so easy for the Minister of a sacrament to have a false idea of what the Church is: instead of the assembly of the faithful united by their Faith, sacraments and hierarchy, a sort of Chocolate Club. Never then can sacramental Ministers even with the best of intentions so easily have had false ideas of what the Church does, never so easily have arrived at the South rather than the North Pole. For, if they were born and bred within the Chocolate Club, how can they know the reality of “what the Church does” so as to be able to intend it?

And if they cannot intend it, how can their sacraments be valid?

Vatican II was a unique delinquency. Woe to its authors and to all still promoting it!

Kyrie eleison.

Unique Delinquency – I

Unique Delinquency – I on November 21, 2009

In order to highlight once more the unique delinquency of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), two weeks will not be too many to reply to a reader’s reasonable objection to the argument of “Eleison Comments” of three weeks ago (Oct. 31). That argument maintained that the sacramental Rites of the Newchurch, introduced in the wake of the Council, are of a nature to invalidate the Church’s sacraments in the long run, because they were designed by their ambiguity to erode the Minister’s sacramental Intention, without which there can be no sacrament.

The reader objected with the Church’s classic teaching that personal failings of the sacramental Minister, even his lack of the Faith, can be made up for by the Faith of the Church in whose name he is administering the sacrament (cf. Summa Theologiae, 3a, LXIV, 9 ad 1). Thus – classic example – a Jew who has no Catholic faith at all can nevertheless validly baptize a dying friend so long as the Jew both knows that the Catholic Church does something when it baptizes, and he means to do that thing that the Church does. This Intention to do what the Church does he shows by saying the words and performing the actions laid down in the Church’s Rite of baptism.

Therefore, argued our reader, the Newchurch may have corrupted the Minister’s Catholic faith, but the Eternal Church will make up for any lack of his faith, and the sacraments he administers will still be valid. To which the first part of the reply is that if the Newchurch’s sacramental Rites attacked only the Minister’s faith, the objection would be valid, but if they also undermine his sacramental Intention, then there will be no sacrament at all.

Another classic example should make the point clear. For water to flow down a metal pipe, it does not matter if the pipe is made of gold or lead, but for the water in either case to flow, the pipe must be connected to the tap. The water is sacramental grace. The tap is the main source of that grace, God alone. The pipe is the instrumentalsource, namely the sacramental Minister, through whose action flows from God the grace of the sacrament. The gold or lead is the personal holiness or villainy of the Minister. Thus the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the personal faith or unfaith of the Minister, but it does depend on his connecting himself to the main source of the sacramental grace, God.

This connection he makes precisely by his Intention in performing the sacrament to do what the Church does. For by that Intention he puts himself as an instrument in the hands of God for God to pour the sacramental grace through him. Without that sacramental Intention he and his faith may be of gold or lead, but he is disconnected from the tap. It remains to be shown next week how Vatican II was designed and is liable to corrupt not only the Minister’s faith, but also any sacramental Intention he may have.

Kyrie eleison.

 . . .And If Ever . . .

 . . .And If Ever . . . on September 26, 2009

 . . .And if ever any discussions to be held between Rome and the Society of St Pius X did seem to be arriving at a non-doctrinal “practical agreement” between them, then all Catholics wishing to save their souls would have to study the “agreement” closely – especially the fine print – to see who would in future be appointing the leader or leaders, and their successors, in the Rome-approved SSPX.

He might be given whatever title pleased either party: “Superior General” or “Personal Prelate” or “Lord High Executioner” (a personage of noble rank and title) – the name would be of no importance. Crucial would be, who was to make the decisions, and who would appoint whoever would make the decisions? Would he be appointed by the Pope or by the Congregation of the Clergy, or by any Roman official, or would he continue to be appointed independently of Rome from within the SSPX as now, by a 12-yearly election through some 40 leading SSPX priests (next election in 2018)? Yet what would the “agreement” have gotten Rome if it had not gotten them control over appointing the SSPX leadership?

The history of the Catholic Church is littered with examples of the struggle between the friends and enemies of God – normally Church and State respectively, but no longer! – for control of the appointment of Catholic bishops. For as any intelligent friend or enemy of the Church well knows, the bishops are the key to its future. As Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, in defiance of all today’s democratic nonsense, it is the bishops who form the Catholic people and not the people who form the bishops.

A classic example of this struggle is the Napoleonic Concordat of 1801 by which the newly Freemasonic French State made sure that it acquired a significant degree of control over the choice of bishops in the Church in France. Promptly all pre-Revolutionary bishops were sacked who were still too Catholic, and the Church was then securely on its way to Vatican II. Similarly when in 1905 the Freemasons broke off the union of the French State with the Church, the better to persecute it, the heroic Pope Pius X profited by his unwanted new independence of that State to appoint, and himself consecrate, a mere handful of nine bishops, but their virile Catholicism so scared the Freemasons that as soon as Pius X was dead, they hastened back to renegotiate a certain reunion of Church and State, if only they could recover control of the appointment of French bishops – and Vatican II was back on track.

The pattern was repeated in 1988 when the heroic faith and courage of Archbishop Lefebvre alone saved the SSPX by his consecrating of four bishops independently of the explicit disapproval of Conciliar Rome. The same Conciliar foxes might now “give away the store” in order to regain control of the SSPX’s four “ugly ducklings,” and their potentially independent successors – ducklings make a dainty morsel for hungry foxes! God bless Fr Schmidberger and Bishop Fellay, and all their successors who will maintain that Catholic independence for as long as Rome is out of its Catholic mind!

Kyrie eleison.

Difficult Discussions – III

Difficult Discussions – III on September 19, 2009

Two objections to the very principle of the Society of St Pius X possibly entering soon into doctrinal discussions with the Church authorities in Rome, help to frame the nature, purpose and limitations of any such discussions. The first objection says that Catholic Doctrine is not up for discussion. The second says that no Catholic may presume to discuss with representatives of the Pope, as though on an equal footing. Both objections apply in normal circumstances, but today’s circumstances are not normal.

As to the first objection, of course unchanging and unchangeable Catholic doctrine is not up for discussion. The problem is that Vatican II undertook to change that doctrine. For instance, may, or must, a Catholic State tolerate the public practice of false religions? Catholic Tradition says “may,” but only to avoid a greater evil or achieve a greater good. Vatican II says “must,” in all circumstances. But if Jesus Christ is recognizably the incarnate God, then no more than “may” is true. On the contrary if “must” is true, then Jesus Christ cannot be necessarily recognizable as God. The “may” and the “must” are as far apart as Jesus Christ being God by divine nature or by human choice, i.e. between Jesus being, or not being, objectively, God!

Yet today’s Roman authorities claim that the doctrine of Vatican II represents no rupture with Catholic dogma, but rather its continuous development. Unless then – which God forbid! – the SSPX is also abandoning Catholic dogma, it is not discussing with these authorities whether Jesus is God, it is not putting up Catholic doctrine for discussion, rather it is hoping to persuade any Romans with open ears that the doctrine of Vatican II is gravely opposed to Catholic Doctrine. In this respect, even were the SSPX’s success to prove minimal, it would still consider that it had been its duty to testify to the Truth.

But the Romans may reply, “ We represent the Pope. How dare you presume to discuss with us?” It is the second objection, and for all those who think that Conciliar Rome is in the Truth, the objection appears valid. But it is the Truth that makes Rome and not Rome that makes the Truth. Our Lord himself repeatedly declares in the Gospel of St. John that his doctrine is not his but his Father’s (e.g. Jn.VII, 16). But if Catholic Doctrine is not in Jesus’ power to change, how much less is it in his Vicar’s power to change, i.e. the

Pope’s! If then the Pope, by his God-given free-will, chooses to depart from Catholic Doctrine, to that extent he has laid aside his Papal status, and to that extent he puts himself and/or his representatives beneath whoever remains faithful to the divine Master’s Doctrine.

Therefore the same status in discussion that the Pope lays aside insofar as he departs from the Truth, any Catholic acquires by being faithful to that Truth. As Archbishop Lefebvre once famously said in front of the Roman authorities interrogating him for his dissension from Pope Paul VI, “It is I who should be interrogating you!” To stand for the Truth of God the Father is the pride and the humility, the vocation and the glory of the Archbishop’s little SSPX. If discussions with Rome meant the least danger of the SSPX being untrue to this vocation, that is when there should be no discussions.

Kyrie eleison.