Tag: Consecration of Russia

Inside Story – III

Inside Story – III posted in Eleison Comments on November 1, 2014

To continue the story of Our Lady’s messages to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) six years ago, some background is needed. Vatican II (1962–1965) wrenched the Catholic Church off course to reconcile it with the godless modern world. Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) founded the SSPX in 1970 to help Catholics to stay on course, and for 21 years he kept it on course. But as soon as he died, mistakenly convinced (or self-deluded, God knows) that they were still following him, his younger successors in fact dreamt of a reconciliation with Conciliar Rome.

In 2000 the Conciliar leaders sat up and took notice of the SSPX when it made a highly successful Jubilee pilgrimage to the Basilicas of Rome. Public (as opposed to private) contacts were re-opened between the SSPX and the Romans, who now set about swallowing that SSPX which they had proved unable to spit out. “Let us talk,” they said. The SSPX leaders appeared to be wary: “You must prove your good will by liberating the Tridentine Mass and lifting the excommunications imposed on the SSPX bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988.” Little then happened, at least in public, because on both sides the idea of reconciliation needed to mature, but in 2006 Bishop Fellay, SSPX ringleader of the reconciliation, was re-elected Superior General. As we have seen, this was soon after Our Lady began to intervene with the messages of which we are telling the story.

In 2006 her desire for a Rosary Crusade for Russia’s Consecration was adopted by Bishop Fellay, but re-directed by him towards the first pre-condition for talks with Rome, the liberation of the Mass. In 2007 Benedict XVI partially satisfied the pre-conditon with his Motu Proprio. Rejoicing as though it were a complete satisfaction, Bishop Fellay moved on to the second pre-condition, the lifting of the excommunications, whereas Our Lady, immediately after the Motu Proprio, began a series of messages in August of 2007 insistently requesting that any second Rosary Crusade be dedicated to the Consecration of Russia. But Bishop Fellay would not commit himself because he knew that this Consecration did not appeal to the Romans. They wanted talks, and so did he, to reconcile the irreconcilable, Vatican II and Catholic Tradition. Now we can continue with the story.

In early 2008 Our Lady, observing how the Bishop was still hesitating, told him quite firmly through the messenger that he was “not to use the (second) Crusade for the intention of lifting the excommunications,” and that if he did, “it would be fatal for the Society of St Pius X.” She added that she would not bless any such effort, but would instead use the rosaries prayed by the faithful for other purposes. And on March 22, Holy Saturday, she said most specifically, “Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.” And she repeated, “Remember, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.”

Let the story again be interrupted to point out how pertinent this message was for the defence of the Faith, and how perfectly this inside story corresponds to the outside facts. At the head of the last worldwide bastion of the true Faith, Bishop Fellay is being tempted to put it back under the Conciliar Romans, terrible enemies of that Faith. Because he does not understand the modern world, he believes that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and he trusts in the good intentions of its authorities (on the contrary Archbishop Lefebvre, after years of negotiations with the Roman authorities, described them – in private – as “a snake”). So if this inside story is true, and if Bishop Fellay makes the wrong decision, the SSPX is doomed. What happened? (To be continued.)

Kyrie eleison.

Inside Story – II

Inside Story – II posted in Eleison Comments on October 25, 2014

When the idea of a Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia was first put to Bishop Fellay in June of 2006, he did not yet know that the idea was in fact a directive from Our Lady – the messenger had been too shy to tell him. So he did not knowingly go against Heaven’s will when on returning to Switzerland after his meeting with the messenger, he decided to take up the idea of a Crusade, but to apply it primarily to the liberation of the Tridentine Mass, leaving Russia’s Consecration among the secondary intentions. So, as Our Lady told her messenger, while she would bless the first Crusade as a sign that the messages were really from her, it would not be to confirm that the liberation of the Mass was what she really wanted. The true answer to the crisis of Church and world lay in Russia’s Consecration, as would soon be made very clear to the Bishop.

So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.

However, already in August of 2006, Our Lady had directed her messenger to send to Bishop Fellay a letter in which he was this time fully informed of all the details of her original request, including that it came from Heaven. To this letter the Bishop had responded positively, saying that he would use the boost from the first Crusade to launch the second, and that it would be best if he himself took the matter in hand. But one year later, soon after the Motu Proprio until the end of 2007, Our Lady directed the messenger to write to him, again and again, to remind him of her wish for a second Crusade that would be properly dedicated to the Consecration of Russia.

Still Bishop Fellay hesitated to commit himself, so in early 2008 Our Lady came back even more insistently with the same request for the Crusade to be dedicated to the Consecration. The problem was that Bishop Fellay had long been working on his own plan to solve the Church crisis by a reconciliation between the Society of St Pius X and Rome, and Our Lady’s request did not fit in with that plan. Therefore the more progress he seemed to be making with the Romans towards reconciliation, the more difficult it was becoming for him to keep his promise of doing what she asked, because he knew that what she asked would upset the Romans. Indeed . . .

It was at about this time that the messenger, being unaware of why the Bishop was continuing to stall over Our Lady’s request, asked her if the reason was that the Bishop was not sure that the request was indeed coming from Our Lady. “No,” came the simple answer, as Our Lady lowered her head and shook it gently from side to side, “that is not why.” Our Lady did not say what the real reason was, she only said that it was not because the Bishop did not believe that it was herself making the request.

We approach the climax of the drama. Drama it was. In early 2008 the Blessed Virgin’s message concerning the Consecration of Russia was becoming urgent, as she knew that the Bishop was seriously thinking of making use of the second Crusade for his own purposes. This time he wanted to use it to achieve the second of the pre-conditions for discussions with Rome – the lifting of the so-called excommunications of the four SSPX bishops in 1988.

Kyrie eleison.

(*Famous line from a poem by the Scot, Robbie Burns (1759–1796), meaning “go often wrong.”)

GREC – III

GREC – III posted in Eleison Comments on April 6, 2013

Wishing to put himself in the place of God, modern man seeks to replace God’s order of the world with his own. But God’s order is real, outside of and independent of man’s mind. So modern man unhooks his mind from that reality, and selects from it only such pieces as he wishes to build into his own fantasy. Now the highest order of God’s Creation is best expressed in his Church’s doctrine. Therefore all churchmen or laymen today undergoing the influence of everything “normal” in the world around them suffer from a deep refusal or ignorance of the nature and necessity of doctrine.

Here is the essential problem of GREC, as presented in two previous issues of “Eleison Comments” (294 and 295). The Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques was founded in 1997 in the salons of Paris to promote friendly meetings and exchanges between Catholics of Tradition and Catholics of the mainstream Church, in order to create a climate of mutual trust and respect which would facilitate a reconciliation between them, and an end to their unnecessary estrangement. Such a purpose gravely overlooks the importance of doctrine, not necessarily with malice aforethought, of which God is judge, but whatever foolish men may think, doctrine can no more be left out of account than can reality.

In Fr. Lelong’s book on GREC, For the Necessary Reconciliation, he tells how two Society of St Pius X priests and its Superior General “made a decisive contribution to the launching and continuance of GREC.” Even before it was launched, Fr. Du Chalard gave to Fr Lelong a friendly reception in his SSPX priory, and “in following years never ceased to support GREC in a discrete and attentive way.” At the launching of GREC, Fr. Lorans, then Rector of the SSPX Institute in Paris and exercising from Paris a decisive influence from then until now on SSPX publications, welcomed the idea of “dialogue between Catholics,” and very soon obtained from the SSPX Superior General in Switzerland approval for his participation in GREC. From then on Fr. Lorans played a leading part in all of its activities.

Those activities began on a small scale and in private. In May of 2000 was held GREC’s first public meeting to which Fr. Lorans contributed, with 150 people attending. Meetings became more and more frequent, with SSPX priests participating. Church authorities at the highest level were regularly consulted and kept informed. Fr. Lorans for his part made possible “a contact of deepening trust” and friendly exchanges with the SSPX Superior General. From 2004 GREC meetings were opened wider still to the public, and in September of that year a “theological working group” was set up with Fr. Lorans participating, and another SSPX priest and a theologian from Rome, both of whom would later be taking part in the Doctrinal Discussions between Rome and the SSPX from 2009 to 2011. GREC may well have seen in these Discussions the realization of its fondest hopes – at last the theologians were meeting in a climate which GREC had done so much to create “for the necessary reconciliation.”

Thanks be to God, the Discussions gave back to doctrine its proper primacy. They demonstrated that between Catholic and Conciliar doctrine is an unbridgeable gulf. But was GREC’s way of thinking then blocked within the SSPX? Far from it! SSPX Headquarters switched overnight from “We pursue no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement” to “There can be no doctrinal agreement, so we pursue a practical agreement”! Alas, the springtime uprising of protest last year from within the SSPX was smothered and confused again at the General Chapter of July, but SSPX HQ’s continued pursuit of a practical agreement has hardly been smothered.

“Our help is in the name of the Lord,” in particular in the Consecration of Russia. Nowhere else.

Kyrie eleison.