Deposit of Faith

Discussions’ Usefulness – II

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.

Discussions’ Usefulness

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.

“Humanly, Finished”

on July 3, 2010

Your Excellency, I don’t get it! Firstly (EC 153), you make the “sedevacantists” look so good that the Society of St Pius X comes out looking all wrong. Then you make Cardinal Kasper, another adversary of the SSPX, smell of roses. Yet you go on to suggest he is the proof that the Church is finished! To cap it all (EC 154), you say that the SSPX is right after all! My head is spinning! Okay, take it easy! Let’s start with the easy part of the answer, and go on to the interesting part. Last week (EC 154) I said that Vatican II split Catholic Truth from Catholic Authority, and that between excessive “Truthists” like the “sedevacantists,” and excessive “Authoritarians,” like Cardinal Kasper, the SSPX has the right solution of guarding the fullness of Truth together with as much of Catholic Authority as is compatible with that Truth. Naturally this mid-way solution gets attacked from both those sides, but to give to both opposite errors a sympathetic hearing can and should help to understand the true solution between them.

Alright, your Excellency, but why did you say, just because the Cardinal smiled, that the Church is humanly finished? Because abandoning Truth is in itself much more grave than abandoning Authority, because Authority only exists to serve Truth, so Truth is primary while Authority is secondary. Thus “sedevacantists” have Faith (why else would misguided Vicars of Christ bother them?), and their minds still work (their arguments appear to be very logical), whereas from the moment that a Catholic accepts, because of Authority, Vatican II with its religion of man, he begins to lose his Faith in the one true religion of God, and he begins to destroy his mind, by forcing it to digest contradiction, because the two religions do absolutely contradict one another, in principle and in practice – look around you!

What the Cardinal’s smile showed was just how far the highest churchmen have lost the Faith (at least before men), and destroyed their minds by the Conciliar pursuit of “ecumenical dialogue.” The fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ who founded only one Church, which is necessarily contradicted, more or less, by any other “church” or religion or non-religion. How then can Catholic churchmen talk officially with any non-Catholics except for the central purpose of converting them? To “dialogue” for any other purpose is implicitly to deny that Jesus Christ is God. No wonder the Cardinal sees the SSPX taking him to be a heretic. And he merely smiles.

For he still thinks, because of Authority, that he believes all that a Catholic believes. This means that the Cardinal has lost all notion of contradiction, that his Faith and mind are gone. When a man’s highest faculty is gone, his mind, what else is there to rescue him? Only a miracle. And the Cardinal is typical of today’s churchmen. Short of a divine miracle, today’s official Church is finished.

Kyrie eleison.

Cardinal Smiles

on June 19, 2010

A recent smile of Cardinal Kasper confirms my long-standing belief that despite the profound liberalism of the Conciliar Popes since John XXIII, still one need not doubt their really having been Popes. A number of serious and believing Catholics do doubt it because they cannot see how real Vicars of Christ can depart so far from the Catholic Faith and Church of Christ as these Popes have done. Indeed there is a problem, grave beyond all measure.

These “sedevacantists,” as they are usually called, argue that if anybody walks like a heretic, talks like a heretic and, as Americans say, quacks like a heretic, then he IS a heretic. But a heretic excludes himself from the Church. Therefore these Popes have excluded themselves from the Church and cannot possibly have been its Head – how can a non-member be a head?

The true answer, I believe, is that the heresy which automatically casts out of the one and only Ark of Salvation is so grave that to commit it, somebody must fully know and fully mean what he is doing. He must realize that he is denying Catholic truth that has been defined with God’s own authority by God’s Church, in other words that he is defying God. Without this realization, called “pertinacity” by the Church, he may be denying divine truths, but he is not yet defying God, or casting himself out of the Church.

Now “sedevacantists” find ridiculous the idea that Popes, profoundly educated in Church teaching, do not know what they are doing when they utter such enormities as does Benedict XVI, to take just one example amongst many, on the on-going validity of the Old Covenant. To make a heretic fully realize what he is doing, in olden days, when the Church was in her right mind, the Pope’s Inquisition (or Holy Office) would pull him over, confront him authoritatively with his error, and urge him to renounce it. If he refused, then his pertinacity was clear to all, and the wolf was cast out of the sheepfold. But such a confrontation requires authority, both to summon the heretic and to declare his error. What then if, since Vatican II, it is the highest Church authority which no longer discerns Catholic truth?

Enter Cardinal Kasper. At a press conference he held on May 4 in Paris (already referred to in EC 148), he is reported as saying, correctly, that the Society of St Pius X staunchly opposes the Catholic Church’s dialogue with other Christian churches for which he is responsible. “They’ve attacked me as a heretic,” he said with a smile.

Well might he smile. By what authority, if you please, does the mere SSPX condemn the ecumenical dialogue which has been the Universal Church’s principle and practice ever since Vatican II, which is preached everywhere by Benedict XVI, and for which he is the Pope’s prime agent? Surely it was only charity towards those misguided “Traditionalists” that prevented the good Cardinal from bursting into laughter!

Humanly speaking, the Church is finished. But not divinely.

Kyrie eleison.

Conciliar “Theologian” – I

on June 5, 2010

The havoc wrought upon souls throughout the world by the 1960’s collapse of the mass of Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council, is immeasurable. So one can hardly reflect too much on the essential problem, because it is still very much with us, in fact more so than ever. It threatens to send all of our souls down to Hell. Last year the Italian fortnightly periodical, Si Si No No, published an article summarising the main errors of a pioneer “theologian” of Vatican II, the French Dominican Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu. Laid out still more briefly below, his six errors point to the heart of the problem: the putting of man in the place of God (I have changed their order – thereby hangs a tale for another “EC”):

Turning to man, as though it is God that needs to be adapted to modern man, and not modern man to God. But Catholicism strives always to fit man to God, and not the other way around.

Submitting divine Revelation to modern ways of thinking, e.g. Descartes, Kant, Hegel. No more is there any absolute, objective Truth. All religious statements become merely relative and subjective.

Submitting divine Revelation to the historical method, meaning that every truth arose merely in its historical context, so that just as every historical context was or is changing, so no truth is unchanging or unchangeable.

Believing in pantheistic evolution, meaning that God is no longer the Creator essentially distinct from creation. He becomes no different from creatures, which come into being by evolution, and by evolution are constantly changing.

Putting feelings first in matters of religion, i.e. putting religious sentimental experience above either supernatural Faith in the mind or supernatural Charity in the will.

Denying the difference between good and evil, by claiming that the mere existence of a human act makes it good. Now it is true that every human act that happens has the goodness of being, but it only has moral goodness if it is ordered to its end, which is ultimately God. Human acts not ordered to God are morally evil.

The six errors are obviously inter-connected. If (1) religion is to centre on me, then (2 & 3) I must unhook my mind from reality, where religion centres on God. With the mind crippled, then (4) “nothing is but what is not,” so everything evolves, and (5) feelings take over (whereupon religion is by the fault of men feminized, because emotion is women’s prerogative). Finally, where feelings replace truth, (6) morality collapses.

In the Vatican II documents themselves, these errors are rather implicit than explicit, because the errors had to be disguised for the documents to get the vote of the mass of Catholic bishops who were attending the Council but were not yet sufficiently up-dated. However, these errors represent the fully up-dated “spirit of Vatican II,” which is where the Council was headed, and that is why the official Church has been on a path of self-destruction for the past 45 years: 1965 to 2010. For how many more years?

Kyrie eleison.

Embattled Parents

on May 8, 2010

Sister’s words from last week’s “Eleison Comments” remain in my mind: “The world has a tight grip on our girls.” Over a mere three years “the change of their mentality is noticeable. We struggle to maintain principles and morality.” Now the world is hardly going to ease off its pressure on the girls, on the contrary. Then either our Catholic Faith has ceased to be “our victory over the world” (I Jn.V,4), or Sister’s words may be a red light flashing to warn us all that our Faith needs to be activated, or Catholic Tradition may need to be sifted again?

For between home and school, if school is responsible for, say, two-sevenths of a child’s formation, home is responsible for at least five-sevenths. That is why, as was suggested here last week, it is a grave error for parents to think that if they have entrusted their child to a good school, their duty is done. The main responsibility for children’s formation has always belonged in the home. Sister would certainly not shuck off onto the home what is her own responsibility, but on the other hand her main hope, after the mercy of God, must be good homes.

Now nobody reasonable can today not have compassion on parents. For instance, father is liable to be run ragged by commuting, by unsatisfying work, by an anti-catholic work-place, while mother is liable to be exhausted by the series of children God can send if she and her husband are to obey the laws of Catholic marriage, by schooling them at home if outside schools are too corrupt, by work outside the home as well as inside if an incorrupt school outside is expensive, and by people’s scorn if she stays at home. In any such worst case scenario, God expects of none of us to do the impossible. But he does expect us to carry our Cross, and to do the possible.

Fathers, are you acting as the manly – not tyrannical! – head of the family? Do you put family before money, or money before family? Are you giving your girls the example of loving and supporting their mother? Do you listen to her? Are you encouraging her to dress or behave for your own pleasure in such a way as can only give to your daughters bad example? They will do much more what she does than what she says. Do you take time with your girls? Do you give them that wise attention and care which they so much need from their father? Mothers, only one question: do you give to your girls the example of respecting and obeying their father (even if he may not always deserve it), or do you use your tongue to make him small in front of them? Do both of you give to them an example of respect for the priest?

One last question for fathers and mothers: have you ever listened to those Catholic parents of children around the time of Vatican II who were asleep at the switch of their children’s formation, woke up too late and have now nothing but tears to shed for their children living, and being prepared to die, outside the Faith? Throw out that TV set! Fellow-priests and Sisters, let us not be afraid of making ourselves unpopular! And let us all beware of our Catholic Tradition becoming so cosy that for our own good the Lord God must let us do a re-run of Vatican II!

Kyrie eleison.