Freemasonry

Hebdocure

Hebdocure posted in Eleison Comments on January 31, 2015

Last week these “Comments,” in a most politically incorrect manner, presented the heavily publicized January 7 attack in Paris on Charlie Hebdo as an attack upon the remains of Christian civilisation in France. Then let them this week put forward how Christian civilisation would solve the problem, in the same order, for cartoonists, gunmen, politicians, peoples and conspirators.

As for the cartoonists, if France were still Catholic, Church and State would still be united, as they were until the French Revolution, and State authorities would absolutely have forbidden such blasphemous anti-Christian cartoons as those by which Charlie Hebdo may well have provoked Almighty God to allow for the silencing of its cartoonists. But that would be censorship? Only a fool can think we suffer under no censorship today. The censorship is simply anti-Christian instead of Christian. Who today is free to blaspheme against Holocaustianity and its “gas-chambers”?

As for the muslim gunmen, to a Catholic France they might never have come. Never would Catholic State authorities have despised or hated muslims in their own countries, but at the same time never would they so have lost sight of the historic clash between Islam and Christianity as to allow to settle in France such a mass of muslim immigrants as have been allowed, even encouraged, to settle in France since World War II. Nor would they ever have learned to scorn their own race and despise their own traditions as they have allowed themselves to be taught to do today. By the Fourth Commandment a Catholic loves his own country above all, without wishing ill to any others.

Most important of all, if France had stayed Catholic, neither the politicians nor the people would have become the puppets that they are today of hidden puppet-masters, the Globalists. In the 17th century France was Catholic as a whole, but in the 18th century, for lack of Catholic faith, its ruling class allowed itself to become thoroughly infected with another form of Globalism, Freemasonry. Launched in its modern form in apostate England in 1717, Freemasonry swiftly spread to France and North America where it master-minded the American and French Revolutions in 1776 and 1789 respectively. Both of them were major steps towards the Globalists’ New World Order.

Now, for as long as the Catholic Church was still in its right mind, it denounced and condemned Freemasonry as being a secret society designed to undermine and overthrow the Catholic religion altogether – see for instance Leo XIII’s Encyclical Letter, Humanum Genus of 1884. Thus from the French Revolution onwards, States have been ever more separated from the Catholic Church and have been put instead on secular and democratic foundations. More and more the new middle-class rulers have abandoned the Catholic religion in favour of liberalism, which is in effect a substitute religion, adoring man and his liberty instead of God and his Truth. So in the name of “freedom” journalists took over from priests, and their liberal media took over the people’s thinking. But all the while journalists and media have been secretly directed by Freemasonry, working for the Globalists’ New World Order. Here is how, under cover of “democracy” and “freedom,” the highly motivated Globalists have been able to reduce peoples and politicians to puppets of public opinion, moulded by their media. To turn one’s back on God’s Truth is to enslave oneself to Satan’s lies.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was designed for a huge demonstration to favour godless liberty, or rather licence, and a murderous muslim-European tension. More such events will follow, to arrive at bloodbaths from which the Globalists count on emerging supreme, from which Almighty God hopes that men will see that rejecting him is a huge problem, the basic problem. If the States will not see this, it remains only for families to pray the five Mysteries a day, and individuals the fifteen a day (if reasonably possible), to beg Our Lady to intercede with her Son.

Kyrie eleison.

Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories posted in Eleison Comments on November 5, 2011

Following on the recent “Eleison Comments” on deicide (EC 222), some readers may hope that “Eleison Comments” will often mention the part played by Jews in world affairs, but they risk being disappointed. In 225 issues that have appeared so far, I doubt whether the Jews have been mentioned by name in much more than half a dozen. For, whatever problem they may or may not represent, they are certainly not the primary problem. The primary problem is the godlessness of modern man, which I hope most readers find is the central concern of “Eleison Comments.”

Conspiracy theories, like that of the Jews conspiring to dominate the world, are plentiful, but there are two exaggerations between which it is wise but not easy to hold the right balance. Most people follow the media in holding that all conspiracy theories are nonsense and the only people who believe in them are “conspiracy nuts.” On the other hand a small minority of people, but with strong convictions, hold that all world events are to be explained by some conspiracy or other, especially a Jewish conspiracy. The essential truth was best told by a famous Church writer 1800 years ago.

Tertullian (160–220) said that the Catholic Faith and Jewish power are like the two pans of a pair of scales: as Catholic Faith goes up, so Jewish power goes down, and as Catholic Faith goes down, so Jewish power goes up. But the Faith overtops the power. That is why the primary problem is not the Jews, but the increase or decrease of the Faith amongst men. That is why conspiracies do exist, they have an important part to play and they are not to be merely scorned, but the central problem is men turning away from the true God in his one true Church. In brief – and here is the crucial point – the Gentiles have only themselves to blame if Jewish power is today so great.

Therefore whoever begins to see what notably Disraeli and Woodrow Wilson hinted at but could hardly say openly, namely that there is a dark power behind the scenes directing world events, let them not lose their balance in cursing the Illuminati or the Jews or the Freemasons or whoever, but let them realize the wisdom of the words of Pius X: “Let every man do his duty, and all will be well.” That is because our first duty is towards God, as the First Commandment indicates, so that if we all did our duty and made our way back to God, it would be mere child’s play for him to undo that present power of his various enemies which he alone let them have in the first place by not intervening to prevent it.

Thus before Our Lady appeared at Fatima in 1917, the anti-Catholics had brought the government of Portugal completely under their control, but when virtually the entire Portuguese people prayed and did penance as Our Lady had asked, then she simply dissolved the anti-Catholics’ power in a bloodless revolution. Portugal became, in the godless 20th century with Communism triumphing everywhere, the showcase of a Catholic State.

The most intelligent of God’s enemies are well aware that they are serving him as a scourge to be laid across the backs of his unfaithful people. If only God’s friends would understand how they are being scourged by his enemies to help all souls to turn to him and so get to Heaven, then conspiracy theories would all drop into place: neither more, nor less, important than they really are.

Kyrie eleison.

“Greek Gifts” – III

“Greek Gifts” – III posted in Eleison Comments on September 3, 2011

Speculation is only speculation. Journalists are only journalists. But an Italian journalist claimed last month that he had the authority of a”Vatican insider” for writing that the Sept 14 meeting between Roman officials and the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X with his two Assistants may discuss a possible canonical regularization of the SSPX. Here is a summary of Andrea Tornielli’s main points (see http://​vaticaninsider.​lastampa.​it/​en/​homepage/​inquiries-and-interviews/​detail/​articolo/​lefebvriani-vaticano-tradizione-fellay-7423/​):—

The Vatican officials will submit to the SSPX (1) a clarification of Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” to show how it is the more authentic interpretation of the texts of Vatican II. “Only if,” says Tornielli, this clarification overcomes the doctrinal difficulties will there then be presented (2) a solution to the canonical irregularity in which the SSPX bishops and priests still find themselves: an Ordinariat such as was given to the Anglicans in May, whereby the SSPX would depend directly on the Holy See through the Ecclesia Dei Commission. This arrangement would enable the SSPX to “retain its characteristics without having to answer to the diocesan bishops.” But (3) any such agreement is not certain because “within the SSPX co-exist different sensitivities.”

From everything we know in public about Vatican-SSPX relations, Tornielli’s forecast for the Sept 14 meeting seems highly probable. But each of his three main points deserves comment:—

Firstly, as to the doctrinal gulf between today’s Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX, it cannot be said that Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” is a solution (see EC 208–211). If Tornielli is right, it will be interesting (not edifying) to see how Rome tries once more to prove that 2+2 can be 4 or 5, 5 or 4. Catholic doctrine is as rigid, if not always as clear to us human beings, as 2+2=4.

Secondly, as to the canonical arrangement evoked by Tornielli, if – unimaginably – the SSPX were to accept any kind of doctrinal compromise, then in no way could the SSPX both come under the present Holy See (2+2=4 or 5), and still “retain its characteristics” (based on 2+2= exclusively 4). The practical agreement would exercise a constant and finally irresistible pressure to make Catholic doctrine no longer exclusive but inclusive of error, which would be to adopt the Freemasons’ ideology and to abandon the very reason for existing of Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX.

And thirdly, Tornielli may well be right that an agreement is not certain, but he and his “Vatican insider” are absolutely wrong if either of them thinks that the problem is one of “different sensitivities.” Sensitivities are subjective. The central problem between the Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX is as objective as 2+2=4. At no point in time, reaching backwards or forwards into eternity, on no planet or star created or creatable, can 2+2 ever be anything other than, exclusively, four.

When all Archbishop Lefebvre’s efforts had failed in the negotiations of May 1988 to obtain from then Cardinal Ratzinger a secure place for the Faith within the mainstream Church, he said some famous words: “Your Eminence, even were you to give us everything we wanted, still we would have to refuse, because we are working to christianize society, whereas you are working to de-christianize it. Collaboration between us is not possible.”

Kyrie eleison.

Faith Victorious

Faith Victorious posted in Eleison Comments on August 6, 2011

By way of answer to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ persuasive criticism of Pope Benedict’s thinking, laid out briefly in the last four numbers of these “Comments,” what then shall we say (Rom.VI, 1)? Let us look at three arguments by which good Catholics might seek to defend the Pope from the accusation that his thinking is not Catholic.

A first line of defence might claim in general that to attack in any way the Pope is to help the enemies of the Church. But is not the primary duty of the Pope to “confirm his brethren in the Faith” (Lk.XXII, 32)? If then a Pope’s thinking seriously strays from the Faith, to point out to him, with all due respect, where he is going astray, is not to attack him, or to do the work of the enemies of the Church. It is to help him to see clear to do his duty, and to remind him of the one and only means he has of conquering those enemies, who are today more powerful than ever – “This is the victory which overcometh the world – our Faith” (I Jn.V, 4).

A second objection to Bishop Tissier’s argument, particular to our own time, might be that Pope Benedict is a prisoner in the Vatican, so he is not free to defend Catholic Tradition as he would really wish to do. Now it is true that the post-Conciliar Popes have been surrounded by high-up Church officials who are Freemasons secretly bent upon destroying the Church. It is also possible that since Vatican II the money-men have had more and more of a financial slip-knot around the Vatican’s neck. But enough dollars would follow the true doctrine, if only it were proclaimed, and if Benedict’s faith were not imprisoned by Hegelian errors, it would easily have the victory over the Freemasons all around him. Victory by martyrdom? It might take a series of martyr Popes, but if only we deserved them, as in the early Church, the Vatican would soon again be free!

A third more direct objection was alluded to in the last “EC”: Benedict XVI might claim that he believes not only in Faith and Reason correcting one another, but also in the Traditional Faith. Thus, he might say, he himself absolutely believes that Jesus’ own crucified body rose alive with his human soul from the tomb on Easter morning, so if he also tells modern man that the real meaning of the Resurrection is not a material body coming out of a material tomb, but spiritual love conquering death, that is merely to make the Resurrection accessible to disbelieving modern man.

But, Holy Father, did or did not that crucified body rise alive from that material tomb? If it did not, stop believing that it did, stop even pretending to believe that it did, and resign from being the Pope of delusional Catholics. But if it did rise from the tomb, then THAT is what you must proclaim to poor modern man, and you must – pardon my language – cast his disbelief in his teeth. Modern man does not need to be told about luv, luv, luv. He hears it all day long! He does need to hear the rational argument, not pre-supposing faith, that only Our Lord truly risen could have both stopped his implacable enemies in their tracks and turned his totally dispirited Apostles into world-conquerors.

Holy Father, it is useless trying to get through to the world on its own rotten terms. Conquer it on Our Lord’s terms! And if you are obliged to give to us an example of martyrdom, do believe that that is the example that many of us may need in the not too distant future. We humbly pray for you.

Kyrie eleison.

Traditional Infection

Traditional Infection posted in Eleison Comments on January 29, 2011

Liberalism is an unbelievable disease, capable of rotting out the best hearts and minds. If we define it, most briefly, as the liberation of man from God, it is as old as the hills, but never has it been so deep or widespread or seemingly normal, as it is today. Now religious liberty is at the heart of liberalism – what use is it to be free from everything else and everybody else if I am not free from God? So if Benedict XVI lamented three weeks ago that “religious freedom is threatened all over the world,” he is certainly infected. Nor let even followers of Catholic Tradition be confident that they have immunity from the disease. Here is an e-mail I received a few days ago from a layman in Continental Europe:—

“For the longest time, about 20 years, I was moulded by liberalism. It is through the grace of God that I underwent a conversion with the Society of St Pius X. To my shock I have found liberal behaviour even in the ranks of Tradition. People are still saying that one should not exaggerate how bad things are at present. Freemasonry is hardly mentioned as being an enemy of the Church, because to do so might damage one’s personal interests, so people go on reacting as though, overall, the world is still in good shape.

“Some Traditionalists even recommend psycho-drugs to deal with the stress that goes with being a Traditional Catholic, and if you are looking for happiness, they say, you should go to a medical doctor to make life easier.

“The consequence of such behaviour is an indifferentism which is the seed-bed of liberalism. All of a sudden it is no longer so bad to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, to make common cause with modernists, to change one’s principles from one day to the next, to give up showing one’s faith in public, to study at a State university, to trust the State, and to act on the assumption that everybody does after all mean well.

“Our Lord has harsh words for this sort of indifferentism: the lukewarm he will “begin to spit out of his mouth” (Rev. III, 16). It may sound paradoxical, but the greatest enemies of the Church are liberal Catholics. There is even a liberal Traditionalism!!!” (end of layman’s quote).

What then is the antidote for this poison that threatens every one of us? Sanctifying grace, no doubt (Rom.VII, 25), which can clear the mind of confusion, and strengthen the will to do what the mind sees to be right. And how do I make sure of sanctifying grace? That is a little like asking, how can I guarantee my final perseverance? The Church teaches that one cannot guarantee it, because it is a gift – or the gift – of God. But what I can always do is pray the Holy Rosary, an average of five Mysteries a day – better, if reasonably possible, fifteen. Whosoever does that is doing what the Mother of God asks all of us to do, and she has a virtually unlimited maternal power over her Son, Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

Kyrie eleison.

Valid Bishops?

Valid Bishops? posted in Eleison Comments on October 31, 2009

Remarkable confirmation of the Society of St. Pius X’s balanced position on the validity of the Newchurch sacraments appeared last week in the bulletin of a fighting Gaul, “Courrier de Tychique.” From a “reliable source” it appears there that Freemasonry, ancient enemy of the Church, planned for the Conciliar Revolution to invalidate the Catholic sacraments, not by alteration of their Form, rendering them automatically invalid, but rather by an ambiguity of their Rite as a whole, undermining in the long run the Minister’s necessary sacramental Intention.

The “reliable source” is a Frenchman who heard directly from a venerable old priest some of what Cardinal Lienart on his deathbed confessed to the priest. No doubt fearing Hell, the Cardinal begged the priest to reveal it to the world, and thus released him from the Confessional seal. The priest was thenceforth discreet in public, but in private he was more forthcoming as to what the Cardinal revealed to him of Freemasonry’s three-point plan for the destruction of the Church. Whether or not he entered Freemasonry at the precocious age of 17, the Cardinal rendered it supreme service when only two days after the opening of Vatican II he wrenched the Council off course by demanding irregularly that the carefully prepared Traditional documents be rejected altogether.

According to the Cardinal, Freemasonry’s first objective at the Council was to break the Mass by so altering the rite as to undermine in the long run the celebrant’s Intention: “to do what the Church does.” Gradually the Rite was to induce priests and laity alike to take the Mass rather for a “memorial” or “sacred meal” than for a propitiatory sacrifice. The second objective was to break the Apostolic Succession by a new Rite of Consecration that would eventually undermine the bishops’ power of Orders, both by a new Form not automatically invalidating but ambiguous enough to sow doubt, and above all by a new Rite which as a whole would eventually dissolve the consecrating bishop’s sacramental Intention. This would have the advantage of breaking the Apostolic Succession so gently that nobody would even notice. Is this not exactly what many believing Catholics are now afraid of?

Howsoever it may be with the “reliable source,” in any case today’s Newchurch Rites of Mass and Episcopal Consecration correspond exactly to the Masonic plan as unveiled by the Cardinal. Ever since these new Rites were introduced in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, many serious Catholics have refused to believe that they could be used validly. Alas, they are not automatically invalid (how much simpler if they were!). They are worse! Their sacramental Form is Catholic enough to persuade many a celebrant that they can be validly used, but they are designed as a whole to be so ambiguous and so suggestive of a non-Catholic interpretation as to invalidate the sacrament over time by corrupting the Intention of any celebrant either too “obedient” or insufficiently watching and praying.

Rites thus valid enough to get themselves accepted by nearly all Catholics in the short term, but ambiguous enough to invalidate the sacraments in the long term, constitute a trap satanically subtle. To avoid it, Catholics must on the one hand shun all contact with these Rites, but on the other hand they must not discredit their sound Catholic instincts by exaggerated theological accusations which depart from sound Catholic doctrine. It is not always an easy balance to keep.

Kyrie eleison.