Tag: modernism

Consecrations Achieved

Consecrations Achieved posted in Eleison Comments on May 20, 2017

Thanks in part, no doubt, to readers’ prayers, the two Consecrations, of Bishop Zendejas and of Russia, took place successfully in Vienna, Virginia, USA, on May 11 and 12 respectively. The weather was not good on May 11, because the rain poured down, but the outdoor tent was watertight and accommodated perfectly a congregation of around 500 people coming from all over the United States, and a few from even further afield. The weather was a little better on May 12 for the new bishop’s first Pontifical Mass with the Consecration of Russia, and with a congregation only a little smaller than on the previous day.

Special thanks went to Fr Ronald Ringrose, Traditional parish priest of Vienna, on whose Rectory grounds the double Consecration took place. He has maintained the parish of St Athanasius as a bastion of Catholic Tradition within easy striking distance of the capital city of the United States for well over 30 years, which is a considerable achievement in these troubled times for the Catholic Church. “Ad multos annos” says Mother Church to her devoted servants – may Fr Ringrose thrive for many years yet.

As for the purpose and scope of the two Consecrations, it is necessary to be both modest and clear. Ever since Vatican II (1962–1965) when the mass of Catholic churchmen surrendered to liberalism (the worship of liberty) and to modernism (the adaptation of God’s Church to the godless modern world), the Church has been in serious trouble. In 1970 Archbishop Lefebvre created the Society of St Pius X to act as an emergency lighting system for the mainstream Church going dark, but his successors at the head of the Society are doing all they can to make the emergency lighting go dark. Let us then compare Bishop Zendejas’ Consecration to a candle being lit, or a match being struck, in the increasing darkness. It has no ambition either to save or to convert either the Newchurch or the Newsociety.

What it should do is contribute to the saving of that Oldtruth, so to speak, which is at the heart of the true Church and the true Society. Working mostly in the USA, but with no territorial jurisdiction of any official kind, Bishop Zendejas will help to look after many souls in the USA that have the true Faith, and want to keep it. Accessible by car or train from anywhere in North America if anything happens to ground the aeroplanes, he is a relatively young bishop with the fullness of certainly valid Holy Orders, able to Confirm or Ordain, with or without condition, and who is by the grace of God, at least for the moment, sensible and sane – in English the word “sanity” is three quarters of the word “sanctity.” Let us lend him our prayers that he may stay sane for many years to come, or at least until a truly Catholic Pope turns on the lighting once more. At that moment Bishop Zendejas puts his episcopacy back in the hands of Catholic Rome, for the Pope to do with as he wishes. Meanwhile may the new bishop be a candle lit in the darkness, a point of reference for any soul seeking the complete and uncontaminated Truth.

As for the Consecration of Russia led by all four bishops present on the eve of the first of Our Lady’s great apparitions in Fatima, there was not the remotest pretence that their Consecration could replace that of the Pope with the bishops of the entire world, which is what Our Lady requested. There was merely the hope that by doing what lay in their power, with the support of all the congregation present, they might help to obtain from Heaven the graces necessary for the Pope to perform at last the Consecration of Russia, exactly as Our Lady requested so long ago. That Consecration will eventually take place because Our Lord said so in 1931, and then begins the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, so necessary and so long delayed.

Kyrie eleison.

Declining Slowly – II

Declining Slowly – II posted in Eleison Comments on April 1, 2017

The original letter of last week’s writer from the USA was rather longer than the EC taken from it, and many interesting things were left out. Here are another two valuable paragraphs, on Traditional schools and Traditional women. The great lesson is always the same – if I do not live as I think, I will inevitably think as I live. Patience. God does not ask of us the impossible, but on the other hand He does expect us to do our best possible:—

Perhaps modernism is making its greatest inroads into the Traditionalist Movement in education. All kinds of modern practices have made their way into its schools without anyone seeming to notice. The modernist pedagogical and psychological philosophy of the 50s and 60s is being brought in, along with all the usual buzzwords and paraphernalia. Old-fashioned teachers have become the problem. A modern army of administrators, curriculum specialists, educational experts, child psychologists, etc., is now in charge, promising as usual to make everything better, especially in worldly matters such as test scores, college placement, and lucrative careers. Supposedly Traditional schools are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the public schools.

The social revolution going on among the children in our schools daily, is especially strong among the young ladies. There is a virulent new strain of Traditionalist feminism. Many have imbibed the modern poison of equality with, and competition against, men. From a young age they are pitted against men. They want to compete against them, and they think they can do almost anything a man can. They think that the only test of whether or not a woman should do something is whether she is physically capable. To whatever Tadition may say about the role of women, they pay little or no attention. They believe the same lies that have already ruined a generation or two. They have the idea that they can have a highly successful professional career in any field, and still be a good Catholic wife and mother at the same time. The old phrase “A woman’s place is in the home” is not heard anymore in Traditional circles, in fact it is openly scorned. Worst of all, our young ladies are hearing and learning this not from the world, but from our own people. There are too many women in positions of public authority in our schools and there are too many women teachers. This is Revolutionary, and it sets a terrible example for our young ladies, which cannot be overcome by any amount of preaching. Yet what good does it do for a woman to dress modestly if she acts like a man in every other way, especially socially, economically, and politically? A few years ago anyone, not just Traditionalists, would have known this, yet now here it is, being promoted as Traditional.

Then what is so wrong with modern education and its modern methods? Answer, the heart and soul of true education is the Catholic Faith, meaning adults with the backing of the (true) Church, using their authority to teach youngsters, by direct human contact, firstly how to get to Heaven, secondly how to live sane lives as adults in the world, consistent with getting to Heaven. How many “administrators, curriculum specialists, educational experts and child psychologists” even have experience of the living classroom, let alone have the Faith? For lack of the Faith, today’s living classroom is a jungle full of wild beasts. No wonder the “experts” flee it. They are clueless, and powerless to educate.

And what is so wrong with modern women? Modern men, who have let them get out of control. God made women to be under their menfolk, even before the Fall. So what can a good girl do? Pray to St Joseph and to St Anne – both found wonderful spouses – to find a husband that she can respect. God’s arm is not shortened by the wickedness of men (cf. Is. LIX, 1). And men? Your womenfolk will find it much easier to obey you, if you yourselves obey God (I Cor. XI, 3).

Kyrie eleison.

Declining Slowly – I

Declining Slowly – I posted in Eleison Comments on March 25, 2017

Here follows an abbreviated testimonial from the United States, which hits many a nail on the head:—

The Society of St Pius X has been “rebranded,” and it is not the same as it was. As the original SSPX belonged to the Catholic Church, so the Newsociety belongs to the Newchurch. To those old enough to remember, it seems like Vatican II all over again, only worse, because this time there is no direct doctrinal attack, nor a major Council, instead the revolution is being spread by slow, almost imperceptible social transformation.

For while the appearances of Tradition are being maintained, the Traditionalist Movement is being slowly changed from within. Outwardly and materially things appear to be more successful than ever, with increasing amounts of money and buildings, but inwardly and spiritually there is decay, because the disease of modernism is imperceptibly infecting the ranks. A variety of symptoms indicate that the modernism is the same, for instance the new, young happy-faced Society priests who are just like the “peace priests” of the 60s and 70s, as the great Cardinal Mindszenty called them. But unlike the previous generation of priests they lack masculinity, and so do some of the Newsociety’s leading lay teachers.

Thus the Mass may still be Traditional, but the whole culture around it is Novus Ordo. Traditionalists want to preserve the Old Mass and the Sacraments, and some of the morals from the Catechism, but at the same time they want to have everything else the modern world has to offer. This makes many so-called Traditional Catholics, outside of the Mass and the Sacraments, largely indistinguishable from their counterparts in the rest of the modern world. The statistics are the same when it comes to divorce, annulment, “single mothers,” etc. If Traditionalists want to go with the modern world, they cannot stay with the true religion. It is one or the other.

As it is, the Traditionalist Movement is now opening up to the world, to become socially acceptable and normal. and the process of modernization is underway, slowly but surely. There is a new, young generation in charge and they are changing things. The old, quirky, embarrassing hardliners have been replaced, and Tradition has a new image, a young, happy, friendly face. The mainstream Church had its aggiornamento fifty years ago, the Society is being updated today. The old generation which fought so many battles to preserve things is now being replaced by a new generation which never knew the Novus Ordo, or how it came to be, and has never had to fight for anything. Today’s youngsters are liable to have grown up in a Traditional bubble, and have too little knowledge of yesterday’s war, background of today’s. Before the Council Bella Dodd testified to the Communist infiltration of the Church. Are we so sure that the same thing is not being done now to the Traditionalist Movement?

It was all too predictable. Being neither infallible nor indefectible, the Society is now going through what the Church went through fifty years ago – infiltration, compromise, disintegration and the same process of autodemolition. Archbishop Lefebvre would have noticed the radical change immediately, but a large number of the frogs in the Society pot have not even noticed how the water temperature is rising. The Archbishop”handed down what he received,” but how can the new generation hand down what it is no longer receiving? Therefore we now hear that the “inevitable reconciliation” is at hand. The SSPX will be accepted as part of the Newchurch, and conversely, it will have to accept the Newchurch. It will now be just one of many side-chapels in the Pantheon of the New World Order. And as for “reconciliation,” which side has given in to the other? Has the Conciliar Church become Catholic? Far from it!

See next week further examples from the same witness.

Kyrie eleison.

Fairy Tale?

Fairy Tale? posted in Eleison Comments on February 4, 2017

Once upon a time there was a young girl (SSPX) who had been very well brought up by her good father (Archbishop Lefebvre). He had warned her about Don Juan (Neo-modernist Popes). For a number of years the girl was serious and sensible, and she resisted Don Juan’s advances. Alas, one day her beloved father died, and the girl inherited his fortune. For a while she remained faithful to his commands. Surrounded by a group of other wise girls (anti-liberals of the SSPX) she continued to administer her fortune by looking after the orphans on her father’s estate (Traditional Catholics).

But time was passing. She was no longer so young. She began to fear growing too old to marry. She was afraid that to card her wool and work on her embroidery she would soon be on her own. Poor girl! She so wanted to be loved, to have her own legitimate children (Traditionalists recognized by Rome). She wanted to achieve more than just doing charity work for orphans. She was bored with her life. She was being mocked and insulted by neighbours who wanted her to get married (conservatives and Traditionalists gone over to Rome).

Now Don Juan had shown again and again how wicked he was, and he had ruined and dishonoured many a good girl (Communities gone over to Rome), but he was heir to the largest family in the Kingdom, with the title of Vice-Roy (Vicar of Christ). After a prolonged study of the girl’s character and virtue, he decided on a special way to seduce her – he would appeal to her highest feelings. So he began by admitting that he was far from perfect, that he had even made mistakes. He even asked the girl if they could meet to discuss things. She used the opportunity to tell him all that she thought of him and his friends (Discussions of 2009–2011). And during all this time (2006–2012) she repeated even in public that marriage with him was out of the question unless he mended his ways.

And then Don Juan had a brilliant idea! He told the girl that she was not like all the other girls he had known. That her stubborn resistance had opened his eyes. That she alone could heal his wounds (the post-Conciliar disasters), and make him change, and mend his ways for good! The girl decided

to get advice from her friends. She gathered them together on her father’s estate (Écône, 2012). Unfortunately for her, she had by now sent away from her the sensible girls that her dead father had chosen as companions for her (a bishop and priests of the Resistance). Her own choice of friends were foolish girls who were drunk with delight at the thought of their friend marrying the Vice-Roy. So they helped to convince her (General Chapter of 2012 and aftermath) that she could transform her future husband, like St Clothilde had transformed Clovis. They told her too that Don Juan’s desire to be helped by her showed that he was already mending his ways!

Meanwhile Don Juan kept the seduction going by maintaining contacts and discussions with the girl and her close friends. So despite the rebukes and repeated warnings from the sensible girls now living in the woods around her father’s stately home, she had made up her mind! She believed what Don Juan was telling her! She believed in the foolish girls’ arguments! Yes, she, and she alone, would succeed in saving Don Juan from himself! How could her dear old father not have given his approval!

Poor girl! She had lost her grip on reality. She could no longer see that the Vice-Roy’s very nature was corrupted, and so he was sure to corrupt her too, and all her future children, and all the orphans on her father’s estate. As for the sensible girls, they were shivering with cold in the woods around the estate where they had been cast out. They wept for the good old father, with lamentations fit to break one’s heart. If only he could come back! Oh dear! Oh woe is us! But the only answer to their mournful wailing was the whistling of the winter wind in the trees. It was night . . .

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Fellay – III

Bishop Fellay – III posted in Eleison Comments on August 20, 2016

Reading the two recent issues of these “Comments” on the mindset which induces the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X to pursue implacably a merely practical agreement with Church authorities in Rome, a good friend reminded me that the ideas driving him were laid out four years ago in his Letter of April 14, 2012, in which he replied to the Society’s three other bishops, who warned him seriously against making any merely practical agreement with Rome. Many readers today of these “Comments” may have forgotten, or never known of, that warning, or Bishop Fellay’s reply. Indeed the exchange of letters tells a great deal that is worth recalling. Here they are, summarised as cruelly as usual, with brief comments:—

The three bishops’ main objection to any practical agreement with Rome being made without a doctrinal agreement was the depth of the doctrinal gulf between Conciliar Rome and the Traditional Catholic Society. Half a year before he died Archbishop Lefebvre said that the more one analyses the documents and aftermath of Vatican II, the more one comes to realise that the problem is less any classic errors in particular, even such as religious liberty, collegiality and ecumenism, than “a total perversion of mind” in general, underlying all the particular errors and proceeding from “a whole new philosophy founded on subjectivism.” To a key argument of Bishop Fellay that the Romans are no longer hostile but benevolent towards the Society, the three bishops replied with another quote from the Archbishop: such benevolence is just a “manoeuvre,” and nothing could be more dangerous for “our people” than to “put ourselves into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome.” The three bishops concluded that a merely practical agreement would tear the Society apart, and destroy it.

To this deep objection, as deep as the gulf between subjectivism and objective truth, Bishop Fellay replied (google Bishop Fellay, April 14, 2012):— 1 that the bishops were “too human and fatalistic.” 2 The Church is guided by the Holy Ghost. 3 Behind Rome’s real benevolence towards the SSPX is God’s Providence. 4 To make the Council’s errors amount to a “super-heresy” is an inappropriate exaggeration, 5 which will logically lead Traditionalists into schism. 6 Not all Romans are modernists because fewer and fewer of them believe in Vatican II, 7 to the point that were the Archbishop alive today he would not have hesitated to accept what the SSPX is being offered. 8 In the Church there will always be wheat and chaff, so Conciliar chaff is no reason to back away. 9 How I wish I could have turned to the three of you for advice, but each of you in different ways “strongly and passionately failed to understand me,” and even threatened me in public. 10 To oppose Faith to Authority is “contrary to the priestly spirit.”

And finally, the briefest of comments on each of Bishop Fellay’s arguments:—

1 “Too human”? As the Archbishop said, the great gulf in question is philosophical (natural) rather than theological (supernatural). “Too fatalistic”? The three bishops were rather realistic than fatalistic. 2 Are Conciliar churchmen guided by the Holy Ghost when they destroy the Church? 3 Behind Rome’s real malevolence is its firm resolve to dissolve the SSPX’s resistance to the new Conciliar religion – as of how many Traditional Congregations before it! 4 Only subjectivists themselves cannot see the depth of the gulf between subjectivism and Truth. 5 Objectivist Catholics clinging to Truth are far from schism. 6 Freemasons hold the ring in Rome. Any non-modernists have no power there to speak of. 7 To believe that the Archbishop would have accepted Rome’s present offers is to mistake him completely. The basic problem has got only much worse since his day. 8 Bishop Fellay’s spoon is much too short for him to sup with the Roman devils (objectively speaking). 9 The three bishops understood Bishop Fellay only too well, but he did not want to hear what all three of them separately had to say. Does he take himself to be infallible? 10 St Paul for sure imagined that Authority could oppose Faith – Gal. I, 8–9, and II, 11. Did St Paul lack “priestly spirit”?

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Fellay – II

Bishop Fellay – II posted in Eleison Comments on August 13, 2016

An error is never properly refuted until it is uprooted. In other words truly to overcome an error one needs to show not only that it is an error, but why it is an error. Let us suppose, with last week’s “Comments,” that the June 28 statement of the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X, by looking forward to the Society’s pious priesthood resolving the Church’s crisis of Faith, commits the error of putting the cart of the priesthood before the horse of the Faith. Then let us show that this error has its roots in our age’s almost universal undervaluing of the mind and overvaluing of the will, resulting even unconsciously in a scorn for doctrine (except for the Beatles’ doctrine of “All you need is luv”).

Already towards the beginning of the Statement there occurs a hint of this error when the Statement says that the central principle condemned in Pascendi, Pius X’s great condemnation of modernism, is that of “independence.” No. The principle he constantly condemns as being at the root of modernism is rather agnosticism, the doctrine that the mind can know nothing behind what appears to the senses. Upon that unknowing follows the independence of the mind from its object, followed in turn by the will’s declaration of independence from everything else on which it does not want to depend. It is in the nature of things that the mind must first be suicided before the will can declare its independence. So when the Statement puts independence before agnosticism at the heart of Pascendi, that is a hint that the Statement is a part rather of the Church’s problem than of its solution.

And where does this downgrading of the mind and doctrine in turn come from? Primarily from Luther who called human reason a “prostitute,” and who more than anybody else launched Chistendom on the sentimental path to its self-destruction today. But that took all of 500 years? Yes, because there was natural and Catholic resistance along the way. But Luther was right when he told the Pope that in the end he would destroy him – “Pestis eram vivus, functus tua mors ero, Papa” – A plague to you I was when I had breath, But once I’m dead, O Pope, I’ll be your death.

To this radical and gigantic error of the downgrading of mind and doctrine may be attributed two sub-errors in the case of the author of the June 28 Statement: firstly, his misunderstanding of Archbishop Lefebvre, and secondly his too great understanding of Madame Cornaz (pen-name Rossinière).

Like many of us seminarians in Écône when Archbishop Lefebvre himself presided there, Bernard Fellay was rightly enchanted and bewitched by the outstanding example before our very eyes of what a Catholic priest could and should be. But the backbone of his priesthood and of his heroic fight for the Faith was not his piety – many modernists are “pious” – but his doctrine, doctrine of the eternal priesthood, profoundly allergic to liberalism and modernism. Nor did the Archbishop ever say that his Society would save the Church. Rather its priests were to safeguard the Church’s priceless treasures for better days.

The person who did say that the Society’s priests would save the Church, as Fr Ortiz has reminded us, was Madame Cornaz, a family mother from Lausanne, Switzerland, whose life spanned most of the 20th century, and who between 1928 and 1969 received communications supposedly from Heaven on how married couples should sanctify the priesthood (!). The communications started again in 1995 (!) when she met a Society priest whom she persuaded, and through him Bishop Fellay, that it was the SSPX priests who were destined by Providence to save the Church by propagating her “Homes of Christ the Priest.” With all his authority the Superior General supported her project, but the negative reaction of Society priests made him rapidly renounce it in public. Inwardly however, did her mystical vision of the Society’s exalted future stay with him? It seems quite possible. Like Martin Luther King, the Superior General “has a dream.”

Kyrie eleison.