practical agreement

Fairy Tale?

Fairy Tale? 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.

Beautiful Cheese

Beautiful Cheese on September 24, 2016

In Australia just one month ago the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X painted a glowing picture of his – as he hopes – imminent subjection of the Society to the officials of Conciliar Rome. From a long discourse here are a few significant remarks he made, summarised or quoted in full (in italics):—

[ . . . ] Rome is offering us a new structure. At its head will be a bishop, chosen by the Pope from a list of three Society members, named by the Society. He will have authority over priests, over any religious wanting to join the new structure and over Catholics belonging to the new structure. These will have an absolute right to receive from Society priests all the sacraments, including marriage. This bishop will be able to set up schools and seminaries, to ordain ( priests ), to establish new religious Congregations. The structure will be like a super-diocese, independent of all local bishops. In other words, for you faithful, there will be no change from what you are already enjoying with the Society. The only difference will be that you will be officially recognized as Catholics.

You can easily imagine that there will be clashes with the local bishops. So we must be prudent, but as things stand you cannot imagine anything better than this offer, which is such that you cannot think it is a trap. It is not a trap , and if anyone makes us such an offer it can only be because he wishes us well . He wants Tradition to prosper and to flourish within the Church. It is impossible that such an offer could come from our enemies. They have many other ways to crush us, but not that way [ . . . ].

The remarks highlighted here in heavy print call for comment:—

* A “new structure” means presumably that Archbishop Lefebvre’s structure for the Society will, essentially, be abandoned. Rome is creating a completely new entity. Good-bye, dear SSPX.

* A “bishop chosen by the Pope” is extremely important. And the head of the “new structure” will presumably go on being chosen by the Pope. Ask the Fraternity of St Peter what that means. It meant in the 1990’s their own choice of Superior General being overridden by Rome, so that Rome’s own choice was forcibly installed (Fr. A. D.), to bring St Peter’s to heel.

* Note also how this bishop will be able “to ordain (priests)” but not bishops. Rome will thus retain the whip-hand over the new entity.

* “There will be no change”? But of course there will! Rome will henceforth be in control.

* “You will be officially recognized” – but what Catholic needs any recognition by such destroyers of the Church as her present neo-modernist officials? Any such recognition can only be a bad sign.

* “Not a trap . . .”? This whole paragraph is truly remarkable. The author of these “Comments” feels obliged to turn to Mickey Mouse and to his beloved partner, Minnie Mouse, for comment:—

Mickey: Darling, can you smell that delicious cheese that I can smell? Oh look, here it is!

Minnie: But Mickey, it’s a mousetrap, set by the owner of the house to get rid of us. Can’t you see that?

Mickey: It cannot be a trap! I tell you, if anyone offers us such good cheese, it can only be because he wishes us well. It’s clear that he wants us mice to prosper and flourish inside his house.

Minnie: (imploringly) Oh darling, can’t you remember how many of our cousins died this way?

Mickey: For the last time, I tell you – and I am never wrong – it is impossible for such delicious cheese to come from our enemies! They could never use that way to crush us.

Minnie: (with a deep sigh) There is no better way to crush us! And how many more of our friends and relatives are going to follow your lead? Oh, masculine pride!

Forgive the frivolity, dear readers – there is reason to fear we are dealing with a real Disneyland!

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Fellay – III

Bishop Fellay – III 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.

Brexit – Spexit?

Brexit – Spexit? on July 16, 2016

There is such a thing as the “Zeitgeist,” or spirit of the age. A proof might be the parallel that can be drawn between Britain’s June 23 vote to renounce the communistic embrace of the European Union, and the SSPX Superiors’ meeting from June 25 to 28, with Bishop Fellay’s Communiqué of June 29 declaring that the Society was now renouncing the embrace of neo-modernist Rome – “Spexit,” for short. For just as last week’s “Comments” suggested that Brexit was admirable but doubtfully efficacious, so one may fear that the June 29 St-Pius-Exit may have reassured many good Catholics that the Society is back on track, whereas within days official Rome and Bishop Fellay were saying that contacts continue . . .

The basis of the parallel is the apostasy characterising the Church’s Fifth Age, from 1517 to 2017 (or beyond), by which the peoples of the world have slowly but steadily turned their backs on God to replace him with Man. But their conscience is not at ease in the process. Therefore outwardly they pay homage to the good old order, but inwardly they pine for the freedom from God and for the materialistic benefits of the New World Order. Thus a good old instinct drove the British to vote for independence from Communism, but being nearly all atheistic materialists they are Communists without the name, and so hardly now know what to do with their Brexit. So one may fear that there is more to “Spexit” than meets the eye.

For instance, the excellent Hispanic website “Non Possumus” pointed out that when the Communiqué of June 29 looks forward to a Pope “who favours concretely the return to Holy Tradition” (2+2=4 or 5 ), that is not the same thing as a Pope “who has returned to Tradition” (2+2=4, and exclusively 4). Nor is it reassuring that on July 2 Bishop Fellay called for a fifth Rosary Crusade, foreseen on June 24 as a possibility by Fr Girouard in Western Canada. Recalling how Bishop Fellay presented as two gifts of the Mother of God both in 2007 the dubious liberation of the true rite of Mass by Summorum Pontificum and in 2009 the “lifting” of the non-existent “excommunications,” Fr Girouard fears that a unilateral recognition of the Society by official Rome could likewise be presented as a response of hers to this new Rosary Crusade. Here is how Fr Girouard imagines the recognition being presented by Bishop Fellay:—

“In the Crusade, we have asked for the protection of the Society. Thanks to the 12 million Rosaries, the BVM has obtained for us, from the Heart of Her Son, this special protection! Yes the Holy Father has signed this document where he recognizes us and promises to give us his personal protection, so that we will be able to continue “as we are.” This new gift from God and the BVM is truly a new means given us by Divine Providence to better continue our work for the extension of the Social Kingdom of Christ! It is also the reparation of a grave injustice! This is truly a sign that Rome has changed for the better! Our venerable founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, would have accepted this providential gift. Indeed, we can be sure that he has united his prayers to those of the BVM to obtain it from Our Lord, and that he is now rejoicing with her in Heaven! In thanksgiving for this wonderful gift of Providence, let us renew officially the consecration of the Society to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and let us have a Te Deum sung in all our chapels!”

In such a vision, adds Fr Girouard, anyone refusing the reunion of the Society with Rome will be made to seem to be resisting God and to be scorning his Mother.

Such fears are for the moment only imaginary. What is certain is that the “Spexit” of June 25 to 28 will in no way have shaken Bishop Fellay’s resolve to steer the Archbishop’s society into the arms of neo-modernist Rome. For him, that is the only way forward, as opposed to “insulting good Romans” and “stagnating” in a resistance that is out of date and no longer relevant to the evolving situation.

Kyrie eleison.

Derail Drive

Derail Drive on June 25, 2016

A number of Catholics who love the Church and understand what the Society of St Pius X could and should be doing for it, were encouraged by recent words of one of its bishops. They thought that maybe yet it can be pulled back from the brink of an agreement by which it would put itself under the control of some of the Church’s (objectively) worst enemies in all its history – the neo-modernist officials of today’s Rome. Indeed there were many good things said by Bishop de Galarreta in his Ordinations sermon on June 3 at the last priestly Ordinations to be held in Winona, Minnesota, before its move to Virginia, but no friend of the Catholic Faith should raise his hopes too high.

His sermon began by connecting the Catholic priesthood to Our Lord Jesus Christ as the one and only Way, Truth and Life. But, he went on, there is today in the Church a relativism in doctrine which opens the door to relativism in morals and to such scandals as the recent Roman Synod’s even just considering the giving of Holy Communion to couples divorced and “remarried.” The bishop said these scandals were rooted in Vatican II, and he castigated the Council as being a bad tree of which they are merely the logical bad fruit. Now Mgr Pozzo raised hopes several weeks ago that the Society in order to obtain official recognition from Rome might not have to accept the Council, but the Bishop rightly pointed out that both Pope Francis and Cardinal Mueller have since dashed such hopes, by making clear that their recognition of the Society will still require that acceptance.

The Bishop concluded, “Therefore it is also clear that the (Society’s) fight continues. As our Superior General, Bishop Fellay, has said, if we have to choose between faith and a compromise, the choice is already made – no compromise.” Fighting words, but the Bishop immediately added a possible escape-hatch of a kind familiar to us from him: “God may certainly change the circumstances and put us in a different situation, which is what we all hope for.” For could not “changed circumstances” include some clever understanding agreeable to both Rome and the Superior General, which the latter would accept? (Nor was it any use Bishop de Galarreta’s quoting just beforehand words of the Superior General against his own policy, because his own words do not normally pin down this Superior General.)

What strongly suggests that the fighting words do not in fact correspond to the Superior General’s own intentions is the speed with which the text including them was taken down (to be doctored or trashed?) so soon after it was put up on the official website of the Society in the USA. What lesser official of the Society could have given the order virtually to disown words of one of its own bishops? Such an idea is rather confirmed by a conference given on June 5 by the Society’s second-in-command to parishioners of the Society’s church in Houston, TX, and not since disowned by Headquarters (comments in italics):—

Fr Pfluger said that there is nothing wrong in going with Rome (illusion); that the Society will go as it is (illusion): that we must move with the times, and now is the time to be in Rome (illusion); that Archbishop Lefebvre also contradicted himself many times in his time (illusion – see June 11’s “Eleison Comments”), and finally that here and now we must trust Bishop Fellay (after all his “terminological inexactitudes”? – illusion!). But the Society’s First Assistant is more than free to say such things, because they are faithful to the Society’s drive at the very top to put itself under Roman control.

In conclusion, dear readers, for the sake of all the good that the true Society could and should be doing for the Universal Church, by all means pray for a miracle to derail that drive towards Rome, and put any pressure you can on Superiors taking part in the end of June meeting (not yet a General Chapter, but preparing the fatal one) that they make themselves the instruments of God in the derailing of that drive.

Kyrie eleison.

Erroneous Vision

Erroneous Vision on April 16, 2016

Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General of the Society of St Pius X from 1982 to 1994 and present Rector of the Society’s German Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Bavaria, has recently put into circulation “Considerations on the Church and on the Society’s position within the Church.” In three pages firmly promoting the acceptance by the Society from Pope Francis of a Personal Prelature which would bring the Society back into the official Church underneath the Pope, Fr Schmidberger shows a very inadequate grasp of the problem in Conciliar Rome, hardly mentioning Vatican II.

He begins by presenting the Catholic Church as containing human and fallible elements which required Archbishop Lefebvre to found in 1970 the SSPX to save the priesthood, the Mass and the Social Kingship of Christ the King. In 1975 the SSPX was condemned by the official Church, but it thrived. The consecration of four Society bishops in 1988 manifested the contradiction between Rome and the SSPX, but the Archbishop still strove, after as before, for a solution. From 2000 Romans, honest or dishonest, also sought for a solution. Now in 2016 they are easing up on their demands for the SSPX to accept the Council and the New Mass.

COMMENT: This is a relatively superficial view of the utterly radical attack launched against the Faith and Truth itself by Freemasonic churchmen during and after Vatican II. Fr. Schmidberger sees merely misguided Roman churchmen whose coming to their Catholic senses can be seriously helped forward if only the SSPX is officially recognized. Does he have any idea of that leprosy of the modernist mind which the SSPX would much more likely catch than cure if it went in with these Romans?

Secondly, Fr Schmidberger presents half a dozen arguments in favour of accepting the Personal Prelature. The SSPX must regain normality. It must not by its present “exile” lose the sense of the Church. Doors would open in Rome. The SSPX urgently needs Rome’s permission to consecrate more bishops. A good sign is the anxiety of some modernists at the prospect of the SSPX’s normalisation. And finally, how else can the Church’s present crisis be solved than by the SSPX coming out of its “exile” and converting the Romans?

COMMENT: The SSPX convert these Romans? What an illusion! Again, Fr Schmidberger has little to no idea of the deep perversion of modernism which he is up against. It is not “normal” for Catholics to submit to modernists. “Exile” need not mean loss of the sense of the Church. No important doors would open in Rome. The Faith does not need bishops approved by modernists. Any anxious modernists are naive – the real modernists know that they will convert the Society and not the other way round, once they can close the trap. And finally the Church crisis will certainly not be solved by a deluded SSPX joining Rome, but only by God, whose arm is not shortened by the wickedness of men (Isaiah, LIX, 1).

Finally, Fr Schmidberger answers some objections: Pope Francis may not be a good Pope, but he has the jurisdiction to normalize the SSPX. The opinion of the “Resistance” does not matter since it has no sense of the Church and is divided. The SSPX will not be muzzled because Rome will “accept it as it is” (illusion), nor will it lose its identity, because with God’s help it will convert Rome (illusion). Nor will it fail to resist like all other Traditional Congregations have failed that have gone in with Rome, because it is Rome that is begging while the SSPX is choosing (illusion), and because the SSPX has resistant bishops (illusion), and because it will be given a Personal Prelature (to bring it under modernists).

COMMENT: In other words the Roman trap will be lined with cushions. What a series of illusions! Poor SSPX! Let us pray for the saving of whatever can still be saved of it.

Kyrie eleison.