Vatican II

Speak Up!

Speak Up! on December 28, 2019

If there have been great minds from the past, it is because they will have been thinking on great matters, which means, explicitly or implicitly, matters of God, and if they were truly great minds, their thinking will have been not just destructive. One such mind was certainly England’s Shakespeare. As a Catholic he grappled with his country’s apostasy being fulfilled just as he was reaching his prime, around 1600. But that turning of England to Protestantism meant that if he did not want to be hanged, drawn and quartered, he had to disguise his Catholic message, as Clare Asquith proved in her book of 2005, “Shadowplay,” where she took English literature way above English “patriots” and the dwarves of literary criticism.

To take just one example, in the book’s Appendix on Shakespeare’s Sonnet 152, she shows how from start to finish, beneath the obvious application to a woman Shakespeare has known, there is a complete second meaning of far wider application to himself as a writer who has failed to warn his countrymen as he should have done. Here are the 14 lines of the sonnet together with their obvious meaning:—

In loving thee thou know’st I am forsworn
But thou art twice forsworn to me love swearing,
In act thy bed-vow broke and new faith torn,
In vowing new hate after new love bearing.
But why of two oaths’ breach do I accuse thee,
When I break twenty? I am perjured most,
For all my vows are oaths but to misuse thee,
And all my honest faith in thee is lost;
For I have sworn deep oaths of thy deep kindness,
Oaths of thy love, thy truth, thy constancy,
And, to enlighten thee, gave eyes to blindness,
Or made them swear against the thing they see.
    For I have sworn thee fair: more perjured eye,
    To swear against the truth so foul a lie.

You know I break a promise by loving you, but by
swearing you love me, you break two promises: you
forsook your husband’s bed, then returned to him
(“new faith,” “new love”) only to forsake him again.
But why do I accuse you of breaking two oaths when
I break twenty oaths? It is I the greater perjurer, for
To your own harm I have sworn oath upon oath about
your goodness when I well knew you were not good.
Thus I have been swearing that you are very kind,
very loving, very truthful, very constant, and to
put you in a good light, I have made me see what I
Did not see, or, have sworn I saw not what eye saw.
    For I have sworn you were good. What terrible
    Perjury on my part, when that is so untrue!

Interestingly, the sonnet’s text makes more sense in its hidden meaning, referring to faithless England, than in its apparent meaning, referring to Shakespeare’s unfaithful mistress. Thus “Merrie Englande” had been a faithful wife of the Catholic Church for 900 years. By Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy (1534), (“In Act”) England broke its marriage (“bed-vow”) with the Catholic Church and took Protestantism as its lover. Then it remarried the Catholic Church under Mary Tudor (1553, “new faith,” “new love”), only to fall back into adultery with Protestantism under Elizabeth I (1558, “new faith torn,” “new hate” of the Catholic Church). But Shakespeare (1564–1616) blames himself for much worse infidelity, because down these years he has repeatedly glorified (“to enlighten thee”) England with its unfaithful Tudor rulers, for instance in his History Plays, glorified to England’s harm (“to misuse thee”), because as a Catholic he knew full well that Protestantism would be the ruin of “Merrie Englande.” Sure enough!

And today? The pattern repeats itself: for over 1900 years Catholics were faithfully married to the true Church, but with Vatican II (1962–1965) the mass of them followed bad leaders into more or less of adultery with the modern world (“bed-vow broke”). Then Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) led many back to the truly Catholic Church (“new faith,” “new love,” or renewal of the old faith and the old love), only to see his successors at the head of the Society of St Pius X which he founded in 1970 fall back into an adulterous longing for a reunion with Conciliar Rome, by a “new hate” for the pre-Conciliar truth.

Conclusion? Any Shakespeares amongst us, or any Catholics, must speak up, that Pachamama Rome is, as such, nothing other than an abomination, to be shunned.

Kyrie eleison.

Both… And…

Both… And… on November 30, 2019

If issues of these “Comments” can broadly be divided into those that treat of the modern problem and those that treat of the Catholic solution, it would seem to be a pity if a number of readers are interested in the problem but not in the solution, or in the solution but not in the problem. This is because if I know the problem without the solution, I can be seriously tempted to despair, especially today, when God is giving to His enemies unprecedented permission almost to destroy His Church. On the other hand if knowledge of the solution leads me to mistake or to underestimate the problem, then the problem is liable to catch me unawares by going around my inadequate defences.

St Paul was a classic case of someone who knew both, and who grasped so well the New Testament solution, Jesus Christ (Rom. VII, 24–25), only because he had been a fervent Pharisee according to the problem of what sinful men had made of the Old Testament (I Cor. XV, 8–10). So it was only because St Paul had directly experienced the powerlessness of the Old Testament to forgive sin that he so deeply understood the salvation which Christ had brought to men by the New Testament. Another great convert who profited from many years in error to become one of the Church’s greatest ever servants of Catholic truth was St Augustine. Here is why the French have a saying, “A convert is worth two apostles.”

And here is why Catholics today should not scorn knowledge of the enemies of God or of how they are fighting Him, however vile that fight may be. And non-Catholics will be wise not to scorn the Catholic Church, because, however downtrodden it may appear to be, it still has the only true solutions to any of the world’s real, i.e. properly human, problems. All such problems are the poisoned fruit of sin rearing up against God in men’s souls, where God alone, and not psychiatrists, can penetrate with His forgiveness, which He chooses to bestow through His divine Son alone, and the Church purchased with His Blood.

Then let us suggest to non-Catholic readers of these “Comments” that they take interest not only in the analyses of the modern arts or politics, but also in their arguments that can seem to be merely squabbles among Catholics, such as what is wrong with Vatican II, or how the Society of St Pius X is more and more following Vatican II. This is because the Catholic Church may well be the only true solution of all readers’ true problems, but that solution is vulnerable to constant falsification by sinful men, and if it is falsified it is no longer the solution but part of the problem. Now Vatican II was the logical climax of many centuries of men wishing to put man in the place of God, and the Society of St Pius X, while it was designed and founded in 1970 to resist the errors of Vatican II, has since 2012 in particular fallen under the poisonous charm of those errors. Therefore non-Catholics looking for real solutions to the modern problems that they know all too well should follow the arguments over Vatican II and the Society.

Correspondingly, to Catholic readers of these “Comments” let it be suggested that they follow not only the arguments concerning Vatican II and the Society’s dangerous slide into conformity with the modern world but also the analyses in depth of what is wrong with that world. For indeed if the Society leaders are sliding in this way, is it not because they have underestimated the problem of that world? Are they not heading for defeat by waging a war without knowing the enemy? Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre once said that the whole of Vatican II is shot through with subjectivism, did not Bishop Fellay once say that 95% of its texts are acceptable? And whereas the Archbishop often said, in so many words, that one needs a long spoon to sup with today’s Conciliar Romans, is not Bishop Fellay’s successor following the latter’s example of behaving as though he thinks he can outwit the Roman devils? The real strength of the Archbishop was never his cleverness but always his faith, and his faithfulness to Catholic truth. And the same is true of the Society which he founded. Then let Catholic readers of these “Comments” not think that they have no need to consider the Comments’ analyses of modern corruption, however distasteful that consideration may be to them. They cannot afford to hide their heads in the sand.

Kyrie eleison.

Modern Convert

Modern Convert on October 19, 2019

If anybody is tempted today to think that Almighty God has resigned from governing His Church or the world, there are testimonials reaching the office of these “Comments” which show clearly – at least in this Commentator’s opinion – that the Holy Ghost is still at work. A fallen away Catholic tells below how he came back to the Church, how he then found Catholic Tradition and soon after that the “Resistance,” and what sense he makes of it all. Amidst the confusion and discouragement which we all know, he writes with a remarkable breadth and serenity, surely a sign that he is being led by God.

I am a married man with two girls, one nearly adolescent and the other a baby. It is to my grandmother that I owe my return to the Faith. One day five years ago I was just passing by a church when out of the blue I thought of her praying the Rosary, and I was impelled to enter the church to pray. From then on I began to pray once more and to attend Mass. Of course it was the New Mass at first, until about three years ago when I discovered the existence of Catholic Tradition.

From then my family and I have been attending the local chapel of the Society of St Pius X, where we were welcomed with great joy by the priest and congregation. But I soon discovered that there were many divisions in the chapel, and so you can imagine the difficulty I had in sorting out what was going on. Having so recently arrived in Tradition, I needed a good deal of patience, courage and perseverance in order to hang on and not just run away in the first six months! But our thirst for truth and our search for roots overcame our fear, and so we stayed, thanks be to God.

I understood that the SSPX is truly a holy part of the true Catholic Church of Christ, and that is why I am staying at least for the moment inside the Society, with my family. But I am listening all the time to what the sedevacantists and “Resistants” have to say, in order to continue making up my mind. I have an enormous admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre, a true man of God, a holy successor of the Apostles. To see his Society vacillating under the world’s infernal pressure is very difficult to bear, and it requires of us to pray even more.

Certainly the Society still has a great deal to do, because it can still do much good. So can the so-called “Resistance” which plays, and is right to play, the part of a guard-rail whenever the Society strays off course and totters under the attacks of the modern world and the temptations held out to it by the Conciliar churchmen. I am convinced that the “Resistance” has a vital part to play, and that Our Lord enables it to exist for a great good, even inside the Society although it appears to be outside. Personally I count myself as a firm resistant to anybody who does not clearly attack, head on, the Second Vatican Council which was inspired by the Devil. After all, how can one live as a true Catholic today without resisting everywhere and all the time? So is not being a Catholic here below the hardest and most beautiful thing that there is? Thank you, granny, for praying to Jesus and Mary for me!

In this life we never see God Himself, but we do see Him at work: a grandmother’s prayers; prayer of a soul as its first and most important step; attending Mass as a next step: the New Mass still carrying grace, however strangled the grace may be; the Catholic soul being somehow shown Tradition by God, and gravitating towards it; the refuge in a local chapel of the Society, and the welcome there, only for the next severe trial to begin! Trial overcome by the need for roots and the love and pursuit of truth, which settles down in the mind staying open amidst all the confusion, but anchored in respect for the Archbishop and in hatred of Vatican II, profiting by both the Society and the “Resistance” for what each has had to give him, without excluding either; the recognition that any Catholic must swim against the current, and finally gratitude for how God has led him. Many lessons in not too many words. May God bless the writer, and keep him and his family faithful until death. He stands a good chance.

Kyrie eleison.

“Prometheus” – Idolatry

“Prometheus” – Idolatry on July 6, 2019

Part I – the essence of Vatican II is a glorification of man disguised by Church officials as Catholicism. Part II – the New Man of V II is free: from reality, by subjectivism; from morality, by conscience; by grace, from nature. Part III – the Newchurch of VII is no longer against the world, nor against other religions, it is the Newchurch of niceness and dialogue with everybody. In Part IV of his book, Fr Calderón asks if Vatican II amounts to a new religion, and he says it does, because it no longer renders worship to the Holy Trinity, because Catholicism’s 1 Revelation and Tradition, 2 central act of worship, and 3 Incarnate God, have all been essentially changed.

1 The true Church’s doctrine is changed because a Catholic can believe either in the object itself, for instance the Incarnation, or in an objective proposition expressing that object, for instance “God became incarnate.” The proposition expresses the mystery inadequately, but it expresses it truly, and for the believer to save his soul, sufficiently. But Newchurch is modernist, and for modernists no propositions can be objective. Therefore in Newchurch there can only be subjective experience of the mystery (Dei Verbum#2; LG#4), which leaves doctrine wide open to the vagaries of all kinds of charismatic subjects. For in Newchurch, the Mystery is present in the living Church community, with which the doctrine of both Revelation and Tradition may and must evolve in their changing historical circumstances. Thus Newfaith is a frame of mind enabling one to experience and interpret the Mystery in some communion. The formulae or creeds merely follow. Newscripture is merely the foundational fixing of that experience, a model for God’s people to follow. Neworthodoxy is thinking with the Newchurch-community, so that a refuser of that Newcommunity is the worst of heretics, e.g. Archbishop Lefebvre.

2 As for worship, the medieval religion of the Cross is depressing! So Newchurch will keep the joy, but eliminate the sacrifice. Thus if it was men’s sin that led to men’s debt to God, which led to Christ’s paying the debt by sacrifice, let us get rid of sin. God is above and beyond suffering, so men’s sins do not hurt Him, He may lament for them but He would never punish anyone with eternal Hell. Christ died merely as the Father’s instrument (G&S#22) to show solidarity with men, so it is not Christ but the Father who saves us, and not by the Cross but by the Resurrection which was wrought by the Father to glorify man! So the Mass renamed, i.e. the “Paschal Mystery,” is to glorify man, and God should thank man for being so glorious for Him! This string of blasphemous lies, clearly orienting the New Mass imposed on the Church by Paul VI in 1969, is implicit rather than explicit in VII’s decree on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, because it dated from early in the Council when the modernists needed still to tread carefully. But from 1969 onwards the brakes have been off. Church liturgy is now in chaos.

3 As for the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, at the centre of Christianity and of the true Catholic Church, He is treated of directly in two VII documents, Gaudium et Spes and Ad Gentes. Fr Calderón declares that the doctrine of both documents is the same: the Cross is horrible, so it is better to be a mere man of peace than an adopted son of God by suffering. Man is in the image of God (by his freedom), so the more man he makes himself, the more divine he becomes. Therefore Jesus Christ became man not for man to become adoptive son of God, but for man to become more fully man! Moreover, nowhere does VII state that Jesus Christ is truly and properly God, nor does it once mention the Hypostatic Union. Conciliar theologians fluctuate in their language between Tradition and Newtheology, according to their audience.

4 Fr Calderón’s conclusion is that the dignity of man is the final purpose of VII, and final purposes in effect make religions, so VII is a different religion from Catholicism, whose final purpose is the (extrinsic) glory of God. Thus with VII, grace is to free human nature, Jesus is the man who came to make us more human, and Mass is no longer the sacrifice owed to God, but the thanksgiving of mankind crowning the Creator, because it is more free than He is, because it is capable also of choosing evil!

Kyrie eleison.

“Prometheus” – Newchurch

“Prometheus” – Newchurch on June 29, 2019

After studying in Part II of The Religion of Man the New-Man that emerges from the Council, in Part III of his book on Vatican II Fr Calderón studies the Council’s Newchurch, a new Church indeed. The one true religion of the one true God was founded by Jesus Christ, Incarnate God, to “teach all nations” (Mt. XXVIII, 20), so as to reach all souls and save as many of them as possible. To adapt such an ambitious Church to modern man, to protect modern humanism, such a Church must be re-defined and down-sized, radically changed, while disguising the change. Therefore 1 Newchurch no longer has a mission to all mankind, and 2 i t will no longer interfere in the World-part of mankind. 3 Even in the Church-part of mankind it will no longer be the only church, and 4 it will need to be re-defined to fulfil its new role.

1 Catholic Tradition teaches that the “Kingdom of God” and the “Church” are two expressions for exactly the same reality. Both have the same mission of universal outreach. But to adapt that Church to a world in which it is less universal in reality every day, Vatican II will distinguish between the Kingdom of God which is universal in reality, being present invisibly in all men’s hearts, and the Newchurch which is universal only in intention, because it is all the time visibly building and extending the Kingdom in men’s lives. The Newchurch is also universal as being the “sacrament” or sign of the unity of all men (LG#1).

2 Here is where the Newchurch liberates worldly powers from any Church domination. The glorification of man made the “Kingdom of God” no longer potential to all men by baptism, but actual to all men by nature. Therefore nature has taken over from religion, and so Newchurch may signal the Kingdom’s universality but it cannot assert or claim it. Therefore politics are free from religion, and Newchurch need only purify them in their own domain. Here is Maritain’s Newchristendom, in which Mammon may take over the world, as we have seen since Vatican II. The Council was in fact the logical conclusion of the long decline of the true Christendom from the Middle Ages. But then Newchristendom is godless? No, Maritain’s New World, neither believing nor baptised, is still freed by Christ and heading for glory.

3 This liberal down-sizing of the Church is followed by the ecumenical down-sizing. Ever since Protestantism broke up the Catholic Church, the broken fragments have tried to re-unite. The true Church wanted and wants no part in their vain quest for their lost unity, unless they rejoin the Catholic Church, but the glorification of man makes the Newchurch glorify non-Catholics and want to reach out to them. So in non-Catholic Christians it will glorify the lifeless “traces” of Catholicism, still present but lifeless among them, e.g. among the Orthodox, valid Orders without jurisdiction; among the Protestants Scripture without authoritative interpretation; and it will make them into living “elements” (Unitatis Redintegratio). In non-Christian mankind it will find “seeds of the Word,” i.e. any truth and goodness which are sparks of the Word that “enlightens all men coming into the world” (Jn.I, 9) (Nostra Aetate), because all rational beings have been chosen out by God to glorify Him, and all chosen are saved.

But how can the Council upgrade in this way all non-Catholics without down-grading Catholics? By declaring that the all-embracing “Church of Christ” “subsists,” i.e. exists in some special way, in the Catholic Church (LG#8). But “subsists” is merely a verbal trick – if it upgrades non-Catholics, how can it not down-grade Catholics? If it does not down-grade non-Catholics, how can it up-grade Catholics?

4 Finally, how is the Newchurch to be re-defined to fulfil its new role? As “People of God,” necessarily democratic, so that the priesthood of Orders will be blurred into the “priesthood” of baptism (I Pet. II, 5) and all Newchurch will be priestly with a mission to all the World, and so that bishops will be promoted to govern the Church alongside the Pope (LG#22). Another word vague enough to correspond to the vagueness of notions of Newchurch is “Communion,” whose main activity is “Dialogue” with all men, so that nobody is ever wrong, and everybody can be nice to everybody else. Forget doctrine or truth!

Kyrie eleison.

“Prometheus” – New-Man

“Prometheus” – New-Man on June 22, 2019

In his book “Prometheus, the religion of man” Fr. Alvaro Calderón presents Vatican II as being essentially a humanism, disguised as Catholicism by officials of the Church. This disguise gave unprecedented authority to the humanism and called for unprecedented skill to put it together. Now humanism arose in the 14th century to defend purely human values against the supposedly inhuman demands of the poverty, chastity and obedience of the Catholic Middle Ages, and also against Church authority supposedly treating human beings like children. So to affirm human dignity, humanism will assert human liberty, and it will give rise to liberalism in the 17th and 18th centuries, to super-liberalism in the 20th and 21st centuries. To the false liberty of this super-liberalism Vatican II will strive to adapt the true Church of God. Thus the Council will “liberate” man’s mind by subjectivism, his will by “conscience” and his nature by having it served by grace instead of lifted by grace.

Subjectivism is the error of making truth independent of the object and dependent instead on the human subject. Ultimately this results in sheer madness, which Vatican II wanted to avoid, but it wanted enough subjectivism to guarantee freedom of thought. So it resorted to the “inadequacy of dogmatic formulae.”

Now it is true that no human words can possibly tell or express the fullness of divine realities, but words can tell something, for instance “God exists” is true, while “God does not exist” is false. Therefore words are not wholly inadequate to express dogmas, in fact if I believe in a number of dogmas expressed in words, as the Church demands of a Catholic, I can save my soul. But Vatican II (Dei Verbum) says that God reveals Himself, not a doctrine in words, and He Himself is known by subjective experience, not by objective words. Thus doctrines may come and go without touching the realities behind them, and so Vatican II can change the dogmas without supposedly departing from Truth or Tradition! Therefore all kinds of theology are licit, and all kinds of religions! So Christianity’s superiority is merely cultural!

So how does Vatican II liberate the will? It is already liberated. If there is no more truth or falsehood, then it is equally true or false that stealing and lying are wrong. Ultimately, again, this position ends in sheer madness, so how will Vatican II affirm the liberty of the mind and yet steer clear of the dissolution of all morals? By “conscience.” Within every man’s heart, but without words, speaks God by a moral inclination towards good and away from evil in a manner to which no words can be adequate, yet with an unchanging substance down all the ages. Thus my will is not fettered by the Ten Commandments from outside me, but I will incline freely from inside, thus remaining free to do what is right. But in reality, will I? – what about original sin? In reality, morals are objective, they are rational and they can and must be expressed in universal rules. Mere subjective “conscience” is far too weak to stand up to original sin.

Finally, how does Vatican II put God’s grace below, instead of above, man’s nature? “Grace perfects nature” is a classic Catholic principle, so grace perfects man by repairing his highest quality, his freedom, which is enslaved by sin. So the grace of Christ liberates and serves the nature of man, revealing man to himself (Gaudium et Spes,#24), by the Incarnation. But did not the Incarnation firstly reveal God to man?

In conclusion, Fr Calderón shows how Vatican II, while fundamentally humanistic, embellishes humanism with Catholic decorations: liberty, yes, but in God’s image! Subjectivism, yes, but of inner truth including the mystery of God, which reveals man’s own mystery! Conscience, yes, but naturally partaking of Eternal Law, so that men naturally fulfil it, so that God’s will is bound to be in line with man’s will! Grace, yes, but perfecting man’s nature by freeing us from the slavery of sin! Thus how much more beautiful is humanism made by the riches and heritage of the Church!

Kyrie eleison.