Eleison Comments: Sin Avenged – Number CDIX (409)


Sin Avenged

Whoever “God” is, his today the blame.

Yet who but men the Wrath Divine inflame?

Immersed as we all are in the world around us, it is difficult, especially for young people, to realize into what an abnormal condition it has brought itself. Never in all human history has God been so discredited, disbelieved, and in effect discarded from men’s lives. And since all sin is primarily an offense against God, then as men lose all sense of God, so they lose all sense of sin. Therefore men are always right, and “God,” whoever he may be, is always wrong, so that whenever things go wrong “he” can always be brought back long enough to take the blame.

This widely spread attitude makes it virtually impossible to understand the apparent severity of God in the Old Testament, where for instance he commands the Israelites to exterminate whole peoples, as in the book of Joshua. But Catholic Scripture scholars who have not lost their sense of the true and unchanging God, put things back in perspective. Here for instance is a summary of the commentary by a modern Benedictine, Dom Jean de Monléon (1890–1981), on the slaughter of the Canaanites by the Israelites under their leader, Joshua:

As far as Joshua himself is concerned, he was acting not out of hatred, racism, greed, ambition or whatever, but under strict, precise and repeated orders from God himself. St John Chrysostom says that Joshua might personally have preferred some less murderous solution, but certainly God had his own reasons. These we cannot know for sure, but we can make reasonable guesses. To begin with, all of us human beings, by our original sin (What is that?” cries modern man), have to pay the debt of death, the time, manner and place of which are decided by the Master of Life and Death, who is God. For sinners like the Canaanites, to die sooner rather than later can be a mercy, especially if the manner of death gives them time to repent and so save their souls for eternity.

Next, the Canaanites were in deed sinners, immersed in the committing of terrible crimes, and like mankind before the Flood, like the Sodomites and Gomorrhans, they had made the cup of God’s wrath overflow: prostitution of all kinds, bestiality, incest, witchcraft and in particular, the ritual murder of children, as proved by multiple archaeological excavations in Palestine, whereby tiny skeletons have been uncovered in surroundings clearly identifying them as sacrificial victims, etc.

Moreover if the Canaanites were allowed to survive, they would present a grave danger of corrupting the Israelites, as subsequent history only too clearly showed.

In more recent times, some 400 years ago (but still before the advent of liberalism!), the first missionaries in Canada found themselves bound to conclude that the only way to deal with a certain tribe was to exterminate them. A canonized Saint said, “After repeated experience of their treachery, whether for peace or for the Faith, there is nothing further to be hoped for from them.” (end of Dom Monléon summary)

This still shocks modern susceptibilities, but is it not simply tribal as opposed to individual capital punishment? The principle of capital punishment is that by such anti-social crimes as, for instance, murder, treason, counterfeiting, homosexuality, etc., men are capable of behaving in such a way as to render themselves unfit to live any more in society, and so society’s legitimate authority has the right to take their lives (one may object that not all the individuals in a tribe will be equally guilty, but it should go without saying that Almighty God can and will make all the distinctions necessary).

The problem all comes down to disbelief in the greatness and goodness of God, but let us just say that the Old Testament is neither as cruel nor as out of date as it is often made to appear.

Kyrie eleison.

Eleison Comments – Bishop Williamson –CDIII (403)

Eleison Comments

Sickness Imagined 

Conciliar Popes Our Lord would seem to have dropped?

Not if their total loss of faith he stopped.

The iniquity of true Popes steadily destroying everything Catholic is so mysterious that in these “Comments” four weeks ago we saw Archbishop Lefebvre considering seriously whether the See of Rome might be vacant. He would never pretend with the liberals that the destruction is not really destruction, but at the same time his sense of the Church was too strong for him ever to adopt the sedevacantist solution, so at least in August of 1976 the problem seemed to him “theologically insoluble.” These “Comments” suggested that there might be another line of solution which people as sane of mind as the Archbishop could hardly imagine. Let us try to imagine it.

To ridicule this solution a hard-bitten sedevacantist once dubbed it “mentevacantism,” but the label will do. It means not the See of Rome being vacant, but the Popes’ minds being vacant, or let us say, their minds having had the sense of reality emptied out of them, their minds being empty of reality. Especially since the Protestant Reformation, men have been steadily more liberating themselves from God. To do this they must liberate their minds from the reality around them, because all reality comes from God and points back to God. Here is the liberal illusion, the ultimate liberation, known otherwise as “mind-rot,” “mental sickness” or “mentevacantism,” because the human mind was designed by God to run on reality and not on fantasy or illusion.

Now from 1517 to 1958 the Catholic Popes resisted and beat back the mind-rot steadily engulfing the rest of the world, on its slow way to its end, but all too many of the Catholic laity, priests, bishops and finally cardinals were being progressively infected with the liberal illusion, coming to be convinced that it would create a brave new Church for the Brave New World. So in the papal Conclave of 1958, even if Cardinal Siri was validly elected, the liberals had the power to force the election of John XXIII upon the Conclave, and then by convalidation upon the Universal Church.

But what is a liberal? He is a dreamer, living not in the real world but in a Wonderland of man’s own fabrication. However, as more and more human minds switch off reality and launch into the dream, so he has less and less chance of realizing what he has done, because more and more the world all around him is being taken over by the Wonderland. This means that in modern times it is easier and easier for a man – and every Pope remains a man – to be objectively in Wonderland and yet subjectively convinced that he is in reality. Here is that mental sickness observed at first hand by an SSPX priest in all four Roman “theologians” taking part in the Rome-SSPX Discussions of 2009–2011 (Note the inverted commas – in Wonderland everything is an unreal imitation of the real, so that without some such sign as the inverted commas, we easily take the imitation for the reality.)

On this reckoning the Conciliar Popes are, at least in part, “sincerely” wrong. What that “sincerity” is internally worth, God alone can judge. But externally it is an objective reality, more and more around us day by day. Then the Conciliar Popes are not wholly conscious villains, because in their sick minds they are serving the true Church by changing the old Church out of all recognition, by Wonderlanding it. Now their subjectively good intentions have objectively paved the way to Hell for the real true Church, but can one not say that these good intentions show that the prayer of Our Lord has prevented their faith from failing completely (cf. Lk.XXII, 32)? Even Paul VI condemned contraception, issued a relatively good “Credo,” wept for the loss of vocations, and spoke of the smoke of Satan entering the Church after Vatican II. Then can one not say that even with Paul VI Our Lord kept his promise to look after Peter?

Kyrie eleison.




Eleison Comments: Number CDI (401) – Emotional Arguing

Eleison Comments

Emotional Arguing

Sedevacs say: “True Popes we have not had.”

Instincts are good, but reasoning is bad.

An old-fashioned comparison has the advantage of being very clear: on the back of a mule a heavy pack can be difficult to balance. If it shifts to the left, one must push it to the right. If it tilts to the right, it must be pushed to the left. But such double pushing is not contrary – it has the single purpose of keeping the pack balanced. Similarly, for these “Comments” to argue repeatedly against sedevacantism is not to push towards liberalism, nor is it to suggest that sedevacantism is as bad as liberalism. It is merely to recognize that the outrageous words and deeds of the present occupant of the Holy See are tempting many good Catholics to renounce their reason and to judge of reality by their emotions. That is a common practice today, but it is not Catholic.

For instance sedevacantist arguments are, upon examination, never as strong as they can seem. Let us look at two that have crossed my desk recently, both from devout Catholics, strong in the Faith. Here is the first: Conciliar Popes, especially Francis, have not confirmed their brethren in the Faith. But it is of the essence of a Pope to do that. Therefore the Conciliar Popes are not essentially Popes. In reply one must distinguish a Pope in his being from a Pope in his action. A Pope becomes essentially Pope in his being by his valid election in a Conclave of Cardinals, or by his election, if it was invalid in itself, being convalidated by his subsequent acceptance as Pope by the Universal Church (which may have been the case for more than one Conciliar Pope, God knows). On the contrary, by confirming his brethren in the Faith a Pope is essentially Pope in his action. The two things are different and can be separated. Therefore a Pope can fail in action without necessarily ceasing to be a Pope in his being. That is surely the case of several, if not all, the Conciliar Popes.

And here is the second argument: for the individual and fallible Catholic to set himself up as judge of error by the Church’s infallible Magisterium is ridiculous. Faced then by obvious error (e.g. Conciliarism) by that Magisterium (e.g. the Conciliar Popes), he can only conclude that they have not been true Popes. But, in reply, the Pope is not necessarily the Church’s infallible Magisterium. If he neither engages all four strict conditions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, nor teaches in accordance with the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, then he is fallible, and if he contradicts that Ordinary Magisterium then he is certainly in error, and can be judged to be such by any Catholic (or non-Catholic!) making the right use of his God-given mind. Otherwise how could Our Lord have warned us to beware of false prophets and of wolves in sheep’s’ clothing?  – (Mt. VII, 15–20)

In fact both arguments can come from an emotional rejection of the Conciliar Popes: “They have so maltreated the Church that I simply cannot accept that they were Popes!” But what if I had been a bystander watching the original Way of the Cross? “This is such maltreatment of Jesus that I simply cannot accept any longer that he is the Son of God!” Would not my emotional rejection of the maltreatment have been right, and yet my conclusion wrong? There is a mystery involved in the Conciliar Popes which sedevacantism passes by.

Now it may be, when the Church one day comes back to her senses that the alone competent authority will declare that the Conciliar Popes were not Popes, but between now and then the arguments so far brought forward to prove the See of Rome to be vacant are not as conclusive as they can be made to appear.

Kyrie eleison.

Eleison Comments – The Episcopal Consecration of Jean-Michel Faure

Eleison Comments  5

Concerning the Episcopal Consecration of Jean-Michel Faure

by the SMI secretary

Supporters of His Excellency Bishop Williamson, whether readers of Eleison Comments, contributors to the St. Marcel Initiative, or otherwise, have no doubt already heard the news of His Excellency’s consecration of Bishop Jean-Michel Faure at the Monastery of the Holy Cross in New Fribourg, Brazil, on Thursday, the Feast of St. Joseph, March 19.

The news was understandably held back until relatively the last minute so as to avoid, as far as humanly possible, any unwelcome disruptions of the ceremony or any other problems that may have arisen in conjunction with it.

Nevertheless, now that the consecration has taken place, we are able to make available to the faithful and the world at large the so-called “Emergency Mandate” that was read during the liturgy.

As many already know, among the very first spoken words of the Rite of Episcopal Consecration is the statement made to the consecrating bishop by his senior assistant:

“Most Reverend Father, our holy Mother the Catholic Church asks that you promote this priest here present to the burden of the episcopate.”

In reply, the consecrating bishop asks whether the assistant has the “Apostolic Mandate.”

The answer is, “We have,” to which the consecrating bishop replies, “Let it be read.”

(Those interested further may consult online a useful Latin and English Ordo, excerpted from the Pontificale Romanum, and published in 1910.)

What was read in Thursday’s ceremony in response to Bishop Williamson’s invitation – serving as it did both a liturgical function and as a public explanation of the ceremony’s rationale as envisioned by the participants – is what follows. Readers may be interested to know that its first paragraphs closely follow the language used by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 30, 1988.


We have a Mandate to consecrate from the Roman Church which in its fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition – namely the Deposit of the Faith – to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.

For indeed, on the one hand, the authorities of the Church of Rome from the Second Vatican Council down to today are driven by a spirit of modernism which undermines in depth Sacred Tradition to the point of twisting its very notion: There shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, turning unto fables, as St Paul says to Timothy in his second Epistle (IV, 3,5). What use would it be to ask such authorities for a Mandate to consecrate a bishop who is going to be profoundly opposed to their most grave error?

And, on the other hand, to obtain such a bishop the few Catholics who understand his importance might have hoped, even after Vatican II, that he could come from the Society of St Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the four consecrated for them in 1988 by a previous emergency Mandate. Alas, when the authorities of that Society showed by their constant turning towards the Roman authorities that they were taking the same modernist road, that hope proved to be vain.

From where then could these faithful Catholics obtain the bishops essential to the survival of their true faith? In a world making political war day by day more on God and on His Church, the danger for the Faith seems such that its survival can no longer be left to depend on a single fully anti-modernist bishop. The Church herself asks him to appoint an associate, who will be Father Jean-Michel Faure.

By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted, and as soon as God intervenes to save His Church, which has no more human hope of rescue, the effects of this consecration and of its emergency Mandate will be without delay put back in the hands of a Pope once more wholly Catholic.

St. Marcel Initiative


Eleison Comments – Number CD – (400)

Eleison Comments

Chaos Returned

As the Conciliar Church in chaos sinks,
‘Tis a gift of God if anyone still thinks.

A fascinating paragraph from the book Iota Unum, written by the Italian layman Romano Amerio and much admired by Archbishop Lefebvre, has already been quoted in these “Comments.” In the book Amerio takes apart in masterly fashion all the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. In section #319 he writes: (1) If the present crisis is tending to overthrow the nature of the Church, and if (2) this tendency is internal to the Church rather than the result of an external assault as it has been on other occasions, then (3) we are headed for a formless darkness that will make analysis and forecast impossible, and (4) in the face of which there will be no alternative but to keep silence (English edition, p.713; Italian edition, p. 594).

This is strong meat, if one thinks about it. Amerio is saying we are on the brink of chaos, because of course (1) the present crisis is both tending to overthrow the nature of the Church and (2) it is internal to the Church, when the Pope himself is making statements like, “There is no Catholic God,” and “Homosexuals need to be evaluated,” statements whose deliberate ambiguity opens the door wide to the overthrow of all Catholic dogma and morals. But why should (3) Catholic analysis and forecast become impossible, and (4) how can there be nothing more to say? How can Amerio draw such a dark conclusion?

Because Our Lord says, “I am the light of the world. He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness” (Jn.VIII, 12), which strongly suggests that the mass of the world’s population that does not now follow him is already in darkness. He also says to those that do follow him, “You are the light of the world” (Mt.V, 14), which strongly suggests that if convinced Catholics are fewer by the day, then the darkness in Church and world is growing darker by the day. Alright, one might say, but darkness is only a metaphor. Why should Catholi c analysis and forecast become impossible?

(3) Because more and more people today are unable to think. Because ever since Our Lord with his Incarnation brought supernatural grace to the rescue of wounded and struggling nature, that nature has no longer been able to stand upright without that grace. So when men turn their backs on Jesus Christ and God, they are undermining their own nature, and they repudiate that common sense with which they are endowed by nature to think, as to the content of their thinking in accordance with reality, and as to its procedure in accordance with logic. They want freedom from reality and logic in order to defy God, by remaking the world in accordance with their fantasy.

It follows that if Jesus Christ came to the rescue of mankind and of human nature through establishing his Catholic Church, and if at Vatican II the Gentiles too finally repudiated that Church, then the process of men tearing themselves and their nature and their think ing to pieces took at the Council such a huge step forward that it is virtually irreversible. Here is how Amerio can see, implicit in Vatican II, a “formless darkness” of which the belligerent chaos of opinions proudly today prancing on the Internet might serve as an example and a foretaste.

But (4) why not cry out in that darkness? Why should there be “no alternative but to keep silence?” Because in a chaotic din the truth simply cannot be heard, except, one might add, by a few souls whom God has preordained to hear it (Acts XIII, 48). These souls are chosen by God, not by men, and they can come from the most surprising backgrounds. They do not like “formless darkness,” and Our Lord leads them to the Father (Jn.XIV, 6). They will be an important help for the Church and a hope of the world.

Kyrie eleison.

Eleison Comments – Number CCCXCIX – (399)

Eleison Comments

Sickness Unimaginable

In modern Popes such sickness do we find
As can’t be grasped by any healthy mind.

In the Society of St Pius X’s “hot summer” of 1976, after Paul VI “suspended” Archbishop Lefebvre for ordaining 14 priests for Tradition, the clash between Pope and Catholic Tradition was so sharp that one of the two moments occurred that August when the Archbishop most seriously considered whether the See of Rome might be vacant. As can be heard from the recording of words he then spoke, he was agonizing over that clash: how possibly could a true Vicar of Christ be so destroying the Church? The Archbishop never finally adopted the sedevacantist solution, but let us see how clearly he stated the problem, and then offer once more a line of solution which he may have been too sane in mind to think of. Here is a summary of his words in August of 1976:—

People ask me what I think of the Pope [Paul VI]. It is an incredible mystery. The true Pope is the unity of the Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost, and protected by the promise of Our Lord in upholding the Faith. But in the aftermath of Vatican II, Paul VI is systematically destroying the Church. Nothing is spared: catechism, universities, Congregations, seminaries, schools. Everything Catholic is being destroyed. One looks for a solution.

A series of false solutions can be dismissed out of hand, e.g. Paul VI is a prisoner, drugged, victim of his underlings, etc. For when he blessed the Charismatics or kissed the feet of the Orthodox Patriarch, did he have a revolver at his head? I have watched him in public audiences, speaking with the skill, presence of mind, pertinence and intelligence of a man in full possession of his faculties. Cardinal Benelli told me that it was the Pope himself who wrote those letters to me [crushing Tradition], that he is fully informed, that he knows exactly what he is doing, it is his will, they are his decisions. The Cardinal said that he reported to the Pope every day, and would do so again, straight after our own conversation.

Then can Paul VI be not a true Pope? That is one possible hypothesis. Theologians have studied the problem. I do not know. Do not put words in my mouth. But the problem seems theologically insoluble.

The Archbishop spoke of Paul VI, but the problem is essentially the same for all six Conciliar Popes (except perhaps John-Paul I). Let us divide the problem in two: how can the true God allow such destruction of his Church? How can his true Vicars be the main destroyers?

As for Almighty God, firstly the destruction will be still worse at world’s end (Lk. XVIII, 8). Secondly, God may easily be purifying his Church to prepare for the Triumph of his Mother’s Immaculate Heart. Thirdly, God did protect Paul VI from utterly destroying the Church, when for instance he arranged for the “chance” discovery to Paul VI of a plan to dissolve the Papacy by the text of Lumen Gentium. This enabled the Pope to block the plan by adding the Nota Praevia.

As for the Vicars, Archbishop Lefebvre never seems to have considered the solution which follows, which may be why in that August even he seems to have been nearly impaled on the horns of the sedevacantist-or-liberal dilemma. But if with each year liberalism comes closer to confusing the mind of every man on earth, how should the Popes escape the universal malady of being “sincerely” wrong? Because they are educated men? But liberalism reigns especially in the schools and universities. So if the miseducated Conciliar Popes are “sincerely” convinced that “truth” evolves, they will not even by their grave errors be pertinaciously denying what they know to be defined Catholic Truth, because even defined Truth, if it is to be for them “truth,” evolves in their direction.

Kyrie eleison.

Eleison Comments – Number CCCXCIII – (393)

Eleison Comments


Today things never are what they appear.

To godless people skillful liars are dear.

The Charlie Hebdo attack of January 7 in which two muslim gunmen killed a dozen cartoonists and journalists in the Paris office of a satirical French weekly, and the enormous public protest of Jan. 11 against the attack in which leaders of several European nations were photo opped as taking part, are best understood as one more episode in the war being waged by the enemies of God upon what little remains of Christian civilization. Let us consider in order the cartoonists, the gunmen, the puppet politicians and peoples pandering to Islam and the puppet-masters behind them all.

The cartoonists lampooned not only Islam and muslims but also, from the world’s one true religion, the Holy Trinity, our divine Saviour and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now the one true God is extremely patient, but he is not mocked (Gal. VI, 7). As men have a right not to suffer from terrorism, so the true God has a right not to endure the public repetition of obscene and blasphemous cartoons. Then nobody justifies terrorism as such, but given that the French Church and State authorities refuse to censor obscene blasphemy, is it surprising if God allowed muslims to avenge his honor?

The gunmen, two young muslims, must have been acting religiously, because politically it was entirely foreseeable that their action would rouse opinion against Islam. Still, how could they dare to attack? Because across Europe muslims are by their birthrate and immigration getting stronger in numbers all the time, and they make no secret of the fact that, as soon as they are strong enough, by a bloodbath if necessary, they will islamize the once Christian nations of Europe.

So who persuaded these nations to adopt the suicidal policy of almost unrestricted immigration and unbelievable welfare benefits for the in fact unassimilable immigrants, and so on? Who but our bribed or bullied puppet politicians? In a moment of truth a year or so ago, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, admitted that “multi-culti,” the mixing of contrary cultures, does not work. But a week or so ago in connection with the Hebdo attack, did she not proclaim that “Islam belongs to Germany”? She had been brought to heel. She is a puppet because she is constantly acting against Germany’s true interests. For instance, were there not so many muslims in France, would Charlie Hebdo ever have bothered to ridicule Islam? And who votes for these puppet politicians? Puppet peoples, who allow their thinking to be enslaved by their vile media.

Then who are the puppet-masters? They are enemies of God, intent upon establishing their own godless New World Order, a police State designed to ensure that not one living soul escapes eternal Hell. Let us call them “Globalists.” Then was the Hebdo attack their work, one of their events like 9/11 in the USA and 7/7 in the UK, engineered to move public opinion, this time t owards freedom for blasphemers and civil war? Most likely. The event was certainly not what it was made to seem. Famous example: the three-minute film clip showing a gunman shooting in the head point-blank a “muslim policeman” lying on the ground, with no blood, no recoil of the gun, and little movement of the “victim.” The clip may still be found, starting from here –http://youtu.be/gobYWXgzWgY.

And the Good Lord amidst all this madness? “Those whom he wishes to destroy, he first makes mad,” is the old saying. Pray 15 Mysteries a day for the triumph that he will engineer, through his Mother alone. Are the poor Globalists ever going to be taken by surprise!

Kyrie eleison.

Eleison Comments – Number CCCXCII – (392)

Eleison Comments

Contradictory Epitaph

Our nature, by God made good, Adam marred.
What good by God it wants, Adam makes hard.

Under the wide and starry sky
Dig the grave and let me lie
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you ’grave for me:
Here he lies where he longed to be.
Home is the sailor, home from sea
And the hunter home from the hill

—R.L.Stevenson (1850–1894)

This epitaph for the poet himself is eloquent by its simplicity, and touching, because it touches on death, that inevitable tragedy of human life. Commemorating life and love, poets often treat of death, which so mysteriously cuts off both. Not wishing to think on the meaning of life or death, poor materialists cut off poetry and will print it as prose if they can, precisely to avoid having to think about anything higher than matter. But the mystery remains . . .

In theory, Stevenson’s epitaph is brave. In the last three lines of each verse, in six lines out of eight, he says in six different ways that he is happy to die. But the poem is laden with contradiction. If “Glad did he live,” how could he gladly die? If he was so glad to die, how could he have been glad to live? To be as glad to die as he claims, he must have lost his will to live, or shut it down, which he could only do by refusing to his life any destiny or meaning or existence beyond his animal death, and this he could only do by pretending to be no more than an animal. But what animals take the trouble to write poems eloquent and touching?

O Robert Louis, you knew you were not just an animal. You took the trouble to write many literary works, including a spellbinding tale of life and adventure for boys, Treasure Island, and a harrowing tale of corruption and death for adults, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and your collected works make of you currently the 26th most translated author in the world. True, your parents were Scottish Presbyterians, a Calvinist sect dour enough in mid-19th century to turn many a good man into an atheist. But how could you sell yourself so short at death? How could you pretend that death is “home”?

The Creator did not originally design for animal death the rational animal that is man. Had all men from Adam and Eve made the right use of their rationality, or reason, for the appointed duration of their earthly lives, then instead of their now inevitable animal death they would have glided painlessly into the eternal life which the right use of their reason would have deserved for them. But that original design was frustrated when Adam disobeyed his Creator, and when by the mysterious solidarity of all future mankind with its first Father, he dragged down all men into original sin. From that moment on, contradiction is intrinsic to all human nature and life, because we have a created nature from God at war with our fallen nature from Adam. Our true – not false – “immortal longings” come from our nature as made by God and for God, while our animal death is “home” only to our nature as fallen. “Unhappy man that I am,” cries out St Paul (Rom.VII, 24–25), “who will deliver me from this body of death? The grace of God, by Jesus Christ Our Lord.”

Kyrie eleison.

Eleison Comments – Number CCCLXXXVII – (387)

Eleison Comments

Distinctions Necessary

The Council works from dangerous greys to black. A Catholic seeks out white to stay on track.

The principle that cancer of the liver will kill me without my necessarily having lung cancer (cf. the EC of Nov. 29) is annoying, because it means that I may need to distinguish instead of indulging myself in blanket condemnations, but distinctions are common sense and correspond to reality. So in today’s universal confusion, to stay in touch with reality there are times when I need to recognize that a mixture of good and bad will be bad as a whole, but that does not mean that its good parts, as parts, are bad, any more than that the goodness of the good parts means that the whole is good.

Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The new Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths (the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, the sacrificing priesthood, etc.) that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. But that does not mean that that part of the Mass which is the sacramental Form of Consecration of the bread and wine is bad or invalid. “This is my Body” is certainly valid, “This is the chalice of my Blood” is most likely to be valid, and it is certainly not invalidated by the new rite as a whole being so uncatholic. Therefore if I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth, but if I say it is always invalid, I am not telling the truth and sooner or later I will pay the penalty for exaggerating.

Similarly with the new Rite of priestly Ordination. The new Rite as a whole has severely diminished the expression of essential truths of the Catholic priesthood, especially that it is a sacrificing priesthood, but that part of the new Rite which is the sacramental Form is, at any rate in the new Latin version, if anything stronger (by the “et” instead of “ut”) than the old Latin version. Therefore assuming that the ordaining bishop is a true bishop and had the true sacramental Intention, it is simply not true to say that no priest ordained in the new Rite can be a true priest. And if one says it, sooner or later one will pay some penalty for departing from the truth.

Now from the de-catholicization of these two new Rites as wholes, while one may not argue that their sacramental Forms are invalid, one may well argue that in the end they will undermine and invalidate the priest’s or bishop’s sacramental Intention, but that is a different argument, no longer in black and white but, alas, in grey. For indeed the argument is that the steady use of de-catholicised Rites will slowly so alter the priest’s or bishop’s concept of what the Church does with those Rites that in the end he will no longer have the Catholic Intention to do what the Church does, Intention necessary for validity of the sacrament. In other words, white will only gradually turn through grey to black. But who, other than Almighty God, can know for certain when the grey turns into black? Once more, I must take care if I want to discern and know the truth.

This playing between white and black, this ambiguity, is what is properly diabolical in the Conciliar reform of the sacramental Rites. If I wish to tell the truth, I will not yet say that they have destroyed the Catholic sacraments, but they are certainly undermining them, and so if I wish to keep the Catholic Faith, I will certainly as a whole avoid them.

Kyrie eleison.

Eleison Comments – Number CCCLXXXVI – (386)

Eleison Comments

Resistance Advice

The “Resistance” may or may not organize, But suff’ring will be its hallmark and its prize.

A precious exchange of e-mails came recently over my desk which I am sure many souls in their difficult circumstances of today will appreciate. The problem comes from a typical 21 st century city-dweller who has the Faith but feels abandoned. The solution presented here is based on a prophecy of Our Lady from the 17 th century! Firstly, the problem:—

“I am a female nurse from Germany, 48 years old. 12 years ago I entered a Convent and loved it, trying to deepen my relationship with God, but after 10 years I had to leave because of the modernism. I could not take my final vows because the Community was far from the Truth. I thought that leaving would please my heavenly Father and make me a kind of heroine in his eyes, but now I am very sad, and feel abandoned by God, not at all like a heroine.

“Two years ago I did get a job back in the hospital where I worked before entering the Convent, but here I am back in the world where the people around me are ignorant or modern, where nobody has any faith, and if they do, they don’t know why. I am too old to be able to find a job close to the sacraments. Shift work stops me from getting to Mass every Sunday. The nearest Traditional Mass is an hour’s drive away. So here I am, sitting in the dark, with little access to the sacraments. The situation in Church and world is so confused that I just do not know what to do. Where is there a way out of the darkness? Where do I go to figure out what I am supposed to do with my life? “

And now in answer to the problem, advice which any number of us in the quote-unquote Resistance, seeking to withstand the worldwide apostasy, can take to heart:—

“Dear friend, in Ecuador in 1634 Our Lady gave to a holy nun almost direct guidance for us in these unholy times which we are blessed to live in (even though they may not feel like a blessing). She promised that there would always be, despite the worldwide apostasy, souls that would remain faithful and would preserve the treasure of the Faith and virtues. But they would suffer a cruel, unspeakable and prolonged martyrdom. She said, In order to free men from bondage to the heresies all around, the souls chosen by my Most Holy Son to effect the restoration will need great strength of will, constancy, valor and confidence in God. To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions where all will seem to be lost. Just then will be the happy beginning of the restoration.’

“There is an excellent summary of this message of Our Lady on the Internet at: OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS: prophetic revelations made to Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres.

“Many of us find ourselves in similar circumstances to yours. We are deprived of the help and strength which comes from living in a community surrounded by our fellow Catholics with a rule and Superior to guide us . While I am not a religious, it is still a tremendous suffering for me to be deprived of Sacraments, priests and fellow Catholics, and to find myself having to work in the very world which my heart, mind and soul reject. But this is the suffering God is permitting for many of us and the very suffering we must embrace, being in union with His will for each of us, uniting our sufferings to those which our beloved Saviour suffered and offered for us. By so doing we are drawn to Him like His little ones. He has not forgotten you. On the contrary, by all you endure, you give to His Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary much needed consolation and may perhaps be obtaining graces for those who have lost the Faith.”

Kyrie eleison.