November, 2012

Dear Peter,

I have become convinced since our conversation that the Sanhedrin pharisees had decided that even before Jesus met them they were prepared to kill off their Messiah. If he was the humble one spoken of in the Scriptures they would have no part of him. They had no fear of God. They knew the Scriptures backwards. Once he appeared they would have known that he fulfilled the prophecies. That Christ spoke the truth about himself.

Kill him while he is killable....when he becomes man divesting himself of his equality with God by refusing to exercise his power to judge there and then.

Compare this with the rebellion of Lucifer. He knew that God was God. He decided he did not want to serve someone who was going to lower himself – abandon his ‘equality with God’ becoming weak as we are weak and subject to death (not by disease of course.) The angels knew a certain amount – would never be able to fathom the humiliations Christ would suffer – in other words Divine Mercy. But this most beautiful angel knowingly and deliberately rejected God face to face – knowing Him face to face!

We know that the sin of Judas was a sin against the Spirit which is not forgiven by God in this life or the next....likewise the Pharisees who had no intention of repenting before or after Christ’s crucifixion.   Compare the sin of Lucifer in heaven to the sin of those Pharisees. It is the same sin.   That is what makes it a sin against the spirit. The Evil One entered into Judas possessing him who then acted according to the spirit he had received – by consent.

Once created, an immortal soul /spirit will not be killed by God without destroying his word on the immortality of his creatures. If he does not keep his word mere creatures (angels/men) could not trust him – and what better proof than punishing Adam and Eve as he said he would. Jesus would not override or change the law of Moses – he became subject to them. He accepted the authority of the High Priests and Pilate submitting to their judgement of him because authority had been given to them by His Father.

We are told that the sin of those Pharisees is the sin of Lucifer therefore they know what they were planning before Jesus appeared and certainly afterwards.

Go back to the time before Original sin was committed. God warned Adam and Eve

what would happen if they disobeyed him. God already knew that Lucifer was free to tempt man. They did not. God did not reveal this knowledge to them. It was not necessary to tell them about evil. He put the law in place precisely because there was an evil angel bent on tempting them. Otherwise there would not have been a law. It was to protect them. They had to trust him. They had not reason no to do so.

Reflect on that for a minute: Once created, God does not repent of his creation. Did not repent of Lucifer. Lucifer’s rebellion did not bring about any change in God’s plan. He would bring about through Lucifer what he had always intended and that which could not be brought about by anyone else. Lucifer was created and invited to help God -to serve God - to work in the world as a good angel to assist in bringing about our final immortality – union with Him in heaven.

Man still needed Lucifer to bring about the completion of God’s work in the world. Nobody is dispensible in God’s plan. From the least to the greatest of us we are all indispensible. He did not create one single person unsaveable and loved by him. Unthwarted and unchanging He will use evil and good. However, the ‘good’ in us was incomplete – unconsummated until united in and with Him (sin or no sin).

Sifting by Satan

Lucifer is permitted by God to accuse us unprotected by God, unprotected by His mercy but left unjudged.. Naked in our sins. Whatever Lucifer accuses us of is true. The soul feels it, knows it, stinks of it. Lucifer confidently exposes our sins because he had a hand in all of them. Tempted by him, then like Eve we sinned knowingly. Lucifer knows the details of our sins. He knows we cannot defend ourselves because we are guilty and cannot undo them.. His accusations are true. He demands in the name of justice that God condemn us. He demands the punishment of eternal death..

The soul, having been introduced to sin, then induced by Lucifer to commit actual sin he tempts with a distorted version of God’s mercy. Of course God will forgive, he is merciful! So we eat of the forbidden fruit with the same results as A/E whom we cannot blame for personal sin.

God watches the soul squirm under Lucifer’s searchlight unable to escape it, pinned down unmercifully – wanting to escape into the shadows – away from God whose gaze causes the agony. A sinful soul cannot bear the agony of being exposed to God’s gaze. (All of us) The truth of our state imprisons us until we make a choice.

Brought to our knees one either begs for mercy or curses God. Either response will will turn off the searchlight. The first glimmers of redemption touch the soul begging mercy. The curser escapes the agony of God’s gaze by falling into the arms of the Supreme Curser. Both souls are guilty as accused, but one acknowledges the truth about himself, the other denies he is a sinner.

The ‘just’ soul’s eyes are opened AFTER begging mercy to the fact of Satan’s deception that the price has already been paid for its sins. The curser-soul is denied the knowledge that the demand, by Lucifer, for punishment is false. He has joined the merciless underworld where pure judgement is meted out second by second for all eternity.

The Evil one can only hold a soul captive for as long as it takes to see the truth – first about himself and what God did on his behalf. From that time on the now redeemed, sinner, by his fiat, is strengthened by having the knowledge of MERCY engraved on his heart. The Mercy of God has become internalised – no more a simple belief. Thus does this separation occur first, individually then in the community at large.

MERCY, engraved on the heart, is powerful. It protects the soul thereafter from being deceived by Satan. That is why he hates it! Lucifer will not give up however, and will revisit the soul endeavouring to rob it of this magnificent gift. The difference now is that the soul can endure the searchlight that continues to find and expose its sins/sinfulness. Enduring these onslaughts turns the soul again and again to God – acknowledging more and more its need of Him.

Thus is the soul purged and purified throughout its earthly existence, and thus does Satan continue as an instrument of the Divine Will bringing the submissive and trusting soul to perfection.

God deprives Lucifer of his victory, his prize - with Mercy. Mercy enrages Satan. God does not have to be merciful for he is GOD! Likewise, those evil Pharisees embodied the same spiritual pride because the only kind of Messiah they would recognise would behave/believe arrogantly just like Satan. Their Messiah would be a leader to rule over his people and enslave them just as they already did when Christ called them out. They have never, nor ever will accept that they are sinners in need of mercy...therefore they will never be able to save their souls.

The Sanhedrin cheated their own people, tearing up the Sacred Scriptures prior to, and subsequent to Christ’s coming, and how his chosen leaders betrayed and crucified him. They created their own version:

The Talmud! (click here)

Part I - Teaching of the Talmud Concerning Christians

Chapter I. Jesus Christ in the Talmud

Art. 1. The Names of Christ
Art. 2. The Life of Christ/The Christian Cross
Art. 3. The Teachings of Christ

Chapter II. Christians in the Talmud

Art. 1 The Names of Christians
Art. 2. What the Talmud teaches about Christians
Art. 3. Christian Worship

Part II - Precepts of the Talmud Concerning Christians

Chapter I. Christians are to be Avoided

Art. 1. Christians Unworthy to Associate with Jews
Art. 2. Christians are Unclean
Art. 3. Christians are Idolaters
Art. 4. Christians are Evil

Chapter II. Christians are to be Exterminated

Art. 1. Christians to be Harmed Indirectly

1. By not helping them
2. By interfering in their work
3. By deceit in legal matters
4. By harming them in things necessary for life

Art. 2. Christians to be Harmed Directly

1. Renegades to be killed
2. Apostates
3. Princes especially the Prince of Rome (the Pope) to be exterminated
4. All Christians to be killed
5. Killing a Christian is an acceptable sacrifice to God
6. Heaven promised to those who kill Christians
7. A Christian may be beheaded on the most solemn festivals
8. The Messiah expected will be revengeful
9. Jewish prayers against Christians
10. Christian prayers for the Jews

If man had not sinned at all, and obeyed God from the start and continued to obey him, the tempter could never get a foothold. But he did sin. Besides paying the price for personal sin our redemption, in order to be complete, needed someone strong enough to drive Satan out – never to return. Hence the parable of the swept house (eliminating personal sin) was not enough to keep it clean, for seven devils worse than the original occupier would take up residence. Christ had to be installed permanently to safeguard the house and kick them out.

Thus, Christ, bound by his own Word could not rid us of the Evil One by destroying him whose task had yet to be done.

When the task is done, then Our Lord returns as judge. He will banish Lucifer and his angels to the eternal fire and place an uncrossable chasm twixt heaven and hell. Sadly, many on earth will be banished to the same place that was prepared for the Devil and his angels, having chosen to refuse God’s mercy and live eternally under His Judgement.

Since Vatican II Council the church has: ceased teaching
       ceased converting
       ceased governing
       ceased judging

The Church has become paralysed by the sting of Satan's poison. Today, all men are at the mercy of God-without-his-church. The Church no longer binds and loosens. If the Second Coming occurred now many souls would be lost, but God will not judge us before the Church completes her mission. God will not condemn anyone the Church has not condemned - that is - anyone who is ignorant of their condemnation as is the situation currently. When the Church has brought her children to a state of worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth then conscious choices will have been made in full knowledge...that is, those who remain outside Her do so in full knowledge with their full consent.

              ...................................................

Dear Peter,

Today I was reading the following passage from St. Paul: Be followers of me and observe them who walk so as you have our model. For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now I tell you weeping) that they are enemies of the cross of Christ : whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things. But our conversation is in heaven....1

St. Paul warns that the enemies of Christ lay in wait for his 'children'. He 'knows' while they are still growing in the knowledge of their faith. They do not know as he knows. They are as innocent of the devil's nature as Paul is familiar with it. They need to believe what he tells them. One day, they will know for themselves, able to fight with the spiritual weapons they have yet to perfect and which he already uses for himself, as well as for them. But one day he will be gone. What then?

JUXTAPOSE Paul’s warning alongside the one God gave to Adam and Eve before they sinned. God knew the Supreme Enemy existed - waiting to tempt them. One day they would know for themselves but until then they had to believe Him. They had to be given time to come to the full knowledge of Him.   Then as they grew in knowledge of Him they would be armed and protected.

1. Phillipians iii. 17-21 ; iv. 1-3

K N O W L E D G E

The question arises why did they have to know about good and evil?

It would be unnecessary unless it effected them in some way - which it didn't... until they sought out the knowledge. God knew they would seek, against his will, to obtain it so as a provision for their foreseen choice He created the tree of Knowledge - of good and evil forbidding them to partake of it. He provided a warning signal. But they did ignored it thereby becoming subject to Lucifer instead of to God. The Prince of this world had succeeded in displacing the Divine Kingship.

This scenario has not changed one iota since the beginning of creation. This Prince had willing adherents who, like their leader, spurned forgiveness/mercy. St. Paul tells us of the descendents of Lucifer that came into existence from the time of Cain. God foreknew Adam and Eve would repent of their sin, Cain and his descendents would boast and glory in their sins. They would imbibe the full spiritual pride which Lucifer brandished when confronting God face to face. This strain of evil has passed down through the ages by and through the ancestors of those of which St. Paul warned in echo of that first warning given to Adam and Eve.

        AND THEIR DESCENDENTS   EXIST   TODAY   IN   THE   CHURCH

                  ................................................................................................

Dear Peter,

With regard to the Society of Pope Pius X headed by Bishop Fellay I have attended Bishop Fellay’s conferences and heard word for word his own account of his dealings with Rome. I have not taken sides on this issue one way or the other. I became convinced of his sincerity when he kept saying, over and over again, that he wanted to know what the Pope really wanted. He kept coming back to that. Then he said that the Pope had deceived him.    I thought he had finally come to agree with the other three Bishops, albeit late. I decided he had acted with a childlike faith towards the Holy Father, but without the shrewdness of a serpent (or suchlike as described in Scripture). The..other three had that shrewdness from the start…Bishop Williamson being the most outspoken.

His admission of being deceived should have convinced him that the Pope had not gone into the talks with an open mind – that is – with a similar childlike faith in God. The policy of ‘Romanita’ still prevails in the Vatican and always will. So my conclusion now, is that Bishop Fellay has not learned a very serious and important lesson.

It always seemed to me that with three Bishops dissenting that Bishop Fellay acted unilaterally…whereas if the four of them had gone into ‘conclave’ mode, locked the door, thrown away the key not to be recovered until they all had agreed – then, we the public, would know it was the Holy spirit in charge.

Another conclusion I have come to is that I believe the SSPX has done the work for which it was founded.. Archbishop LeFebvre saved the priesthood. There are shoots springing up throughout the whole Church. Vigorous young priests who only want the traditional faith/liturgy etc.   SSPX was never intended to be permanent….waiting only for the day when it would simply melt back into the Church. That time has come..and gone! It is just splitting and splitting into individual priests; other traditional groups etc. Being Catholic is what counts. Keeping the faith. It seems that Masses may now be said in Catholic homes by true priests whose voice the ‘sheep’ recognise immediately. The SSPX is not the Church.   God’s will is being accomplished in spite of our collective sinfulness. The sheep and the goats are being separated…with the sheep sheltering under the mantle of Our Lady who has been disowned by the Church Proper and without whose intercession no-one can be saved.

                           ..........................................................
Dear T....

I was just re-reading ‘Apostle’ (Newsletter of Asian Dist. SSPX) where the editorial elaborated on SSPX being reinserted ‘As We Are!” (A subject we discussed yesterday).

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2012/apostle33-editorial.pdf

It has always been Archbishop LeFebvre's intention that when the Church has corrected the errors of Vat.II we would seamlessly merge. I understand it has never been his intention that we be reinserted in need of guarantees that the Chair of Peter will allow us to practice the Catholic Faith. No guarantees, special prelatures or permissions need be sought for us to be accepted as we are because we would all be the same. There is only one Faith. Like can only merge with like. Has the See of Peter ever said to Protestant Churches, ‘we can merge with you so long as you accept us as we are.’ No! it has not. Grovelling - Rome has gone to those who seek to destroy her and surrendered the true faith – “We come to you because we accept you as you are.” She proudly deceives herself as a generous benefactor oblivious to the contempt of those she approaches. Divesting herself of all modesty the Church has nakedly renounced her reason for being: “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” She has prostituted herself.

Is Our Lord going to stand by and be shamed by this? Even in the latter scenario the principle holds that like can only merge with like. Prostitutes melt well with whores.

I know this is strong language T. but I do not apologise for it. Our Lord, through his prophets of old accused his faithless people of whoring. And the SSPX hopes to be ‘reinstated’?

   ...............................................


       December, 2012

Son, You asked me:

'I was thinking mum, when Christ says "Peace be with you" Would that be a peace that knows that if you die now you go straight to heaven? Christ says "Peace be with you" a lot. Like the peace one gets after confession. If the peace after a sincere confession, calling on God's mercy, and knowing through faith that Christ's promise is real and your repentance is accepted, is that what Christ means when He says "Peace be with you"? Is there any greater peace than a clear conscience?'

i) In the Missal (liturgy)the full quote is "Peace I leave with you, MY peace I give unto you". This means His peace is not the peace of the world. It is a peace that martyrs experience during terrible tortures - when the world’s peace would be to give in to the demands made of them. It is totally spiritual that brings joy into the soul for the privilege of sharing in Christ’s sufferings and thus paying the price for ordinary sinners like you and me. It shortens the time of suffering on earth because it has been paid for by them.

ii) When God/Angel appears to people a great fear descends upon them...like when Christ was transfigured and the three apostles were scared stiff.

Immediately, they are addressed with the words, “Peace be with you” and the words themselves have the power of the H.S to actually cause their hearts to be peaceful. God’s presence incites fear in human beings.

iii) It would not be a guarantee of going straight to heaven. The peace one experiences at death is a peace of total resignation to God’s will, and may involve Purgatory.

........................
Son,

Mary has interceded for me from the beginning. Without her intercession throughout my whole Catholic life Christ’s graces would have had no access to my soul. It is only now that I realise how ‘hidden’ she has been. In order for me to receive these graces she has kept pace with her Son every step of His redemptive way and every step of my sinful way channelling His graces through her accompanying suffering. Her suffering is two-fold – it bears the agony of watching her Son’s Passion and the agony of my indifference.

It is how her intercession works.. In other words I, nor any Catholic, can be redeemed without her - let alone non-catholics. How many of the latter, no less the former, have been experiencing the lifelong benefits of her co-suffering with Christ ignorant of this knowledge? They will be (and have been) converted to Mother Church. How many, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, recognise the indispensibility of her role in our salvation?

I look back over the years of my life and grieve over my wilful, selfish ignorance. Is she now handing over the reins to me to carry the cross of my own sins? To relieve her of further suffering on my behalf enabling me with a new grace to make reparation for my neglect?

...............................................................................................................................

At Mass today Peter one single thought/fact penetrated my soul vividly. It was this:

the only ‘thing’ that exists is Christ. Think on it! No soul may touch God. No soul has access to God. No soul knows God. No soul is holy, no soul is good. But at Mass a sinner-soul has access to the Almighty and unknowable One because Christ exists (a) persona Christi in the priest; (b) in reality in the victim; (c) in the Father as Trinity to Whom the victim is offered. No soul is worthy to hold the sacred Host except Christ. No soul has the ability to offer any prayer except through Christ.

Only an angel-priest, in his person is mandated to consecrate the host/wine into the Body, Soul and Divinity of Christ and be a vehicle of His Divine Person.

We most humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these things to be carried up by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine majesty....

At Holy Communion the sinner-soul receives Christ by the hand of Christ alone worthy to hold God in His hands.

The untouchable God has chosen to dwell in the heart of a sinner.

...........................................

In our democratic Secular world Christ is no longer recognised. Therefore, it was good to see a letter published in the hope that men of good will would compare past and present:-

To 'The Australian' newspaper : (published) 28th December, 2012

Sir,

WITH the increasing hostility towards the morality of the Christian faith, Big Brother is filling the vacuum with a code of ethics dictating how we think, act and speak.
Once a civilised society, our government protected defenceless unborn babies, encouraged family life and the institution of marriage, and was grateful for unpaid religious orders that directly cared for the homeless, the destitute and unwed mothers-to-be. The new code of ethics sanctions or supports killing our unborn, destroys family life by redefining marriage, and has caused the destruction of the good name of devout religious orders.
All this coincides with legislating the natural order to behave as Big Brother dictates.
Kathleen Donelly, Tynong, Vic

   ................................................

   February 2013

To my sons,

I will take this opportunity to clarify my own thinking.

For the past ten years SSPX priests have nurtured my soul with and in traditional/perennial Catholic teaching. I know that I have grown in grace and go so far as to say they have been responsible for saving my soul. During the last few years I have noticed the 'change of direction' the SSPX has taken. Suffice it to say that the whole idea of being granted special treatment by Rome to create a special Prelature whereby the SSPX would continue 'as we are' is not right.
The reasons are as follows:

i)    The osmosis would not be seamless as envisaged by Archbishop LeFebvre while Rome has remained unwilling to correct the errors of Vatican II council.... to return to sound doctrine.
ii)     More serious, however, is the situation that would be created where Catholics would have to choose whom to obey - the leader of the SSPX or the Pope!

When the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre failed, in conclave, to resolve their differences a golden opportunity was lost. Parents should never ar legue in front of the children.
They should go off alone and come to a resolution - united in purpose and charity. So too, the pewsitter would have known that the Holy Spirit was in charge if the Bishops had kept to the rules of good, sound parenting. Every group needs a Devil's Advocate to test motives, theories and resolutions. I ask myself if that was the particular charism of Bishop Williamson....a charism now lost in his subsequent banishment.

It is now clear to me that, if one knows and loves the Church's teachings clearly expounded up to Vatican II Council, that such a one cannot be misled.   So, refusing to take sides clears the mind to hear the Voice of the Shepherd regardless of personalities.   Our Lord told us:

                                                        " My children hear my voice."
      "Where the body lies there gather the eagles."

It will be impossible for those who hear His voice to lose their faith, to be deceived. They will gather in groups led by faithful priests, or where no priests are available, they will gather together and pray their Rosaries.   Today, priest is against priest. They do not speak with one voice anymore because the Chief Shepherd has deserted the flock leaving the sheep to be picked off one by one by the wolves. In Old Testament times Christ accused the Jews of not going into the altar themselves, thereby denying the people access to God.

Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in, you have hindered. [Luke 11:52]

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. [Matthew 23:13]

This is happening today.   But Our Lord rectified that situation with His Coming. How? Because of Our Lady.    She is crushing the head of Satan allowing, through her Rosary, access to the altar through her divinely-given power as Mediatrix of all Graces and (yet to be formalised) Co-Redemptrix. She will see that we are not left orphans because Her intercession is a two-way channel.   She presents our petitions to God, and God imparts his graces through Her back to us.
He can refuse her nothing - least of all will He refuse us Himself if we are denied access.

I was always taught as a child that Our Lord wanted my heart for his Tabernacle. A tabernacle of flesh and blood, just like Our Lady, freed from a golden cage.   She, who is the Arc of the Covenant will grant her children her dearest wish - her own Son.   So that out of evil God alone can bring the Great Sacrament of Himself into our impoverished, hungry, yearning hearts....but only through Her.

               Click : On Sedevacantism (Updated 5th March 2015)

I found these articles recently and treasure the 'voice of the       Shepherd' clearly spoken in these present times.

The Visible Church

In December of 2012, Bishop Williamson, in his 281st edition of his “Eleison Comments”, entitled “Various Churches”, spoke of confusion regarding various “churches” (i.e Catholic, conciliar, etc.). Several weeks later, SSPX priest Fr. Francois Laisney posted a rebuttal to +Williamson’s words on the Society’s website. This rebuttal, however, was nothing more than a straw man and another cheap shot taken at +Williamson in an attempt to discredit him. The poor Bishop had been already been expelled from the Society, yet priests such as Fr. Laisney continue their assault on him, trying at every opportunity to discredit him by using nearly every dishonest tactic in the book. First, let us review what His Excellency had to say regarding the conciliar church and visible Church:

“Much confusion reigns today over the identity of Our Lord’s true Church here on earth, and the variety of names by which it can be called. Easily most of the present confusion comes from the Church’s biggest problem of today, which is the diabolical Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Let us attempt to disentangle some of the confusion…

“Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible?

“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.”
Later in December, Fr. Laisney posted a nonsensical rebuttal, which can be seen in full on the SSPX’s website. Here is an expert from his absurd rebuttal:

“To say that “the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church”, if one means by
this that the conciliar principles, the conciliar spirit are not Catholic
principles, not a Catholic spirit, this is true: this is the meaning of certain
words of Archbishop Lefebvre. But if one implies such a separation as that
between a rotten part and sound part of an apple, it is not conform to reality,
it is false; it is totally opposed to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre.”

Now, what Fr. Laisney apparently did not realize (or perhaps did not even care to realize) is that Bishop Williamson never said what Fr. Laisney accused him of; that is, of saying that the Catholic Church exists only in a part of the Church and not in the official Church. It is also interesting that accordista priests and laymen use (and misrepresent) the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to prove their points while their principles do not even match his
.
Fr. Laisney quotes the Archbishop several times throughout his “rebuttal”, attempting to show that what Bishop Williamson stated was contrary to the viewpoint of the Archbishop. But there is a very important quote from the Archbishop that Fr. Laisney conveniently neglected to mention:

“This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
Now Fr. Laisney’s response would likely be “But the Archbishop just means that anyone who adheres to the conciliar church’s new teachings separates themselves from the Catholic Church”. Ah, but read what the Archbishop says next, in that same quote:

“Today’s Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.”

In other words, the conciliar church is the Catholic Church “only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always”.

Therefore, we can only conclude that Bishop Williamson’s analogy is closer to the Archbishop’s than Fr. Laisney’s. And what I have quoted from Fr. Laisney’s “rebuttal” is only the tip of the iceberg, it only shows a portion of the nonsensical junk that he is spewing. This paragraph is perhaps the worst of his “rebuttal”:
One sees in this false understanding of the distinction between Conciliar and Catholic, the doctrinal error which is in some at the root of their opposition to Bishop Fellay in this year 2012. Indeed, the author concludes: the official Church is largely Conciliar and not Catholic”, which logically leads to the refusal of any regularization. One no longer sees that those who hold office in the Church have received the authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church, and thus have received a good thing – indeed what Our Lord Jesus Christ has established is evidently excellent – the abuses of that authority do not take away from the goodness of that authority in itself, of that hierarchical order; and thus if the Pope wants to regularize the Society of St. Pius X within that order, he wants something good (order is good) – therefore against which one has not the right to resist, in as much as he gives it with no evil conditions and with the sufficient guarantees so that this order be solid.”

There are two serious problems with Fr. Laisney’s above remark. For one thing, Bishop Williamson, using the “apple analogy”, does not say that the conciliar church is a separate apple, merely that it is rot on the apple. So Fr. Laisney unfairly puts words in the mouth of His Excellency. And secondly, his line of reasoning is flawed, and is not what the Archbishop believed. If he truly believes that the Archbishop thought that he had no right to resist the Pope’s wish to regularize the Society, then it only proves that Bishop Williamson was correct when he recently stated that those seeking a “reconciliation” never understood the Archbishop. Let us read what the Archbishop had to say here:

“We would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects… Amongst the whole Roman curia, amongst all the world’s bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing… [As for the Pope appointing conservative bishops] I don’t think it is a true return to Tradition. Just as in a fight when the troops are going a little too far ahead and one holds them back, so they are slightly putting the brakes on the impulse of Vatican II because the supporters of the council are going to far… the supposedly conservative bishops are wholly supportive of the council and of the liturgical reforms… No, all of that is tactics, which you have to use in any fight. You have to avoid excesses… [Asked about signs of benevolence to Tradition] There are plenty of signs showing us that what you are talking about is simply exceptional and temporary… So I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome, I think we must still wait. Wait, unfortunately, for the situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now, they do not want to recognize the fact… That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of the conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves into the hands of those professing these errors.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview, Fideliter, 1989)

In conclusion, Fr. Laisney’s ”rebuttal” of His Excellency’s words is not only ridiculous but is full of straw man fallacies, and even worse are full of misrepresentations of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre. This “rebuttal” was nothing more than an attempt to discredit His Excellency and diminish his following by using dishonest tactics to do so. These dishonest tactics have become, unfortunately, all too common from the neo-SSPX.

It is quite interesting that the Society has time to criticize the words of Bishop Williamson, but they refuse to criticize anything that Benedict XVI says or does, as I noted in my post entitled “Traditional Catholicism and the Internet”. Benedict continues to spew heresy after heresy, apostasy after apostasy, and most recently called for a one world government, yet the Society says nothing about it. It is sad and actually quite despicable for a “Traditional” group to do this, but the only thing we can do is understand where the error in their reasoning is and pray that they wake up and embrace the principles of the Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre.

God Bless.

Baptism of Desire

One of the more hotly debated topics amongst Traditional Catholics is the subject of “Baptism of Desire”. Baptism of Desire (BOD for short) is a non-water form of Baptism that is said to apply to those who desire to be baptized a Catholic but die before they are able to be. Thus, their desire counts as a baptism, and they are saved.

This is an issue that splits Trads. Some believe in it, while those who don’t are labeled “Feeneyites”, a term that is named after Fr. Feeney, who believe in the necessity of water-only baptism.

Feeneyites are sometimes accused of being heretics. We should not make the accusation of heresy against Feeneyites, however, for BOD has never been declared a Dogma of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, Feeneyites do tend to misunderstand the concept of BOD, often accusing it of contradicting the Catholic Church’s teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. This is simply not the case, though.

A Muslim, for instance, who dies with the desire to be baptized and to become a Catholic but dies before they can do so does not die a Muslim. They die a Catholic. Baptism of Blood works in a similar manner. The Church teaches that anyone who is martyred for the Catholic Faith goes straight to Heaven. Now, suppose someone converts to the Catholic Faith. Soon afterwards, they are asked to renounce their Faith and refuse, and they die a martyr. That person was not yet baptized, but because they died for Jesus Christ and His Church, they died a member of the Catholic Church, and were saved.

To conclude, here are several quotes in favor of Baptism of Desire:
“The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
“By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” – Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter
“Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit of implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilty, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is “de fide” that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent.” – St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s Moral Theology Manual (15th century), Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning Baptism

“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)

“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumans who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) – 1917 Code of Canon Law

“17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.” – Catechism of Pope St. Pius X

“The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquae or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.” – 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism

“Q. 651. What is Baptism of Blood? A. Baptism of Blood is the shedding of ones blood for the faith of Christ. Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. – Baltimore Catechism
God Bless.

Traditional Catholicism and the Internet

In his recent letter to the faithful, Father Rostand, Superior of the US District of the SSPX, warned about the “dangers of the internet”. He stated that the internet is full of slander, blasphemy, and gossip, and that we should all spend less time on the internet and more time in prayer.

Of course, what Fr. Rostand is really saying is that we should spend less time on the internet because we just might adopt the resistance’s “radical” line of thought in regards to the Society’s dealings with modernist Rome.

Supporters of Bishop Williamson and the resistance are using the internet to their advantage, they are using it to spread the truth about what is happening to the SSPX. Without the internet, the resistance would have nowhere near the popularity that it currently has. The SSPX leadership realizes this, and that is why they are suddenly warning Traditional Catholics to stay away from it. Sites like CatholicInfo, Traditio, TrueTrad, and this very blog are helping the resistance to steadily grow, and the SSPX cannot stand it.

Fr. Rostand’s District Superior letter has followed a similar pattern since drama began earlier this year. His letters either make excuses as to why the Society is negotiating with modernist Rome, or slam the resistance (or in this case, discourage the use of internet so the resistance’s following will decline). It would seem that Fr. Rostand and the rest of the SSPX leadership are too busy trying to discredit the resistance that they seem to neglect other, more important issues.

For instance, in December, Benedict XVI called for a “one world government”. Anyone familiar with what a “one world government” is knows that it is the plan of the New World Order, which is the opposite of the Social Kingship of Christ. It is satan’s kingdom on earth. And yet the Society spoke not a word in response to Benedict’s call for a one world government. No criticism, no warning, nothing but silence. At around the same time, the Vatican announced that all of its clerics and employees would have to carry an identification card that contained an RFID tracking device — that is, a microchip. This is one step away from actually having the chip implanted in your hand. If one reads the Apocalypse, they will find that anyone who takes this chip – the mark of the beast – will not be saved. Again, absolute silence from the SSPX leadership. Instead they are trying to “reconcile” with this same man who apparently wants a New World Order.

And now Paul VI is on the verge of being beatified by the Vatican. Still, nothing but silence from the SSPX leadership. This is the very man who is primarily responsible for the Bogus Ordo and many of the heresies of the Second Vatican Council, and yet the Society can say not a word about it, likely because they are afraid that any criticisms of what modernist Rome is doing would make them appear “too radical” like the resistance, and thus ruin any chance of a “reconciliation” with the modernists who currently occupy Rome.
That’s not to say there isn’t some truth to what Fr. Rostand says. There certainly is a plethora of immorality on the internet. Not to mention neo-Traditionalism, displayed by neo-Trad websites such as Rorate Caeli. However, as I stated above, the reason for Fr. Rostand’s rant against the internet is so that he may attempt to stop the resistance’s momentum. And he also fails to point out that there is good that is contained on the internet.

In fact, if it weren’t for the internet, I would not be a Traditional Catholic. A majority of people nowadays who discover Traditional Catholicism seem to discover it through the internet, just as I did. The internet also allows Traditional Catholics across the world to interact with one another through forums and blogs. These are facts that Fr. Rostand conveniently ignores.

Instead of incessantly attempting to discredit the resistance, Fr. Rostand and the SSPX should instead dedicate their time to speaking out against the evil actions of Benedict XVI and modernist Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre, even when he was in negotiations with Rome, did not cease criticizing their wrongful actions. It would seem, though, that Bishop Fellay would rather remain silent about nearly everything modernist Rome does wrong, with the excuse of “Well, Benedict is still a friend of Tradition”.

So, while there is certainly sin and immorality on the internet, it’s not sinful to use the internet itself, and we should not be discouraged from using it. On the contrary, it serves some useful purposes, as I noted above, and it is because of the internet that many have discovered not only Traditional Catholicism but also the truth about what has been occurring in the SSPX within the past several years. The SSPX wants us to refrain from using the internet because we may learn the truth. With the New World Order likely to take over the internet soon and purge Christian websites and any site that exposes their agenda such as infowars (rest assured, fellow Americans, that will be on Obama’s “to do list” for his second term), we should and use the internet to our advantage while we still can.
God Bless.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Greatest Quotes

107 years ago today, on November 29th, Marcel Lefebvre was born. He would later become an Archbishop, and was without a doubt the greatest defender of Tradition during the crisis in the Church following the Second Vatican Council. In honor of this occasion, here is a list of some of his greatest quotes. Enjoy!

“In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian the diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist what interferes with their faith… If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey… It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal church… I am not of that religion, I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion. Christians are divided… priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith, or they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope. Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation, it is impossible to avoid a choice.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”)

“I have never changed. I have preached and done what the Church has always taught. I have never changed what the Church said in the Council of Trent and at the First Vatican Council. So who has changed? It is the enemy, as Pope St. Pius X said, the enemy who is working within the Church because he wants the Church to be finished with her tradition.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily, Venice, April 7, 1980)

“If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these thesis, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given in 1978)

“We are not of this new religion! We do not accept this new religion! We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this “universal religion” as they call it today – this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this liberal, modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own “ecumenical” Bible. We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our Faith. It is an immense, immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! We are in a truly dramatic situation. We have to choose an appearance of disobedience – for the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith; it is impossible, impossible! We choose not to abandon our faith, for in that we cannot go wrong.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon, June 29, 1976)

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)

“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules… is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p.29)

“It’s very difficult to say, “This man is a Freemason,” “This man is a Freemason,” or “This man is a Freemason.” We don’t know. It’s very difficult. It is certain that there are some cardinals, some bishops, cardinals in the Curia, or monsignors or secretaries of congregations in Rome that are Freemasons. That is certain because the Freemasons themselves have said that. They have said that they have in their lodge some priests and bishops. It is certain that there are some cardinals and many monsignors in Rome who do the same work as the Freemasons; they have the same thinking, the same mind. Willebrandt is Prefect of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, and Archbishop Silvestrini is the first secretary of Cardinal Casaroli who is Secretary of State – and his right hand is Silvestrini. He is a great power in the Curia. He nominates all the nuncios in the world. He has a very great influence and he is probably a Freemason.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986 interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, GA)

“We know now with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience… I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals… “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978, Ordination Sermon, “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre”, Vol. 2, p.209, Michael Davies)

“We are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novilties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church. I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that these little breaking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true! They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. There is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us, certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a point of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, December 13, 1984, Address to the priests of the French District)

“What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

“We would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects… Amongst the whole Roman curia, amongst all the world’s bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing… [As for the Pope appointing conservative bishops] I don’t think it is a true return to Tradition. Just as in a fight when the troops are going a little too far ahead and one holds them back, so they are slightly putting the brakes on the impulse of Vatican II because the supporters of the council are going to far… the supposedly conservative bishops are wholly supportive of the council and of the liturgical reforms… No, all of that is tactics, which you have to use in any fight. You have to avoid excesses… [Asked about signs of benevolence to Tradition]

There are plenty of signs showing us that what you are talking about is simply exceptional and temporary… So I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome, I think we must still wait. Wait, unfortunately, for the situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now, they do not want to recognize the fact… That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of the conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves into the hands of those professing these errors. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview, Fideliter, 1989)

“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even in His Mystical Body here below… This is what has brought down upon our hearts persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove…” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to the future Bishops, Aug 29, 1987)

“On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society.Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this.We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

“Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly! – We are not against the pope insofar as he represents all the values of the Apostolic See which are unchanging, of the See of Peter, but we are against the pope insofar as he is a modernist who does not believe in his own infallibility, who practices ecumenism. Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. We are the ones that are excommunicated while and because we wish to remain Catholic, we wish to stay with the Catholic Pope and with the Catholic Church – that is the difference.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview, One Year after the Consecrations, 1989)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…”( Archbishop Lefebvre, Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)

“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to his priests, Econe, 1990)
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis!

An Examination of Nostra Aetate

Nostra Aetate is one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, issued by Paul VI in 1965. It also happens to be perhaps the most controversial of the documents, because the document seems to state that there is salvation in other religions, which is contrary to Church Teaching.

Despite the document’s obvious modernist mindset, some Traditional Catholics don’t think it is necessarily contrary to Church Teaching, merely that it is ambiguous and needs further clarification. Of course, with the conciliar church ecumenising with false religions following Vatican II and putting these false religions on a pedestal (such as that has occurred at all three Assisi meetings), it would seem obvious what was meant by Nostrae Aetate.

Let’s examine what is contained in the document:
“Thus, in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical enquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.” (No. 2)

SSPX priest Fr. Schmidberger gives a good retort:
“My dear friends, that is a definite lie because Hinduism does not recognise a unique God but many idols. You know that they worship different animals, creatures, all sorts of things, especially holy cows, which must never be slaughtered because to do this would be sacrilegious.

They have great consideration for mice and rats. They consider the rats to be the vehicles of their gods. They believe in reincarnation. People owe a debt during their lifetime and if this is not discharged, they have to clear it in further incarnations in animals. So, you do not touch the rat because it might be your grandmother!

There is another very serious consequence of this belief. In Hinduism, you find no mercy and pity. Why not? Because those who are in misery are clearing their ‘Karmar’, their debt and if they do not clear it in this human existence, they have to clear it afterwards. Therefore if you help them you only delay their redemption; and so, in no way do you find Christian charity among the Hindus.”

Next, the document’s statement on Buddhism:
“Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.”
The documents conclusion on these two religions is: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions”
.
What could possibly be “true and holy” about false religions? A very heretical statement indeed. In response to the document’s statement on Buddhism, Fr. Schmidberger states:

“First of all, it must be said that this is absolutely contrary to our Catholic religion. In our Catholic religion, we confess the absolute necessity of a Redeemer and His grace and we confess that we cannot, by ourselves, obtain this grace or redeem ourselves. It is said there that Buddhists think attaining their ‘supreme enlightenment by their own efforts’. Their whole redemption is by their own efforts. This is absolutely contrary to the Christian faith.

Secondly, the ultimate aim of Buddhism is to enter into the ‘Nirvana’ i.e. into nothingness, to be dissolved, to be released from everything. It is like an annihilation of the person. That is the ultimate aim of their efforts.

The Catholic religion is absolutely the opposite. What is our ultimate aim? To love God and be transformed by His grace and His charity so that we ourselves, our souls, become love and charity. So, our end is finally to enter in the uncreated charity, which is God. Our ultimate aim is the fulness, the highest virtue, the highest value you can imagine, that is to say love, charity; whereas Buddhism is absolutely the opposite.

It is also clear that in Buddhism, as in other Asiatic religions, the axiom of contradiction is not recognised. What does this mean? This means that a thing can exist or not exist at the same time. For instance, either there is a glass or there is no glass on this table, but it is not possible that, at the same time, there be a glass and no glass.

Have a look at Japan. You find more followers of religions in this country than the total number of the population. How is this possible? Well, several people belong to different religions at the same time and they find this quite logical. They belong to this religion and that religion because if one is false, the other might be true.

My dear friends, these Asiatic religions are penetrating at an enormous rate into our countries, into Europe and the United States, with their ideas and practices, with all their system, their Hindu gurus, with yoga, transcendental meditation and with their idea of reincarnation. All this is being spread in our day, having an enormous influence on private and public life. They are acting, especially, through this movement called ‘New Age’ which has its symbol in the rainbow and is now penetrating everything, everywhere. It is very dangerous because it is a creature of esoterism originating from theosophy in the last century and from anthroposophy in our day.”

So then we move to what the document says of Muslims:
“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”

So, according to the document, we should “regard with high esteem” those who do not acknowledge Jesus as God. The fact that they “revere Him as a prophet” is apparently good enough for the conciliarists, but it isn’t good enough for true Catholics! Fr. Schmidberger’s response to that is as follows:

“What they are not saying is that a Moslem can have several wives and that happiness in heaven, for them, is indicated by having many wives. The more wives you have, the happier will be in heaven.
It is also not said in this text they are fighting against us and consider us as blasphemers and idolators because we adore Our Lord. They reject absolutely the Holy Trinity. All this is not mentioned, at all.

A consequence of such text is that the German bishops have ordered all the parish priests to let the Moslems use their parish halls and kindergartens for their worship.

It follows from this that every year Rome itself, the Holy See, gives an address of greeting to the Moslems at the beginning of their fasting months, the Ramadan, calling the blessing of Allah upon them
.
Another consequence of this is that a few years ago, the Lord Mayor of Rome gave about two hundred thousand square feet of land as a gift to the Moslems for the construction of an Islamic centre there, with its enormous mosque, the biggest mosque outside the Islamic world. It will be finished shortly and for the laying of the corner stone, the Holy See itself sent delegates to assist at such an important ceremony!

My dear friends, what Islam did not achieve and succeed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it achieves today by peaceful means, by immigration, in invading all our countries. For example, I just read an article saying that in England a new mosque is opened every two months. Every two months! That is incredible. Imagine if we were to open a new Mass centre every two months!

This immigration of Pakistanis to England and Scandinavia, of the Turks to Germany, of the Arabs to France is completely destroying our national identity and furthermore the whole Christianity.

Why did our ancestors fight against the Turks on October 7th, 1571, at the Battle of Lepanto? Why did they fight on September 12th, 1683, at the gates of Vienna? Because they realised the full danger at stake, especially the danger to their faith, and so, they fought against those who do not recognise the divinity of Our Lord, nor the Church, nor the Holy Trinity and so who do not have the same God.”

And finally, Nostra Aetate on the Jews:
“Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers”
God holds those who reject His Son and His Church dear to Him? I think not. Here is Fr. Schmidberger’s response:

What does the Council say about the Jews? This decree deals with the matter in its No. 4. It is a very delicate subject but let us look at it a little in the light of theology.
It is clear that God had chosen one people to prepare for the coming of the Messiah and the time having come, this Messiah, prepared for by the prophets, was rejected by His own people who even crucified Him. It is clear that we, the Christians, are heirs to what the prophets have announced and to what Our Lord Jesus Christ has brought.

We have the faith of Abraham. He is really our father. We have the same faith: Abraham believed in the future Redeemer, we believe in the same Redeemer who has come. The same Redeemer, the same faith.
It is also clear that the Jews of our day cannot be called our elder brothers in the faith. How could the Pope say such a thing when he visited the synagogue, in Rome, three years ago?

There is one other question. Can we say that the Jews are guilty of Deicide? We must say yes because it is they who asked for Our Lord’s death and called for His blood upon their heads and the heads of their children. I want to make it very clear: I do not speak about the Jews as a race, I speak about the Jews as a religion. So, what about the Jews of our day? Well, as long as they do not withdraw from this crime, from this action of their ancestors, they are also guilty of it. They must disassociate themselves from it and recognise Our Lord; they must be baptised and become His disciples.”

Going off-topic for a moment, notice the part where Fr. Schmidberger says that we cannot call the Jews our elder brothers in the faith? Not only is that a very important and true remark, but it’s also a bit ironic, considering that Bishop Fellay himself labels the Jews as our “elder brothers in the faith”. Perhaps he needs to read these wise words stated by Fr. Schmidberger.

In conclusion, Fr. Schmidberger is telling us that Nostra Aetate contradicts the Dogmas of the Catholic Church, and that it is a heretical document. There is certainly nothing “ambiguous” about it. It is not an acceptable document, and along with the rest of the Vatican II documents, it should be thrown in the trash can where it belongs.

“There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church … and it is they who in His Church have labored in doing good works whom the Lord says shall be received into the Kingdom of Heaven on the Day of Judgment.” (Epistle 73:21)

Saint Augustine: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”

St. John Chrysostom: “We know that salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved outside the Catholic Church and Catholic Faith.”
Saint Fulgentius: “Hold most firmly and never doubt at all that
not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish
this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared
for the devil and his angels.”

“The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice — in all towns, districts, and places — must depart these regions.” – Pope Pius V
“Buddhism is a religion of damnation” – Pope Eugene IV
God Bless.

The Soap Opera Continues

The soap opera in the SSPX is still ongoing, and things don’t appear to be getting any better. Last week, it was confirmed that Bishop Williamson was expelled from the SSPX, after having been a Bishop of the Society for 24 years. This past Saturday, he stated in his latest edition of “Eleison Comments” that he was not thinking of retiring, and hinted at starting a new Traditional group.

It is great to hear that His Excellency will not be retiring and shall continue to fight for the Faith. But with him now expelled from the Society, and with +Tissier and +Galarreta remaining silent and “going along to get along”, there is now very little keeping Bishop Fellay and the SSPX from striking a deal with modernist Rome.

Several days after +Williamson’s expulsion, it was announced that the Society will be “given more time” by the Vatican to make a response to Rome’s latest “offer”.

Now, that is interesting. Earlier this month, Bishop Fellay said that he and the Society had been deceived by Benedict XVI, and that an agreement would not happen. So now it appears that a deal is not off. Rather than say there will be no deal, it appears that Bishop Fellay is willing to return to the negotiation table. Has he changed his mind yet again?

Why in the world would Bishop Fellay want to “reconcile” with those responsible for attempting to destroy our religion in the first place? Fellay stated in an interview in the late 90s that there were four Masonic lodges operating inside the Vatican, and made a similar remark in a 2011 press conference. So, if he knows that there are Freemasons in the Vatican, why does he seem so desperate to reach an agreement with them? Something is horribly wrong with the reasoning of Bishop Fellay.

Regardless of what happens next in this seemingly never-ending soap opera, one thing is certain: Bishop Fellay is ruling the SSPX with an iron fist, expelling anyone who dares to question him and his (over-exaggerated) authority, and he has abandoned the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre. His demand that Bishop Williamson get rid of his blog or pack his bags was nothing more than an attempt to silence him. And what good will remaining an SSPX Bishop have done if +Williamson couldn’t speak out against the liberalism that has infiltrated the Society?

Years ago, Bishop Williamson warned against getting too caught up in the “greatness of the SSPX”, saying that one day the Society could very well “go crazy”. Well, that time has come. If people want to continue to ignorantly follow Bishop Fellay and the Society as they enter modernist Rome, be my guest. I want no part of it.
God Bless.

Another Voice of Reason To Be Expelled: Bishop Williamson

This past Sunday, October 14th, it was announced that Bishop Richard Williamson was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X. Today, Stephen Heiner, who used to be the editor of +Williamson’s “Eleison Comments” blog, said that he spoke with His Excellency, and that he has not officially been expelled yet, but that it is expected to be official some time next week.

According to sources, he was given 10 days by Bishop Fellay to close down his “Eleison Comments” blog, to apologise for his criticisms towards Fellay and Menzingen, and to promise not to criticize any further. His time has run out, and thus, an expulsion appears imminent. He will have 10 days to appeal his expulsion, but it is not likely that he will do so.

The expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the SSPX will be a sad event that only means the downfall of the Society is continuing, and that it will never be the same again. The Society will have lost its most reasonable voice.

Of course, this could also be a new beginning. As some may recall, Archbishop Lefebvre stepped down from his position as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers due to the group being liberalized as a result of Vatican II, and retired afterwards. Two years later, after being approached by some Traditional seminarians who wanted to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass, the SSPX was formed. Let’s hope that something similar happens with Bishop Williamson. Perhaps other expelled SSPX priests such as Fr. Chazal and Fr. Pfeiffer will join with His Excellency and begin a new Society.

Regardless of what happens, I would like to thank Bishop Williamson for fighting for the truth, and for all he has done for Traditional Catholicism.

solid amount of support, he also has much opposition. People will continue to ignorantly follow and submit themselves to the over-exaggerated authority of Bishop Fellay and Menzingen. Supporters of Bishop Williamson, such as myself, are often labeled as “cultists” for following the “Bishop Williamson cult”. But is the Fellay fan base any less cultish? Fellay’s supporters rally around him and defend practically anything the man says or does, as if he’s a living Saint who can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is that accordistas ( not all of them, but many) tend to have double standards. They will accuse “grumpy old oysters” of “slander” and “lack of charity” for their criticisms of Bishop Fellay, when it is they who resort to slander and lack of charity. I’ve been insulted by an accordista more times than I can count! They can be downright nasty. And they also have no problem slandering Bishop Williamson, accusing him of “disobedience” and “rebellion”. Nothing you say to these people can seem to wake them up.

Displaying my support for Bishop Williamson does not make me a “cultist”. The arrogant Fellay-ites may accuse me of anything they wish. +Williamson isn’t perfect, and he has said and done some things in the past that I disagree with. But we as Catholics are obliged to defend the truth, and to condemn evil. We cannot condemn Bishop Fellay, but we can condemn his actions. And those who defend his actions are defending the undefendable. If Fellay and Menzingen are going to expel all voices of truth and reason from the Society, what reason is there to support them?

The path that Bishop Fellay is leading us on is a path of uncertainty, none of us know exactly where the path leads, all we know is that it’s in the wrong direction. That is what makes it so dangerous. No thank you, I will continue on the path to true Traditional Catholicism. Archbishop Lefebvre led us down that path years ago, and now Bishop Williamson is the next in line to do the same.
God Bless.

Eleison Comments

Link to above articles

......................................................................................................................................

Dear Peter, Feb. 21^st 2013

It becomes clear what is happening in the Church, and the world, today. The Pope has been divested of all authority by the actions and deceptions of those who seek to destroy her. She (the Church) has become ‘ecumenised’ to the extent that anybody can become a ‘Catholic’....and any body does. One has only to call oneself a Catholic and it is done full stop. We now have a universal religion headed by a man with the title of Pope. There are now no denominations. Sin has been removed from the Church’s vocabulary requiring no distinction between good and evil, thus no repentance is required. The last three Popes have been set up. Manipulating their egos, Christ’s enemies have lured them into experimenting with, and remodelling the Church’s language to reflect their own personal interpretations/opinions replacing traditional worship and simple faith with.........a straw man. In other words by their actions and use (read mis-use) of the power invested in them by Christ, they have become the immediate predecessors of the man-god.

Deceiving themselves they have paved the way, nay, actually re-constructed the chair of Peter to rule over a world religion. Nobody can find anything wrong with the Church now. It is too late to stop the rush to join up. Our present Pope has been given his marching orders because as he so eloquently put it – “My authority stops at that door”. *

This Pope, a disciple/compatriat of Paul VI and JPII, like them is a puppet whose strings are manipulated by vicious enemies and haters of Christ. Christ has been evicted from His own Church and replaced with the beginnings of Perfect Man who no longer needs Christ or His Church.

*Words to Bishop Fellay.

Having sought advice on this matter I wrote this letter to His Excellency Bishop Fellay today.

Also, sent a copy to His Excellency Bishop Williamson.

.............................................................................................................................................
March 2013

Peter, There has been a lot of speculation about the time and duration of the chastisement; pros and cons as to whether Our Lady's requests have been met - or not. Catholics all have different opinions wasting time with arguments and counter-arguments. But the important thing, surely, is to get to the heart of things.

Cutting to the chase, it is that Mary has been cast out of the (conciliar) Church. The chastisement has just started and can be halted if we restore Mary to her proper place in the Church. Christ only grants graces/salvation through the intercession of Mary. She is the Mediatrix of ALL graces. So while this rejection of her lasts the chastisement continues and grows until the whole world physically, as well as spiritually, is enslaved. It cannot be otherwise because we remain in our sins (thus enslaved spiritually) without her intercession. To capture the minds and hearts of all men the Ecumenical movement assures the world that we are not in need of Mary.

If the Church taught Protestants/Buddhists/Jews et al that without Mary we cannot save our souls then the Church would be rejected ecumenically. It is pure poetic justice that the first person to succumb to the devil's temptation was a woman, Eve, and the person chosen by God to crush Lucifer's head is the woman, Mary. Without Mary, Eve's sin could never have been erased from her soul nor the state of original sin from our souls - once Adam had sinned. The fury of the devil is towards Mary. His insatiable pride will finally receive the greatest humiliation because having carefully selected the weakest gender, God has chosen the same gender to destroy Lucifer.

So, unless we become literally, spiritually and physically Mary's children inheriting her state of freedom from sin, we remain under the inheritance of Eve. Mary, will take us into her Immaculate Heart if and when we consecrate ourselves to Her. It is only when we become one of her 'works' that God will grant her request to keep a soul from death.
...............................

What I see before me is priest against priest; Catholic against Catholic whether orthodox, sedevacantist or conservative. People seem to be deciding whom they will follow...this or that priest, bishop, pope or no pope. I don’t follow anybody. I do follow what is said by ANYBODY if it is true to the faith – my posts are limited to supporting the truth whenever, or by whom it is printed. That way I keep practising my faith which is my obligation.

What I do is I try to keep abreast of what is happening throughout the Church AS A WHOLE. I want to know what is going on everywhere. Why I give you stuff from the Resistance is because I thought you would want to know what is happening full stop. I read blogs to keep abreast of across-the-board thinking. I have reached my own conclusions or should I say ‘conclusioN’ = The Papacy is finished until a future Pope passes judgement on this generation. Freemasonry has achieved its objectives with only the mopping-up process left for them to complete = chastisement which will purify and unite us so that we ‘worhip in spirit and in truth’. The Faith will remain alive in the hearts and souls of those who know their doctrine; the articles of faith; and how to pray through it all. God is going to bring about our salvation one way or another...It is Judgement Day that He is postponing till we have established His Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. And none of these things will be done until Our Lady is restored front and centre.

...................................

My son, here, was replying on a 'thread' (web page) to a post that expressed total confidence in science as distinct from Christianity/Religion.

Scientists need to prove things, they need to establish scientific dogmas to build on and move forward. Scientific principals! (How ironic to the thread) That if one of these principals is reversed or altered then the initial error must be defined, so as to move forward.

The building block of any science must be based on tried and tested theories.

The objective of Science is to establish physical laws of nature, God is NEVER an answer because God it is not the objective. You cannot scientifically prove God, even a religious scientist knows that. That's all good. Theology IS the study of GOD, all based on the same principals. Tested dogmas, revelation, and study of the conscience - spiritual dignity of man.

Yet when the scientist studies the depth of what seems the eternal universe or eternal atom, he actually is studying God. But is not in the position nor disposition to admit it, neither is he in denial, he is simply studying the wonders of God scientifically. St Augustine said something to this effect. If the discoveries of science conflict with the established doctrine revealed by the Holy Spirit promised by Christ then science will be in error.

Conclusion. The revelations of science will never be in conflict with the revelations of God, because good solid dogma IS good solid dogma, whether scientific or theological.

Faith in the Holy Spirit reveals truth from God, faith in science reveals truth from man. One is flawed, one is not. Theology trumps Science, theology is the greater.

Food for thought.
.................................

Letter from Isaiah (53:5) before Christ was born:

"But he was wounded for our
iniquities, he was bruised for
our sins: the chastisement of
our peace was upon him, and
by his bruises we are healed."

BISHOP WILLIAMSON

HOLY SATURDAY

Holy Saturday in the life of Our Lord was that day between his appalling death on the Cross and his glorious Resurrection, when his human body, lifeless without its human soul, lay in the dark tomb, unseen to human eye. Our Lord’s enemies seemed so successfully to have crushed him that the Incarnate God was in complete eclipse, and only the faith of Our Lady in her Divine Son remained unshaken. All his other followers she had to sustain, because even the most devout of them felt bewildered and lost.

Now as being the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church follows the life’s course of his physical body. Down all its 2,000 years of history the Church has always been persecuted by the enemies of Christ, and in many parts of the world at various times it has been virtually wiped out. Yet surely it has never been going into complete eclipse like it seems to be doing today. God designed his Church as a monarchy, to be held together by the Pope, and we have just seen a Pope resigning, no doubt in part because he himself, mesmerized by modern democratic thinking, never fully believed in his own supreme office. Taking the papal tiara off his coat of arms, and signing himself always as “Bishop of Rome”, whatever were his intentions when he resigned in February, he surely helped, humanly speaking, to undermine the divine institution of the Papacy.

Certainly by Benedict XVI’s resignation and by the succeeding conclave the enemies of Christ will have been doing all they could for their part to undo the Papacy. By a just punishment of God for the universal apostasy of our age, they have received from him a great power over his Church. They have been working for centuries to get a stranglehold over the Vatican, and they are now entrenched there. With no intention of giving way to a pious little Society, they are, as Anne Catherine Emmerich saw in a vision 200 years ago, dismantling the Church stone by stone. Humanly speaking, today’s followers of Our Lord have as little seeming hope as they had on the original Holy Saturday.

But no more than Our Lord himself is the Catholic Church a merely human affair. In 1846 Our Lady of Salette said about our own times: “The righteous will suffer greatly. Their prayers, penance and their tears will rise up to Heaven, and all of God’s people will beg for forgiveness and mercy and will plead for my help and intercession. And then Jesus Christ in an act of his justice and great mercy will command his Angels to have all his enemies put to death. Suddenly the persecutors of the Church of Jesus Christ and all those given over to sin will perish, and the earth will become desert-like. And then peace will be made, and man will be reconciled with God, Jesus Christ will be served, worshipped and glorified. Charity will flourish everywhere... The Gospel will be preached everywhere... and man will live in fear of God.”

In other words, God will most certainly resurrect his Church from its present distress. When the eclipse becomes still darker, as it is sure to do, let us merely hold more closely than ever to the Mother of God, and let us resolve now not to weigh upon her then by our disbelief, as did Our Lord’s Apostles and disciples on the first Holy Saturday. Let us undertake to rejoice her Immaculate Heart with our unshakeable faith in her Divine Son and his one true Church.

Kyrie eleison.

Can you imagine Peter what it must have been like for the apostles to celebrate the first Mass after Jesus had risen. He instituted it only last Thursday, was crucified yesterday and rose today. They celebrated that first Mass by themselves (so to speak). Imagine the joy and wonderment in heaven when Jesus returned to the father clothed in our humanity. The Father and the Son would sit side by side while the Holy Spirit brought the very first Divine Sacrifice into heaven itself. Never could this have been imagined by any man...God alone could create such a wondrous thing. I can't get over the joy the Trinity shared with Mary and all the saints and angels when that first Mass ascended to God...penetrated heaven itself...freeing us from our sinful state with untold mercy. I just can't get over it....

......and hope I never will. Today is the first day that man had the power to penetrate and talk to a God hitherto unknown - whether 'he' existed, what 'he' was like, can He be approached?

Now look!

Through the beautiful language/liturgy of the Church Christ founded by dwelling amongst us we can talk to him intimately about the things that matter to Him and to us most. How to love one another, live in peace, and correct all the things that have made this dream impossible.

Fantastic, that once His will is being done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN we all worship a universal King who cannot be corrupted. What a stupid world it is that fails to see this wonderful thing.

Our Beautiful Simple Faith

Letters