Monthly archives: December, 2016

Lessons from the Gulag Archipelago

Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn meets with Vladimir Putin in 2007

In 2000, Dr. David Allen White delivered an outstanding literature seminar at St. Thomas Aquinas seminary (SSPX) in Winona, MN on the subject of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in four parts.  The seminar begins by asking a rhetorical question (paraphrasing generally): “Why should Catholic seminarians bother to learn about Solzhenitsyn, whose field was literature and history, and who was not even Catholic?”

Similar questions are sometimes offered by the opponents of Bishop Williamson, who in contemporary times, ridicule the bishop for organizing literature conferences (e.g., The Dickens conference in Broadstairs comes readily to mind) along the same lines.  

“He should be busy bishoping, not conducting literature seminars while the Resistance languishes!”

Perhaps without realizing it, these naysayers are actually ridiculing the SSPX’s insertion of the year of humanities into the seminary curriculum, which certainly desired to provide a natural basis upon which to build a philosophical and theological formation.

The fact is that the great works of literature teach moral and philosophical lessons, often illustrating the practical application of the virtues: It is one thing to read Josef Pieper’s treatise on the cardinal virtues, but quite another to read real life examples of men and women putting those virtues into practice.

Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago,” which recounts both the historical reality of the Soviet prison system, and the moral lessons the author learned while interned therein, represents for many Catholic scholars the high-water mark in 20th century literary achievement.

According to Dr. White, the Gulag Archipelago is:

“The great work of the 20th century.  If the Greeks had Homer; if the Romans had Virgil; if the Middle Ages had Dante; if the Renaissance had Shakespeare; then our century, our time has had Solzhenitsyn, and his great work is the Gulag Archipelago, because it is a work that defines everything about this [20th] century: Totalitarianism, brutality, murder, horror, and the triumph of the human spirit, and the fact that God is watching over all of it.”  

How do these lessons come through in a way meaningful and relevant to Catholics of Tradition?

Dr. White distills the primary lessons of Solzhenitsyn into these three:

1) “There is truth.  We can know it.  And when we know it, we must put it forward, whatever the cost.  

2) “We must be courageous in standing up and fighting for the truth.  The world will try to shout us down.  The world will try to destroy us all the more as we try to put the truth forward.  To put the truth forward in the world at any time demands courage; to put it forward in the modern world; in the world we find ourselves in today, demands superhuman courage; it demands the grace of God.

3) “We will not be worthy of God’s grace unless we suffer.  And through that suffering will come health of soul, a better understanding of the truth, and the courage to stand up for it in the world, no matter what the barbarians try to do to us.”

What lessons could be more relevant to a Resistance movement trying to survive and grow amidst the worldwide prison planet, and universal apostasy?  

Solzhenitsyn ends his chapter “Barbed Wire and the Soul” with these amazing words quoted by Dr. White:

“Bless you prison, for having been in my life.”  

As Dr. White explains, this was Solzhenitsyn’s recognition that, without suffering, he never would have understood the truths just recounted.

Many of us Resisters endlessly profess our fidelity to the truth, but don’t want to hear the first thing about the lessons on truth which can be distilled from Shakespeare, Dante, Solzhenitsyn, Dickens, etc.  

Yet, as someone once said, “Docility to the truth is the first precondition for communion with it.”  How can we honestly profess our fidelity to truth, when we refuse even to expose ourselves to the presentation of it?  

The old SSPX’s institution of the year of humanities into the seminary curriculum demonstrates quite clearly that they never considered dogmatic manuals to be the only acceptable presentation of truth (though they are certainly the refined and ultimate presentation of it!).

No doubt, many wrongfully precluded the usefulness of literature seminars a priori because they did not understand these conferences were ordered toward a contextual presentation of truth.

Now that you know otherwise, and understand their relevance and utility, I hope you will not cheat yourself from grabbing the lessons they have to offer.

The great literary works did not achieve their greatness because they were entertaining.  What makes them great is their depth of psychological insight into the human condition, and the universal and perennial truths gleaned therefrom.

All of these conferences are available at

The 1st of the 4-disk seminar on Solzhenitsyn can be purchased here: Solzhenitsyn (the others are available on the same website). 

Oportet Christum Regnare: Fall/2016 Now Available

For those who are still not aware, Mr. Hugh Akins (famous author of Synagogue Rising, and longtime President of the League of Christ the King) publishes a quarterly journal called “Oportet Christum Regnare” (“Christ Must Reign”), described on the front cover as “A Catholic Action Quarterly of Counterrevolutionary Resistance and Restoration.”

The latest edition just arrived in the mailbox today, and as usual, I dropped everything to thumb through it: 27 concise articles, letters, and editorials covering 68 pages.

As always, this edition begins with a letter from Fr. Francois Chazal (Chaplain, League of Christ the King), which you will not find anywhere on the internet.  In this most recent issue of Oportet Christum Regnare, Fr. Chazal makes a particularly interesting proposal to Fr. Zendejas and Hugh Akins.  I will not here say what it is, but if you (Fr. Chazal/Fr. Zendejas/Hugh Akins) are reading: A year ago I would have had reservations about supporting or participating in a project such as this, but no more.  

Count me in!

Next comes a letter from Mr. Akins, offering commentary on the politics surrounding the battle for the restoration of Christ the King (such as recent events in Poland, and the continuous battle against Jewish Zionism), and how these things tie back into the religious domain (for good or ill).

After these, one will find articles touching upon US foreign policy, electoral politics, developments in the conciliar church, and articles on all things Resistance.  The common denominator, as always, is to assess the effect of these developments upon the drive for the restoration of the Kingship of Christ.

Precisely because of its breadth of subject matter, it occurs to me that subscriptions to Oportet Christum Regnare would appeal to a wide demographic, and would be a particularly valuable resource for those who: 

1) Because of busy lifestyle are generally unable to keep up with developments; 

2) Those who do not go online; 

3) Friends and relatives you are trying to reach, but who never follow your advice to look things up on the internet, or read the books you recommend; 

4) Those in Tradition who do not yet see the wider parameters of the battle; 

5) Those in the Resistance (or those who were turned off from the Resistance) who are/were only exposed to the far-out polemics of Boston.

You can subscribe to Oportet Christum Regnare on Hugh Akins’ recently renovated and consolidated website here:

Or, you can just scroll down my home page to the icon for Mr. Akins’ website at the bottom of my blog list on the left-hand side of the page, which will also take you to the same website

Please also keep in mind that Mr. Akins’ ability to continue to generate excellent and invaluable works like Oportet or Synagogue Rising is largely dependent upon your support (either by subscription or donation).  If we want to rebuild and fortify the bastions of Tradition, and fill the voids left by a drifting SSPX, then we need to support the initiatives of those few “doers” among us.  If these initiatives are met with apathy, then what good does it do for God to raise up warriors, when nobody will finance their shield and sword?

PS: Yes, I always put my money where my mouth is, and I do subscribe to Oportet Christum Regnare (and purchased another subscription for one I knew would never expose herself to such articles, were they not to find their way to her mailbox each quarter).

Soldier of Christ: 
Hugh Akins (foreground) fighting communist enemies of Christ in Vietnam,
and all over the world ever since!
(Note the wounded hands?)

Image result for eleison comments


When all is truth, I cannot pick and choose,
But lies mixed in with truth I must refuse.
If the evidence, apparently serious, for Eucharistic miracles taking place within the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) is to be believed – and such miracles may even be happening frequently, one of the latest seeming to come from Legnica, also in Poland (see here) on Christmas Day of 2013 – then indeed some of us may need to do some rethinking. Here is how one reader put it: “God cannot contradict himself, so his miracles cannot contradict his Church’s teaching. But the NOM does depart from essential Catholic doctrine on the Mass. Therefore either the miracles are false or the NOM is from God, in which case what is the justification for Traditionalists clinging to Tradition? For if the NOM at the heart of the Newchurch is confirmed by miracles, then the Newchurch is also confirmed by God, and the Newpopes, and I have to obey them. I cannot pick and choose, can I?” Yes, you can, and not only you can, but you must, in order to fulfil your absolute duty to keep the Faith.
That is because another name for what you call “picking and choosing” is “distinguishing.” All of us need to distinguish all day long. That is common sense, and that is what St Thomas Aquinas does from beginning to end of his miraculous Summa Theologiae. Let us take a closer look at our friend’s argument.
The basic bone of contention is the NOM. The NOM is a rite of Mass, a book of hundreds if not a thousand pages, containing many things. From a Catholic standpoint the rite as a whole is unquestionably bad, because it radically changes the concept of the Mass from being a propitiatory sacrifice centred on God to being a community meal centred on man. As such, since most Catholics live their religion by attending Mass, then when its concept changes, their religion in effect changes. That is why the NOM is the principal destroyer of the true Church, and the main engine of the Newchurch. That is why the NOM as a wholeis not only bad, but very bad indeed.
But that does not mean that all its parts, as parts, are bad. As parts, some are still Catholic because they had to be, in order to deceive the mass of priests when the NOM was introduced in 1969, that it was not essentially different from the Tridentine rite of Mass, especially in the Consecration. Otherwise they would have refused it, and it could not have done its work of destroying the Church. So the NOM is, as to its parts, part good and part bad, while as a whole, it is ambiguous, treacherous, a crooked piece of work.
However, as for men, “to the pure all things are pure” ( Titus I, 15), and so to innocent souls not yet aware of its intrinsic danger for the Faith, it can by its Consecration and good parts, still give grace and spiritual nourishment, especially when these are less strangled by a priest making the ambiguities as Catholic as possible. And as for God, he “writes straight with crooked lines,” says the proverb, and so the bad parts of the NOM need not stop him from working miracles with the Catholic parts to nourish the innocent and to warn the guilty.
Therefore on the one hand the NOM as a whole is very bad, and Traditionalists are absolutely necessary to the Church to witness to its badness, and to make available a true Mass for when souls wake up to the NOM’s badness, as they do at different times and different speeds, so that such souls can keep the Faith and last out the crisis. On the other hand the NOM is in parts still good enough to nourish innocent souls and to enable God to work miracles, also for souls’ nourishment or for their warning. God is not thereby confirming either the NOM as a whole, or the Newchurch as a whole, or the Newpopes as a whole, but he is relying on me to use my brain and the Faith which he gave me to discern good from bad. He wants no mindless robots in his glorious Heaven!
Kyrie eleison.

Avrille Responds to the Excuses of Fr. Simoulin

[Note: I have had to change the text coloring for compatibility; the original article is here:]

“No practical agreement until there is a doctrinal agreement?”

Extracts from an article by Fr Michel Simoulin, SSPX

Published in le Seignadou (France), October 2016, with a few inserted comments inserted by Le Sel de la Terre, doctrinal review of the Dominicans of Avrillé

[Text by Fr Simoulin, in red:] I promised you some objections, and the responses we could make.
Here is the first objection, which is perhaps the only serious one, that of Archbishop Lefebvre’s statements, mainly made after 1988, to the effect that he wished to await the “conversion” of Rome before taking further steps towards reconciliation. This position is usually presented in this way: no practical agreement until there is a doctrinal agreement.
[Comments by Le Sel de la Terre, in white:]   This position was defended not only by Archbishop Lefebvre (firmly and on numerous occasions), but also by the four bishops of the SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre’s death (1991) up to 2012.   In 2006, the General Chapter of the SSPX pointed it out again in a solemn way. (See the editorial from the fall 2015 issue of Le Sel de la terre: ‘Satan’s masterstroke’, which is also available as an article on this website.)
[Text by Fr Simoulin:] This is true and well-known, but the Archbishop himself recognized that this would take time, much time, and that it would be necessary to wait for Providence to signal the right moment.
Time, much time: well, then, why the rush?  Why not wait peacefully for Providence to signal the right moment?  Pope Francis with Amoris Laetitia, with his remarks on Luther ‘who was not mistaken’, etc, scandalized even conciliar ‘conservatives’.  Is it the right moment?
[Text by Fr S:] And in this he relied entirely upon the superiors of the Society.  He never stopped telling us:   “For me, it’s finished… you have your bishops, your superiors, your seminaries, your priories; I gave you everything I had received… it is now for you to continue without me!”
In 2012, three bishops of the SSPX solemnly warned Bp Fellay about the hazards of committing to a practical agreement. This warning led to the expulsion of one of them a few months later.
[Text by Fr S.] Moreover, and those who were the Archbishop’s first companions should not forget it, beyond his sometimes thunderous statements, even in the most tense moments with Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre always acted and reacted as a servant of the Church and of the Pope and as a son of Rome.  His heart was more Roman than many of ours, and even in his strongest interventions, those who knew him always sensed beneath them a genuine sadness: a sadness like that of Jesus Christ weeping over Jerusalem, but still filled with the desire to save the holy city, sadness for the state of the Church, sadness at having to act against the authorities of the Church, sadness at being neither heard nor understood.
The word “sadness” (italics added) is repeated five times: appeal to sentiment.   But here, it is reason and faith which should guide us.
[Text by Fr S:] He would never have taken the first step towards rupture with Rome, and it was always “conciliar Rome” which took the initiative in the measures of “separation,” which would only end up in separating him a little more from “conciliar Rome” and in pushing him to take refuge ever more in the heart of “Roman Rome!”
The consecrations of 1988 without Rome’s agreement – and even against the pope’s and cardinal Ratzinger’s express intentions –  were indeed an initiative of Archbishop Lefebvre, and resulted de facto in a separation from “conciliar Rome”.
[Text by Fr S:] Roman he was and Roman he remained to his last breath. Romanita is not an empty word, were almost the last words of his Spiritual Journey.
Many passages from the Spiritual Journey are very much opposed to an agreement with Rome before its return to Tradition.  A single example: “The establishment of that ‘conciliar church’ pervaded by the principles of 1789, by the masonic principles is a hell-fired imposture […].  It is therefore the strict duty of every priest and of every believer who wishes to remain Catholic to separate himself from that conciliar church until it finds its way back to the Tradition of the magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic faith.”
[Text by Fr S:] But let us review history briefly.  Firstly the SSPX–which was not founded to oppose the Council or Rome, but rather to give a structure in the Church for priests trained in the seminary of Fribourg-Econe–was recognized and established by and in the “conciliar Church.”
Father Simoulin reviews history his own way.  The expression “the conciliar Church” only came into existence in 1976.  Archbishop Lefebvre immediately said he did not want to be a part of it.  Up to that point, Catholics and conciliars had not been clearly distinguished, which explains why a bishop favorable towards conciliar ideas (Bishop Charrière, a personal friend of Archbishop Lefebvre) could approve a perfectly Catholic society like the SSPX – which surprised Archbishop Lefebvre himself.  But today, no bishop could be found with the courage to do that.
[Text by Fr S:] And there also was his proud response to the editorial of the Abbe de Nantes in which he was incited to break with Rome, in February of 1975.  It is in Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to the Abbe de Nantes that he told him:  “Know that if a bishop breaks with Rome, it will not be I.  My “Declaration” says it clearly and strongly enough.”  This letter is dated March 19, 1975!
That letter dates from before the Roman condemnations.  Bishop Lefebvre did not want to initiate a rupture with Rome, as Abbé de Nantes1 asked of him, but Bishop Lefebvre did not submit to the dictates of this “neo-Protestant Rome” and, if he accepted the rupture, it was in order to remain faithful to “eternal Rome”.
[Text by Fr S:] The independent bishops of the “Catholic Church” are free to carry out this rupture, but let them not claim a so-called fidelity to the thought of Archbishop Lefebvre for this reason, and let them stop making us laugh sourly by talking of “the treason of the current authorities of the SSPX towards the thought and work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre”.
Father Simoulin does not name the person he is taking to task here; it is Bishop Faure, who founded a sacerdotal Society last August 22nd, to allow the seminarians in his care to join a structure, just as Archbishop Lefebvre had done in 1970.  It is not a rupture.  Just like the consecrations of 1988, it is a measure dictated by a state of emergency:  the training of seminarians according to the spirit of the Church, without compromising with the errors of modernist Rome.
To avoid making Father Simoulin laugh sourly, we will rather speak of “the recklessness” of the SSPX’s authorities who are jeopardizing Archbishop Lefebvre’s work in moving closer to modernist Rome.
[Text by Fr S:] What did our superiors accept of the things Archbishop Lefebvre refused: the New Mass?  The conciliar ideas?  Religious liberty?
The answer is simple, and Father Simoulin knows it, since he has just mentioned it:  the superiors of the SSPX have accepted the possibility of a practical agreement – of normalization – with Pope Francis’  Rome which has obviously not returned to Tradition, and they are even working to obtain this recognition.  Bishop Fellay’s text reproduced above and Father Schmidberger’s in Le Sel de la Terre96 make it clear.
[Text by Fr S:] Instead of criticizing and condemning Bishop Fellay, let these men make positive and constructive suggestions.  What do they suggest as a solution?  Nothing but denial and rupture
The solution offered is to stick to the line set out by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, which is what the SSPX did until  2012:  no agreement with Rome as long as it keeps spreading modernism.
[Text by Fr S:] And there are also these words of the Archbishop to the future bishops:   ”I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all churches, in the Catholic faith of all time.”
In the same letter, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: “I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.”  Could it be said that Pope Francis is “perfectly Catholic”?
[Text by Fr S:] And we can conclude with the words of the Archbishop himself, faithful to his first position until the end, from his address to the deacons on retreat in Montalenghe in June 1989, and therefore after the episcopal consecrations.  He gave them one last time the meaning of the declaration of 1974 [November 21]:   “I think that we need nonetheless, a link with Rome…”
The meaning of his words is suggested by the context:  Archbishop Lefebvre was sounding a warning against sedevacantism.  The “link with Rome” that he talks about consists simply in recognizing the current pope as validly elected.  It is not a question of asking for a canonical recognition.
In the conference that he gave shortly after the priestly retreat at Écône, Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“As to the situation of Tradition and Rome, it remains practically unchanged.  We can see it is more and more so.  The Vatican is committed to maintaining the Council above all, which is nothing but a transposition of the spirit of the Revolution in the Church.  This spirit they want to maintain at all cost, and all the concessions they can make, to the left, to the right, the appointments of seemingly traditional bishops, these are political and diplomatic means to be able to keep disseminating the spirit of the Council and the revolutionary spirit, certainly so.  Indeed it was the devil’s masterstroke to succeed in using the highest-ranking members of the Church to spread the Revolution’s ideas.  Clearly, that has not changed.  [Archbishop Lefebvre then gives a few examples here, notably the appointment of Kasper, ‘a formal heretic’, as a bishop, with Cardinal Ratzinger’s blessing.]  As long as that spirit prevails in Rome, that spirit of ecumenism, liberalism, modernism, we cannot hope for anything.  So let us wait, pray, and work.  God will decide, He knows better than we do, (He) who creates all things, He is the almighty, He can change the situation in no time, let us trust in God.  But is impossible, absolutely impossible, today, to trust in the Roman authorities in any way.”

We believe that the situation is still the same and that Archbishop Lefebvre’s advice, (viz. “let us wait, pray, and work”) is still relevant.

  1. Abbé de Nantes is the founder of the Contre Réforme Catholique, in France.  He accused Pope Paul VI of heresy, schism and scandal, but disagreed with many of Archbishop Lefebvre’s positions, especially his telling the faithful to continue to attend the new mass in the parishes.

New Website for the Victim Adorers of the Holy Face of Jesus:

Per Samuel on

Sister Irene is now Rev. Mother Irene. Her convent now has it’s own website :

Victim Adorers of the Holy Face of Jesus, O.C.D.

Please spread the word and support Rev. Mother Irene with your prayers and donations. Today more than ever, the Church is in great need of Traditional contemplative sisters.


Shylock the Jew in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”

[Those who have read Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” will understand that “all that glisters is not gold.”  One of the three plots in the play is that of the “bond:” Shylock (the Jewish merchant) has made a loan to his competitor, Antonio (who has given his heart as collateral).  Upon receiving word that his competitor must default, Shylock refuses to allow others to repay him even ten times the amount owed, and all pleas for mercy fall on deaf ears.  “An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven!”  Insisting on justice (i.e., cutting Antonio’s heart out), Shylock desires to eliminate his business competitor, so that he may make greater profits, and the letter of the law is certainly on his side (or so he thinks).
As Shylock receives the knife, and is about to cut Antonio’s heart out, the judge pauses him for a moment, to remind Shylock that in justice he is only to receive the heart, not any of the blood contained therein! Moreover, the attempt to take the heart, which must necessarily take the blood, is judged attempted murder. The sentence is to deprive Shylock of that which he covets most (i.e., his money), and to compel his conversion to Christianity.  The picture above nicely depicts Old Testament justice (“an eye for an eye”), as contrasted with New Testament mercy.
Shakespeare’s lesson is clearly this: Those who insist on justice and preclude mercy are fools, and run the risk of getting much more than they bargained for in the administration of justice.
However, unlike Shakespeare’s Shylock (a case in which the full measure of justice received by Shylock was not foreseeable), Bishop Fellay’s demand of “justice” for the SSPX is made with the consequeces in relatively clear view: 

A trap for the capture, containment, dilution, and stifling of Tradition.  Bishop Fellay need only look down at the dead bodies he must step over as he walks the same path of the other rallied communities into Rome.
As the Jew had a very short sighted comprehension of justice in “The Merchant of Venice,” so too does our anonymous friend point out Bishop Fellay’s seeming incomprehension of the same.
Please also note that we have now linked to the Psalm129 blog in the left-hand Blog List column, in light of its consistently good articles.]

The SSPX is convinced that they are owed, as a matter of justice, a “canonical regularization” from Modernist Rome. The claim is that such a move would rectify the “unjust suppression” of the Society in the 1970s.
The argument itself is relatively new. In the past, Archbishop Lefebvre and the rest of the SSPX superiors considered it a “mark of honor” to be “excommunicated” from the Conciliar Church. He also said that unless the Romans accepted Quanta Cura, Quas Primas, and the rest of Tradition, then it is “useless” to dialogue. Justice, the Archbishop believed, was when Rome would turn from its heretical ways and embrace the faith of all time.
The Society of old took its cues from these principles. Throughout the 90s and 2000s, as other traditionalists slid into the hands of the Romans, the SSPX stood strong and essentially characterized these groups as traitors. The Society would also put scare quotes around the word “regularization” whenever the topic came up (something they no longer do today). When Campos fell in 2002, Bishop Fellay warned them they were being put into “an ecumenical zoo.” “The irregularity lies not with the SSPX but with the Conciliar Church,” was another commonly heard claim.
Over the past five years, the “justice” argument has taken center stage and has swept all others aside. It is regurgitated throughout the Traditional echo chamber ad nauseam. Bloggers of all stripes – many who do not attend Society chapels – join in the chorus. Its most recent victim is Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan.
In a recent interview with a French Catholic journal, Schneider boldly claims that the Archbishop, were he alive today, would accept a personal prelature. For, a prelature would be part of the “canonical integration” process that would “be restoring justice, very belatedly” to the Society.
Schneider also suggests Pope Francis was being “merciful” in “extending” the faculties of Society priests to hear confession. Playing the role of pragmatist (as all liberals do) he further claims the Society “cannot demand 100% guarantees.” Such demands “would be unrealistic” and “would betray a certain lack of trust in Providence.”
Schneider and the Society (who proudly re-produced the interview on their website under the title “Restoring Justice to SSPX”) are following in the footsteps of the other liberals who went before them. Instead of reminding Rome first and foremost that Catholics the world over have a right in justice to a modernist-free Church, and that the Vicar of Christ has a duty to God (if he wishes to save his soul) to uphold Tradition, they merely focus on the “rights” of Tradition, thereby inverting the point of emphasis completely. Again, the Archbishop’s focus was primarily on getting Rome to see its doctrinal errors and to see that it was not living out the Catholic faith. This is not the primary aim of the SSPX today.
When Christ spoke to the pharisees, he rebuked them: “Whited sepulchers! Brood of vipers!” John the Baptist, in warning Herod of his wicked ways, shouted “repent!” Why is this not the language of the Society in our time? It used to be for many years. Even Bishop Fellay, for instance, publicly referred to Francis as a “genuine modernist” as recently as 2013. But when asked about that comment by Tim Sebastian in 2016 (around the time when talks with the Vatican were heating up) he walked it back. What’s more is that when one visits the Society’s website today, they are met not with essays that shine light on the truth, but many times with news reports about irrelevant non-Traditional topics.
Instead of acting like they are in possession of a great pearl, the Society seems embarrassed by the fact that the Holy Spirit has given them eyes to see the crisis in the Church. Put another way, instead of preaching truth and trusting in God to increase the size of their flock, they have decided to engage in Trad-ecumenism and to seek the approval of “canonically integrated” Bishops like Athanasius Schneider so they can come off as mild-mannered and “acceptable” to the masses.
In opposition to what their Founder said, and in opposition to what their leaders used to say, the neo-SSPX believes it is better to be “on the inside” and to have a “connection” with Rome. They think that by joining with “all trads of goodwill” they’ll be able to stop the rise of progressivism in the Church. This is the raison d’être for embracing the “justice” argument. But the problem with this logic is that it is the wisdom of man (who always thinks in quantity) instead of the wisdom of God (who always thinks in quality). It is quintessential Liberal Catholicism.
The reality is that the Society is a group of some 600 priests in a Church that has 414,000 priests. It is a lifeboat, not a tugboat. It is an illusion, as Archbishop Lefebvre once said,  to think they can “re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic.” It is “not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.”

Let us close with an analogy. Suppose a group of terrorists broke into a palace. Suppose they locked the King in the dungeon while plundering his residence. It would not necessarily be an act of justice to un-lock the dungeon door. Rather, justice would be served when the palace was restored to order and when the terrorists recanted from their ways. May we fervently pray for the day when the modernists who have robbed the Church come back to the truth and enshrine Tradition to its rightful place in Rome. Only then will there be true justice in the Church.

[Postscript: Dr. David Allen White’s 2001 seminary conferences on Shapespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” are available for purchase at the St. Marcel Initiative website, here:  They are outstanding for their Catholic insights, and address such topics as usury; compare/contrast the Catholic and Jewish spirits; Old Testament justice vs New Testament mercy; etc.

The Incoherent Position of Bishop Schneider

The following is an excerpt from a recent interview of Bishop Athanasius Schneider contained in the December 10 issue of the French periodical, “Présent.”

It was provided to Le forum Catholique by Jacques Regis du Cray (alias “Ennemond,” alias “Come du Previgny”), a former GREC collaborator, unofficial lay-spokesman, and internet monitor for the SSPX in the French speaking world, who first became known to most English-language readers through Fr. Rioult’s book “The Impossible Reconciliation,” in which the latter described him as the “unofficial mouthpiece of Fr. Lorans” (i.e., Former SSPX Communications Director, since replaced by Fr. Arnaud Rostand), who incidentally was another GREC collaborator.

Subsequently, the excerpt was posted by Non Possumus here: 
As Non Possumus points out, Bishop Schneider sounds very much like Bishop Fellay.
After the interview excerpt, we will offer some thoughts on the matter.

Question: The sovereign pontiff prorogued the possibility of confessing for the priests of the Society of St. Pius X beyond the Year of Mercy. Do you think this is an important decision? .

Bishop Schneider: Yes, of course, and I am very happy! This is a very pastoral action, very merciful, in my opinion one of the most important gestures of the pontificate of Pope Francis, which helps the process of canonical integration of this ecclesial reality that has existed for 50 years and which bears evident spiritual fruits. Many young families gathered around the Fraternity of St. Pius X love the Church, pray for the Pope, as their ancestors did before them. The Church contains various houses, various spiritualities. Only ecclesiastics hostile to the Fraternity presented him with exaggerated demands. John XXIII as Paul VI have always insisted on the pastoral of the Council. If the Fraternity has difficulty responding to certain documents of Vatican II, it will fail to fulfill the context of the pastoral purpose of the Council. The dogma has not changed. We have the same was. There is therefore no problem for a canonical of the Society of St. Pius X.

Question: You were one of the men of the Church sent to the Vatican to visit the seminaries and prioresses of the Fraternity. What solution do you think possible to its controversial position?

Bishop Schneider: The personal prelature is a threefold position adapted to the reality of the Fraternity of St. Pius X and to its mission. I am convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre would have willingly accepted with gratitude this official ecclesial structure, recognition by the Church of the apostolate led. What would be done justice, well belatedly, to the unjust suppression of the Fraternity in 1975 by the Holy See. At that time, Archbishop Lefebvre presented a recourse. The erection of a prelature would somehow luck accept the canonical recourse of Bishop Lefebvre with a delay of 40 years. On the other hand, the Fraternity must not demand 100% guarantees, which remains unrealistic: we are on earth, not in Heaven! It will be a gesture that would betray some lack of confidence in Providence.


1) It is difficult to say where or why Bishop Schneider continues to claim that certain documents of Vatican II are negotiable in the SSPX ralliement process, when he has been explicitly contradicted by Cardinal Muller (Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), who outranks him, and who says the whole Council must be accepted.

Moreover, it is even more difficult to understand how Bishop Schneider can make this claim in the face of the Apostolic Brief  In Spiritu Sancto,‘ which was read at the closing ceremonies by Archbishop Pericle Felici  (General Secretary of the Council), 
which officially closed the Council on December 8, 1965, and which contains this admonition:

“At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” 
Quite obviously, Bishop Schneider’s theory is condemned by the very Apostolic Brief which closed the Council itself!
One would think Bishop Fellay would have made this objection of his own accord to Bishop Schneider.
Perhaps Bishop Fellay chooses to ignore the Apostolic Brief as inconvenient, while Bishop Schneider’s soma is just what the accordistas want to hear.
But it ought to serve as a blatant red flag to those still on the fence, that any solution based on Bishop Schneider’s theory is setting them up for disaster (i.e., a convenient remembrance of the Apostolic Brief after the fact).
Besides, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it: We all know from Michael Davies how the modernists emphasized the pastoral nature of the conciliar documents in order to gain support for them, only to insist on their binding nature after the fact.  
The same thing is happening here, which is quite obvious for all those who have eyes to see.
2)  Bishop Schneider’s second comment (i.e., That he is convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre would have signed the deal on the table) is nothing short of ridiculous: The Archbishop claimed exactly the opposite after the consecrations: The details of the deal were now besides the point.  What was required was the reversion of Rome back to the teachings of their predecessors.  Without that, no deal.
Just think about it: Your modernist enemy in Rome is trying to convince you that Archbishop Lefebvre would have signed the deal…so you should BELIEVE him?!  
Your instinctive reaction should be to run in the opposite direction.  Cardinal Canizares’ own secretary warned the SSPX not to accept any deal, as Rome would not be able to honor it.
But Bishop Fellay didn’t want to hear about that in Albano in 2011, and doesn’t want to hear about it today in 2016: He told the whole world “It is not a trap” during his August Australian “Capitulation Conference.”
What can one do but pray for such a one?
Bishop Schneider’s final paragraph reads very much like a summary of Fr. Gregoire Celier’s poisonous and cunning arguments from his 2008 book “Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists,” hints of which also come through in Bishop Fellay’s “Letter to the Three Bishops.”

[Incidentally, Fr. Gregoire Celier admits to having delivered a conference/address to the GREC.  Do you see the pattern here?]
It appears to be the blueprint they are banking on: We must have courage; we must have justice; we must have faith; we must be realistic (because we really don’t have faith), etc. 

Guarantees?  We don’t need no stinking guarantees!  We have (ahem) faith! 
But can anyone find those ideas and sentiments in post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre?
No (and the fact that the likes of Fr. Simoulin, et al exhort us not to be 1988ers anymore proves the point: The current orientation reigning in Menzingen is contradicted by that of Archbishop Lefebvre after the consecrations.  Period.).
And being lulled to sleep and suckered by the principles of GREC (and their partisans) today will sound the death knell of the SSPX.

Likely, it already has.

SSPX Ecumenism?

[The following story appears on; our commentary follows]

New Russian Orthodox Church in Paris
December 05, 2016 

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, consecrated a new church in Paris, just yards away from the Eiffel Tower.

On Sunday, December 4, Holy Trinity Church was opened as part of a Russian cultural and spiritual center, a 100 million euro ($106 million) complex owned by the Russian government on the banks of the Seine River in the French capital. 

Around 500 Orthodox believers from the Russian community in Paris, including the offspring of Russia’s former princely houses, packed the church for the event.

Patriarch Kirill handed over a copy of one of Russian Orthodoxy’s most revered icons—the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God—to the church. All those present at the ceremony were given small icons of the Holy Trinity. Kirill thanked France for its hospitality to the Russian immigrants who arrived in the country after the 1917 Soviet Revolution, and for allowing the construction of the “magnificent” Paris site. In meetings with Russian emigres, the Patriarch warned that it’s “dangerous” for them to lose their loyalty to Russia. Kirill called the new church a symbol of the close ties between the peoples and the cultures of Russia and France.

[The new church] is a monument to our close relations in the past and, certainly, a symbol of what awaits us in the future,” he said. He urged Russians living abroad to “consider themselves members of the Church and to go to church . . . and by no means allow their children to lose their language and culture.” According to Russian news agencies, Patriarch Kirill added, “It’s your duty. You can live wherever you want, but you can’t break spiritual and cultural ties with your people.”

The location of Saint Trinity Church is just yards from the Eiffel Tower

Construction of Holy Trinity Church began last April on a plot of land purchased earlier by the Russian Government. The church’s five domes were completed in nine months. The covering for the domes consists of 90,000 golden leaves measuring eight by eight centimeters. The total area of the building is 4.6 thousand square meters

The question about the possibility of creating an Orthodox center in Paris was raised by the late Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II, who visited France in October 2007. The old St. Nicholas church, on the street of the Loops, is too small and could not accommodate the numbers expected to turn out for such an event. Russian President Vladimir Putin championed the project, which prompted criticism from liberal rights groups when it was first approved in 2008. Additional concerns were raised as diplomatic relations between France and Russia soured in the ensuing years. Moreover, Putin played down suspicions that it would be used by the Russian secret services to spy on sensitive government buildings and embassies in the surrounding neighborhood.

The Russian state-owned church, on a prominent piece of Parisian real estate, is also an awkward symbol for secular France, which adheres firmly to its division between church and state. In Russia—until 25 years ago an officially atheist state—the role of the Orthodox Church has grown under Putin, notably in its lobbying for traditional family policies and against homosexuality.

President Putin was expected to attend the opening ceremony with his French counterpart, Francois Hollande, in October, but his visit was cancelled after the French side shortened the program for his trip amid increasing tensions between Russia and France over Moscow’s veto of a French United Nations Security Council draft resolution on Syria.

Patriarch Kirill will visit Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois Cemetery where a large number of people of Russian descent, including many so-called White Russians (i.e., anti-communist Russians who fought in the Russian Civil War) and those belonging to later waves of immigration, are buried. Kirill will also travel to Zurich, Switzerland to take part in celebrations commemorating the 80th anniversary of the local Orthodox cathedral there during his five-day trip to Europe from December 3 to 7.



1) The word “Catholic” does not appear in the story;

2) Any reference to the need for the schismatics to convert to the one true Church in order to be saved does not appear in the story;

3) The relevance of this story to Catholic Tradition is not explained;

4) The dogma of papal primacy is not mentioned in this story;

5)  Certainly, no condemnation of false ecumenism is mentioned in this story.

The question begs itself: What is the purpose of posting this irrelevant story?

Well, it is quite obvious the effect the article is supposed to have upon the reader is to instill happiness for the Orthodox, that they are getting a beautiful church.

More importantly, one must be permitted to wonder whether, amid the present climate of ralliement, the article was meant to send a signal to Rome: We are slowly moving towards ecumenism!

“Of course, we have to be careful about how we do it, or those damn Resistance big mouths will go writing about it.”

Consequently, the story is careful to reach the desired effect, without ever endorsing ecumenism.

“What are you talking about?  We didn’t endorse ecumenism in that article!

And yet, the effect of instilling joy in the hearts of the anesthetized pew sitters will not be limited to them alone: The Orthodox and Rome will also be quite happy to see such an article as this, and the effect of it (for the Orthodox) will be to have reinforced them in their schisms.

“Even the SSPX didn’t say we needed to convert.”

And after all, didn’t Michael Davies say (erroneously) that the Orthodox possess “formal apostolicity,” and constitute “true particular churches?”

Well, this article certainly fits nicely into the greater context of SSPX compromise in pursuit of Roman approval, when one considers all the other acts of Tradcumenism over the last several years (in contradiction to their former condemnation of such).

What is notable here is that the ecumenical impulse (which always grows like an infection within those who flirt with Rome too much) has been expanded to include non-Catholics.

They will deny it, of course; they will say it is making a mountain out of a molehill; almost certainly there was a preconceived excuse ready to explain and rebut whatever Resistance writer noted the aberration.

Go back to the purpose of the article: You are supposed to be happy for the Orthodox.  

One can easily imagine all the pats on the head of the good puppy, turning to its masters for approval.

An article which might pass for “news” in a secular paper or website is scandalous appearing on an SSPX website (particularly so, within a context of rapprochement and compromise in pursuit of a practical accord).

As a writer said to me:

I had read that article a few days ago on the sspx site and I got to the end not knowing if it was supposed to be a good thing, or a bad thing, that the Russian Orthodox have a new church in Paris. There is nothing in the article that would let one know either way.”

But that is precisely the method: Incrementally shifting from opposition, to the indifference manifestd in this article, and eventually to promotion of ecumenism. 

Baby steps and paper cuts all piling up to create a very different SSPX (One that Rome can love).

It will all soon be forgotten; go back to sleep.

Eleison Comments #491: Trump’s Election (Commentary Follows)

Image result for eleison comments


For Trump we must pray. Since last month’s election
He will be needing Heaven’s own protection.
The essential thing to say about the election last month of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States is that it is a God-given reprieve from years and years of liberal government, but unless the American people themselves turn back seriously to Almighty God, then the reprieve will be swept away by a return of the liberals in force to destroy the United States once and for all, as Hilary Clinton would have done, had she been elected.
Now it is true that not many people today think of politics in terms of Almighty God, but that is exactly the problem. To shut him out of life, especially out of politics, has been a crusade for Freemasons and liberals ever since the end of their 18th century. Liberty from God has been the crusade of their substitute religion, secular humanism. Similarly in the 20th century Communism with or without the name has triumphed against nature all over the world because it acts like a religion, being, as Pius XI calls it, the messianism of materialism. And liberalism and Communism are why the entire Western world has been tilting to the left for hundreds of years.
And that is no doubt why a large number of voters in that American election voted for the candidate who lost. She was known all over the nation for her lying, immorality and treason. Her criminal record was notorious, including the suspicion of her having been responsible with her husband for the murder of well over fifty men and women who had got in the way of their ambition and careers. How could anybody halfway decent have even thought of voting for her, let alone more than half of all Americans who voted (she did not win the Electoral College)? Paul Craig Roberts himself, excellent commentator on the American political scene, is baffled by that question. The missing answer is surely that that woman incarnated the war against God. For liberals, liberty is their religion. That she proudly broke all of God’s commandments was an argument not against her, but for her. She is a Saint of liberalism.
Now her conqueror, Donald Trump, is not, to all appearances, a specially godly man, and he is still liberal in various ways – who is not? – but he has within him a good dose of that old-fashioned decency and generosity which used to be typical of the best in America and Americans. Therefore he is instinctively against ungodly people, and after years and years of self-righteous liberals under a series of liberal Presidents trampling all over decent Americans, he had had enough, and he stepped into politics “to give back to this country some of what it has given to me.” And after the same years and years of what had in fact been a one-party System, because there had not been since Governor Wallace’s time “a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats,” Trump bucked the System, gave voice to the people’s frustration, and a host of decent souls voted him into office. But the System is furious.
Therefore he must now think hard. He has become President-elect on the strength of decent instincts against liberal ideology. But that is a flash in the pan, because to fight against ideology with instincts is like fighting tanks with a pea-shooter. To fight a false ideology one needs a true ideology, and to fight against war on God one needs peace with God, which will be on God’s terms and not on man’s. Now God is all-powerful and infinitely good, and he can undo the worst that his enemies can attempt to do against him with the merest flick of his little finger, so to speak. But he is not going to grant victory over the Synagogue of Satan if he knows that the people that he is saving are going to go straight back to Satan. The people must come away from Satan and turn back sincerely to God, who is not deceived.
At the very least Donald Trump himself must pray – ACTS – with Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving and Supplication. God has been with him, to grant this reprieve. Let us all include him and President Putin in our own prayers, to prolong the reprieve. Otherwise it could soon be over.
Kyrie eleison.
Note: Some readers may find it puzzling (or even incongruent) that I should follow yesterday’s post “American Suckers,” with Bishop Williamson’s most recent comments (which paint a much more optimistic portrait of the Trump presidency that I did).
“Your blog is incoherent!”
On the contrary, this is politics, not religion, and in this arena, a diversity of opinion is both permitted and inevitable.
My own position is that, so long as Trump remains (seemingly inextricably) enveigled in Judaic relationships, influencers, and control, the benefits or good points he brings to the table are not likely to find an outlet.
Now, it could very well be that Bishop Williamson is right (who can say he is wrong?), and he is certainly more deserving of your consideration and attention than the author of this micro-blog!
As such, my own comments should not be taken as contradicting the bishop, but rather, as simply pointing out that if the hopes many have for President Trump are to transpire, he will first have to solve the problem of Jewish control.

If that could be done, I would share in the optimism, but I don’t have much hope of that happening.

That’s just me.

American Suckers

Watch This 8 Minute Video:

American Suckers

And here’s what Br. Nathanael (a Jew by blood; schismatic convert by religion) thinks about it: