Monthly archives: April, 2017

Nosce Inimicum Tuum: The Frankfurt School

Satan’s Secret Agents: The Frankfurt School and their Evil Agenda

Based on an original article by Timothy Matthews (see http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/frankfurt-school-conspiracy-to-corrupt_23.html), this adaptation and abridgement by Lasha Darkmoon (supplemented with her own original commentary denoted by [LD]), is taken from this website: https://www.darkmoon.me/2013/satans-secret-agents-the-frankfurt-school-and-their-evil-agenda/, and reproduced below, after an introduction to the subject by Sodalitium Pianum

“GOD  IS  DEAD! . . . BEHOLD, I GIVE YOU THE SUPERMAN!”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

In February/2002, His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson gave a conference to the assembled priests of the US District at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN for the annual priests meeting.  

That conference (available for sale here: http://stmarcelinitiative.com/bookstore/products/The-Fall-of-the-Campos-Priests-%26-Modernism.html) introduced and exposed the strategy of the “Frankfurt School:” A collection of Talmudic Jewish Marxists who, having failed to implement Bolshevik revolution in Germany (and elsewhere) fled to America after the rise of Adolph Hitler, and settled primarily in Hollywood and various positions throughout academia.  

Ruminating about the causes for their failure to bring about the revolution in Germany, America, and elsewhere, they came to the conclusion that, if the Church were indefectible, and could not therefore be defeated by frontal assault, they would change their tactics and instead focus their attacks upon the vestiges of Catholic culture and civilization (i.e., focus their assaults at the natural level).

The Jew understands that grace builds upon nature, and so long as the Church is robust, Jewish worldwide domination (through revolution) becomes impossible, because culture, which is the outpouring of religion (and not the other way around), provides a strong foundation for a healthy society.  

But so long as a society and its culture are healthy, revolution has little chance for success.

However, if the culture could be polluted, then human nature itself could become so corrupted and mired in sin, that the populace would become generally depraved and miserable, and consequently, they would eventually welcome revolution, in the hopes that it would release them from the hopelessness of their debauched condition.

It is by this means that the Messianic Jew will come to “save” them, and ascend to global power (which is the whole purpose of worldwide revolution, globalism, and the Frankfurt School).

Of course, we know that the Antichrist (who will be Jewish) is what they will receive.

The following article adaptation more or less replicates and/or parallels the primary points of Bishop Williamson’s own introduction to the Frankfurt School referenced above.

Some of the material here is shocking, and difficult to read, but not beyond the tolerance of a normal, morally healthy Catholic man.  

The Sodalitium Pianum blog has as its raison d’etre to expose and fight the subversion of Catholic tradition.  In order to do this, one needs to know his enemy: “Nosce Inimicum Tuum.”

It is my hope that the reader will study the tactics of the Frankfurt School (the deleterious effects of which we are now completely immersed in), in order to be on his guard against their stratagems.  Invest $5 in your soul, and purchase Bishop Williamson’s 2002 conference on the subject (linked above); study up on the matter to protect your soul, and the souls of those you love.

If you do not know how you are being attacked, except at an instinctive level, you will always be outflanked, and being outflanked, you will become partially polluted.

 -SJ

**********

 

Let’s begin by considering the corrosive work of the Frankfurt School: a group of German-American scholars, mostly Jewish, who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber.

Their idea of a “cultural revolution” was not particularly new. Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821), who for fifteen years had been a Freemason, had this to say: “Until now, nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion. But here an important question arises: can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is?”

What was the Frankfurt School?

Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that a Workers’ Revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. It failed to do so. Towards the end of 1922, the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider the reasons for this failure.

On Lenin’s initiative, a meeting was organized at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. The aim of the meeting was to throw light on the meaning of Marx’s Cultural Revolution. What did “cultural revolution” entail?  What was it all about?

First, among those present, was Georg Lukács, a Jewish Hungarian aristocrat and son of a banker. He had become a Communist during World War I. A good Marxist theoretician, he had developed the idea of “Revolution and Eros” — sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction.

Then there was Willi Münzenberg, another revolutionary Jew whose proposed solution to the problems besetting society was “to organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

“It was”, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007), the conservative author and co-founder of the National Review, “a meeting more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.”

Lenin died in 1924, but by that time Stalin had risen to power and was beginning to look on Willi Munzenberg, George Lukács and other Jewish revolutionaries (like Trotsky) as dangerous Marxist “revisionists”, introducing concepts into Marxism that were alien to Marxism and which served only a Jewish agenda.

In June 1940, on Stalin’s orders, Münzenberg was hunted down to the south of France by a NKVD assassination squad and hanged from a tree.

In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the Fifth Comintern Congress, Lukács moved to Germany. Here he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist oriented sociologists. This gathering was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.

This “School”, designed to put flesh on their revolutionary program, was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with, school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923, the Institute had been officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil, born in Argentina into a wealthy  Jewish family, was sent to attend school in Germany at the age of nine. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism.

Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s Jewish director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer (also Jewish) assumed control. He believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research.

When Hitler came to power, the Institute was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and ended up as academics at major US universities: Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.

[LD:  The fact that they spoke very poor English was no disqualification. They were Jewish, and so they managed to obtain prestigious academic appointments through Jewish influence, i.e., through networking — a system that works exceptionally well even today and which accounts for the huge and unfair preponderance of Jews in academia.]

The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse — denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which “opens the way for [sexual] licence cloaked as liberty” — Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas. All these individuals except Habermas were of Jewish origin.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief — or even the hope of belief — that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke a socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the “Judaeo-Christian legacy.”

[LD:  “Judeo-Christian” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, given that Judaism and Christianity are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Since most Jews are  actively hostile to Christianity, and since Talmudic Jews actually take pleasure in the thought of Christ being boiled in excrement in hell, to speak of the “Judeo-Christian legacy” is clearly nonsensical.]

To undermine Western civilization, the Frankfurt School Jews called for the most negative and destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life. To de-stabilize society and bring it to its knees, to engineer collapse, to produce crisis and catastrophe — this became the aim of these maladjusted and mentally sick Jewish revolutionaries masquerading as high-powered intellectuals.

Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus — “continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means”, as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their “quiet” cultural revolution, the Frankfurt School made the following twelve recommendations — all of them calculated to undermine the foundations of society and create the dystopia we now see all around us:

1.  The creation of racism offences and hate speech laws.
2.  Continual change to create confusion (e,g., in school curricula).
3.  Masturbation propaganda in schools, combined with the homosexualization of children and their corruption by exposing them to child porn in the classroom.
4.  The systematic undermining of parental and teachers’ authority.
5.  Huge immigration to destroy national identity and foment future race wars.
6.  The systematic promotion of excessive drinking and recreational drugs.
7.  The systematic promotion of sexual deviance in society.
8.  An unreliable legal system with bias against the victims of crime.
9.  Dependency on state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media. (Six Jewish companies now control 96 percent of the world’s media. LD).
11.  Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
12.  All all-out attack on Christianity and the emptying of churches.

[LD:  In the Soviet Union, under Stalin and his Communist Jews, the emptying of churches was accomplished by the simple expedient of burning the churches down—thousands of them.]

Coincidentally, most of the 12 aims and objectives mentioned above were set out prominently in the pages of that alleged  “forgery”, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Jewish philosophers of the Frankfurt School, it seems, had been heavily influenced by the Protocols. They were clearly impressed by what they read there and decided to implement its recommendations in their own sinister agenda.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of “pansexualism”: the search for indiscriminate sexual pleasure, the promotion of “unisex”, the blurring of distinctions between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women, and, finally, the undermining of heterosexuality at the expense of homosexuality — as, for example, in the idea of “same-sex marriage” and the adoption of children by homosexual couples.

Willi Münzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.”

“We must organise the intellectuals and use them TO MAKE WESTERN CIVILIZATION STINK! Only then, after they have CORRUPTED ALL ITS VALUES AND MADE LIFE IMPOSSIBLE, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (Emphasis added)

[LD:  According to Sean McMeekin’s The Red Millionaire: A political biography of Willi Münzenberg, Münzenberg was “the perpetrator of some of the most colossal lies of the modern age…. He helped unleash a plague of moral blindness upon the world from which we have still not recovered.”]

The Frankfurt School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) Political revolution and (b) Cultural revolution. They were more concerned with cultural revolution, the demolition of the established order from within. “Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness”, they taught. So-called “reforms” were to be made so slowly and subtly that these changes for the worse were barely perceptible. The School saw the undermining of the social order as a long-term project.

[LD:  The systematic erosion of Christian moral values and the promotion of sexual perversion is known as cultural Marxism. Today, thanks to the efforts of organized Jewry which controls 96 percent of the world’s media, cultural Marxism has largely triumphed and Christianity lies in ruins. To many dispassionate observers, society has now reached its rockbottom moral nadir — as Jewish Marxists such as Willi Munzenberg (see quote above) would have been only too happy to witness — had he been around today. ]

These iconoclasts kept their sights firmly fixed on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture. Each of these would be their target. If things did not go from bad to worse, year after year, they were not succeeding. To these revolutionary Jewish thinkers, bad was good — and worse was better.

The Destruction of the Family and the Promotion of Feminism

The School’s Critical Theory preached that the “authoritarian personality” was a product of the patriarchal family — an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy.

Already Karl Marx had written, in the Communist Manifesto (1848), about the radical notion of a “community of women”. In The German Ideology (1845), he had written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the Critical Theory: the need to break down the family unit.

[LD: All families were essentially evil, these thinkers believed — even happy families — so they had to be destroyed. It was better if children had no parents, or did not know who their parents were. Or if they were orphans of the state. It was better if romantic love between the sexes, leading to stable long-term marriages, were destroyed in favor of short-term, unstable, promiscuous relationships. After all, the former might lead to happiness for all concerned, and that was clearly impermissible — for the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was “to create a culture of pessimism” (Lukács) and “to make life impossible for everyone.” (Münzenberg).]

Georg Lukács (1885–1971):
“I want a culture of pessimism … a world abandoned by God”

The Institute scholars therefore preached that “Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.”

[LD:  These neo-Freudian Marxist philosophers of the Frankfurt School were clearly out to create trouble: to drive a wedge between parent and child and sow division in the family. Whatever was good in human relationships simply had to be destroyed. If people didn’t have problems, then problems would have to be manufactured “to make life impossible.” (Munzenberg).]All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of “Women’s liberation” and by the New Left movement in the 1960s. They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one.

[LD:  The idea that women should run society and wear the trousers, telling men what to do, had an enormous appeal to certain bossy types of women with a surplus of testosterone, particularly to butch lesbians and man-hating matriarchs. Many of these misguided females were to become evangelists for radical  Feminism, some even proposing to cut themselves off from the male sex completely and live in communes of their own. Curiously enough, the number of Jewish feminists is huge—out of all proportion to their percentage in the population.]

In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, an honored and adulated member of the Frankfurt School, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of “natural society.” He was, as such, to be an inspiration to the feminists.

[LD:  Reich, incidentally, a compulsive masturbator and sexual pervert, had entertained incestuous longings for his own mother and practiced bestiality with horses while still a child. (See here).]

This versatile sexual deviant, now a cult figure on the left, along with the equally sex-obsessed Herbert Marcuse—popularizer of the slogan MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR—were to be godfathers of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s as well as the patron saints of the Feminist movement.

The Indoctrination of Children through Education

Bertrand Russell was to join the Frankfurt School in their efforts at mass social engineering. He spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote:

The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity.

But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

[LD:  The irony is unmistakable, but that is beside the point. Russell was all for turning the world upside down and ushering in Brave New World: atheism, feminism, and “sexual liberation” i.e., the green light to promiscuity, perversion, and abortion on demand.]

The devaluation of values so sought after by the luminaries of the Frankfurt School  has now largely been achieved through sex education and media propaganda: in particular, by the promotion of masturbation, pornography, and the systematic high pressure salesmanship of  homosexuality in schools.

 

POSTER ON A CLASSROOM WALL

[LD:  This, then, is the secret agenda of organized Jewry as represented by the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School: the destruction of traditional values, the destruction of the moral order, the destruction of the family unit, the destruction of religion, the destruction of meaning and purpose, and, finally, the destruction of happiness itself.]

These are the people who now rule over us. They are in control. They create new wars with the same rapidity that a stage magician pulls rabbits from a hat. And they make sure that the people they rule over, their subject populations, are either demoralized debt slaves in insecure jobs or unemployed bums living on state benefits and a diet of junk food and sleazy junk entertainment laid on by the Jews.

Satan’s Secret Agents have been only too successful in creating a New World Order that bears a remarkable resemblance to hell.

*          *          *

Endnote by Lasha Darkmoon [LD]

American historian Edwin Schoonmaker writes:

Fifteen years after the Bolshevist Revolution was launched to carry out the Marxist program, the editor of the American Hebrew could write: “According to such information that the writer could secure while in Russia a few weeks ago, not one Jewish synagogue has been torn down, as have hundreds—perhaps thousands of the Greek Catholic Churches… In Moscow and other large cities one can see Christian churches in the process of destruction… the Government needs the location for a large building,” (American Hebrew, Nov. 18, 1932, p. 12) Apostate Jews, leading a revolution that was to destroy religion as the “opiate of the people” had somehow spared the synagogues of Russia.” (“Democracy and World Dominion,” 1939, p.211).

Wikipedia tells us that the Communist state after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution  was “committed to the destruction of religion”, and destroyed churches, mosques and temples — no mention of synagogues being destroyed —  and that it “ridiculed, harassed and executed [Christian] religious leaders, flood[ing] the schools and media with atheistic propaganda.”

Since the Russian Revolution was essentially a Jewish revolution, with an overwhelmingly high percentage of its leaders being Jewish, one can understand why synagogues were NOT destroyed. The animosity of the Jewish leadership was directed almost exclusively toward the Christian clergy and their churches. Monks, nuns and priests were put to death in large numbers, often after being cruelly tortured in the process, their eyes gouged out and in some instances being boiled alive. (For graphic details of the systematic torture of Christians under the Bolsheviks, see here and section 7, “Fiendish tortures devised by the Jewish cheka”, here).

According to the Atlantic, September 1991, p.14, “In 1919, three-quarters of the Cheka staff in Kiev were Jews, who were careful to spare fellow Jews. (See footnote 21, here)

For more on the specifically Jewish character of the Russian Revolution, see here and here.

Russian-born Jewish writer Sonya Margolina goes so far as to call the Jewish role in supporting the Bolshevik regime the “historic sin of the Jews.” She points, for example, to the prominent role of Jews as commandants of Soviet Gulag concentration and labor camps, and the role of Jewish Communists in the systematic destruction of Russian churches. Moreover, she goes on, “The Jews of the entire world supported Soviet power, and remained silent in the face of any criticism from the opposition.”

In light of this record, Margolina offers a grim prediction:

“The exaggeratedly enthusiastic participation of the Jewish Bolsheviks in the subjugation and destruction of Russia is a sin that will be avenged. Soviet power will be equated with Jewish power, and the furious hatred against the Bolsheviks will become hatred against Jews.” (Cited here)


A Formless Darkness

A meditation on a particular conclusion from Romano Amerio’s Epilogue in Iota Unum:

“If the present crisis is tending to overthrow the nature of the Church, and if this tendency is internal to the Church rather than the result of an external assault, as it has been on other occasions, then we are headed for a formless darkness…in the face of which there will be no alternative but to keep silence.” (p. 713)

A mysterious conclusion, this!

Amerio does not say that in the face of this formless darkness we must shout from the rooftops (as the Gospel enjoins), but the opposite: We shall be obliged to hold our peace.

Why?

Perhaps he is saying that, because our protests shall fall upon deaf ears, there is no point in protesting; that since the cause of dissolution is internal to the Church, there is nobody capable or remedying the situation who can act upon our pleas?

But what of the obligation to preach the truth for those who have not yet succumbed to the formless darkness?

Does the lack of a receptive audience dispense from the obligation (in caritate, at least) to fight against the spread of the formless darkness?

Did not St. Francis preach to the fishes when no man would listen to him?

But Amerio says there will be no alternative in the face of this formless darkness except silence.

Does this mean that the preaching of the truths of the Church will become impossible?  Not for want of an audience, but for inability to reproduce (intellectually) the truth?  That would seem to contradict indefectibility, however indirectly, in suggesting that the faith will have vanished, so this cannot be his meaning.

How could things come to such a pass that we are helpless but to watch the spread of this formless darkness destroy the Church (insofar as it can be destroyed in its human element)?

Is it meant to show us our own powerlessness, and or make us aware of our total dependence on God’s providence; to make us conscious on our dependence on Him?

It seems a very severe test of faith to be tested by God in this way: To watch the Church undue itself, in seeming contradiction of its divine constitution; how many will be damned by losing faith, and failing the test?  If it is a test.

If this prognosis is true, what should be our response?  Shall we refocus our efforts from the restoration of the Church, to simply praying not to lose the faith?  Would taking that posture be consistent with the graces and obligations we received at our confirmation, to be soldiers of Christ?  Is a soldier always swinging his sword, or does he sometimes maneuver, reconnaissance the terrain and enemy, and pick his battles?

It seems impossible and treasonous to consent to do nothing.  To be found fighting is what matters most, isn’t it?  Shall we give up on the Church, and worry about our own foxholes?  Will God be pleased or upset, if in the face of a formless darkness undoing the constitution of the Church, we hold our silence?

A difficult thing, not to have the courage to uphold one’s spiritual obligations, but a far worse suffering to be perplexed as to what God’s expectations are.  Perhaps the perplexity is an inducement to prayer for a solution?  Perhaps that prayer will win merit from the suffering?  Perhaps that is the cause of the perplexity?

It does not sit easy with men to remove oneself from the battlefield (especially to do so before confronted with the darkness).

Perhaps the silence in the face of the formless darkness will be the result of exasperation and exhaustion?

I cannot see keeping one’s silence unless checkmated or dead.


Hugh Akins Endorses “Ipsa Conteret”

We happily received this endorsement of the Ipsa Conteret Resistance newsletter from the desk of Mr. Hugh Akins today, which will run in a future edition of his excellent quarterly journal Oportet Christum Regnare (“Christ Must Reign”):

“NOTE: A word about the Ipsa Conteret newsletter, a project of a group of Resistance leaders and activists: Ipsa Conteret is taken from “ipsa conteret caput tuum,” which translates “she will crush your head!” – a most appropriate title for the struggle in which we of the Catholic Resistance serve in the capacity of front line forces. We are told that the newsletter came into being to fill the void left by The Recusant, which has, unfortunately but undeniably, lost its way and fell by the wayside, another casualty in the great war for the triumph of the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The need for such a publication, in the hands of highly qualified lay apostles who did not hesitate to assume leadership positions on the Christian battlefield when Mother Church was plunged into such crisis as today, could not be greater. We are confident this missionary venture will yield abundant fruit because the men running it, contributing to it, supporting it, have long been producing outstanding writings and blog posts on the various online Resistance sites, for example at http://ablf3.com/, at www.Sodalitium-Pianum.com, and at http://Cathinfo.com to mention just three of them. We are convinced Ipsa Conteret will emerge as a major voice of Catholic truth and sanity at a time when not only the world, but no small part of the Traditional Movement and False Resistance militate against them. Therefore, let it be known that I, Hugh Akins, founding president of the League of Christ the King, editor of Oportet Christum Regnare, National Director of Catholic Action Resource Center, friend of the Bishops of the Resistance and most unworthy soldier of Christ, wholeheartedly endorse, support and recommend the Ipsa Conteret initiative to every Catholic serious about keeping and defending his holy and divine Faith. For further information about subscriptions, making a donation or submitting a manuscript to the editor for possible inclusion in a future issue, here’s the link: www.IpsaConteret.com.”

PS: For those of you who are not familiar with Mr. Akins’ excellent journal, you can check it out and subscribe here: http://ca-rc.com/magazines/oportet-christum-regnare-subscription


Ipsa Conteret (Issue #1) Now Available!

http://IpsaConteret.com

 

Dear Friends-

We are pleased to announce that Ipsa Conteret is now online, and available gratis, at the link above.

The first issue runs 49 pages, and can either be viewed on the website, or downloaded (entirely, or article by article).

Please send your feedback to the Editor (Samuel), using the contact function on the http://IpsaConteret.com website.

We hope we will be able to sustain this enterprise, which presents a considerable time burden (particularly for the Editor).

Along those lines, we are hopeful others will be able to contribute with well-written articles (particularly clergy).

Please help us get out the word, and give this digital newspaper a wide distribution through your email lists, etc.

Wishing you all a happy and blessed Easter!

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson (Sub-Editor/2nd Fiddle)


Update: Bishop Fellay Expresses Gratitude for SSPX Humiliation

 

Our previous post commented upon the staggering new “pastoral guidelines” for SSPX marriages (approved by Pope Francis, as contained in the letter released by Cardinal Muller), which foresees the intrusion of conciliar clergy into SSPX sanctuaries to perform the marriages of Society faithful.

We observed that these new guidelines directly subjected both SSPX clergy and faithful to the governance of the diocesan clergy, making both dependent upon same for the reception and/or conferral of the sacrament of matrimony.

Moreover, we observed that the silence of the SSPX in response to these new guidelines not only seemed to imply consent to be bound by them, but also implicitly admitted doubt on the part of the SSPX itself regarding the validity of marriages heretofore (and subsequently) performed in its chapels (all the while -at least formerly- justifying their jurisdiction to perform them via ecclesia supplet).

We observed that, contrary to the stated purpose of these pastoral guidelines, ostensibly promulgated to instill peace and confidence in the minds of doubting faithful regarding the validity of marriages performed in SSPX chapels, the guidelines, insofar as they represent a Roman reaffirmation of the invalidity of SSPX marriages (seemingly consented to by Menzingen’s silence) actually serve to instill doubt on the matter in the minds of SSPX clergy and faithful, and thereby build a demand for the presence of conciliar clergy to officiate SSPX marriages in the immediate future (which in turn inculcates a desire for accepting a practical accord with unconverted Rome).

And for all these reasons, we concluded that, barring the swift and unambiguous repudiation of these new guidelines by the Society, we could no longer support the marriages of the faithful in SSPX chapels.

Unfortunately, exactly the opposite has happened, per this communique (click link below), in which far from repudiating these humiliating “pastoral guidelines,” Bishop Fellay instead expresses his “deep gratitude” for these new measures:

http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique-from-the-general-house-about-the-letter-from-the-ecclesia-dei-commission-concerning-marriages-of-the-faithful-of-the-society-of-saint-pius-x-april-4-2017/

Consequently, we are forced to reaffirm our conclusions regarding the impermissibility of receiving the sacrament of marriage in SSPX chapels under these conditions, in which both clergy and faithful are directly subjected to diocesan/conciliar authority (and all the dire consequences for the faith which follow from this subjection).

We appeal to all the clergy of the SSPX, and implore them to open their eyes (at long last!) to the substantial mutations and compromises made to and by their Fraternity under the deleterious leadership of Bishop Fellay, and remind them of their duty to resist these disintegrating and assimilating measures.

Furthermore, we remind all the clergy of the SSPX that each and every one of them, has (in light of Menzingen’s consent to be bound by these measures on their behalf), now become personally complicit in rejecting the last will and testament of Archbishop Lefebvre, as expressed on p. 13 of his book Spiritual Journey (published only weeks before his death) in which your founder stated:

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith”

Let no SSPX priest think to exonerate himself on the basis of personal objection, when the consent to be bound by these guidelines is officially accepted by his own congregation (whose consent he is presumed to share).

Neither is it any longer possible for SSPX clergy to refuse to recognize the lie of being “accepted as we are.”  If until now you have been in denial on this point, such denial is no longer possible.

A final parting thought from your founder (whose voice you have ignored until now), given one year after the episcopal consecrations:

“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 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 in the hands of those professing these errors.”

 


Reflections on a Staggering Development

[NB: There remains some confusion as to whether the Vatican’s new pastoral guidelines are mandatory for all SSPX marriages, or, whether they are merely an option for the scrupulous.  The SSPX’s brief communique does nothing to clarify the ambiguity.  However, an intelligent poster on the French Resistance Forum (“Gillou47”) has this to say, which seems reasonable to us:

“It is this first sense which reflects the spirit of the letter, it is all [marriages…]

To the extent possible, the delegation of the Ordinary to attend the marriage will be given to a priest of the diocese (or at least to a fully-fledged priest) to receive the consent of the parties in the rite of the Sacrament which, The liturgy of the Vetus ordo, takes place at the beginning of the Holy Mass; Will follow the celebration of the Holy Mass by a priest of the Fraternity.

In case of impossibility or if there is no priest in the diocese who can receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties directly to the priest of the Fraternity who will also celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him that He has the duty to send to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible the documentation which attests the celebration of the Sacrament.”   http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t174-Le-pape-autorise-la-FSSPX-c-l-brer-des-mariages-licites-et.htm

Given this interpretation of Cardinal Muller’s pastoral guidelines, we offer the following commentary.  If subsequent clarifications should show this interpretation to have been wrong, we reserve the right to amend our conclusions. -SP]

 

Today, the Rorate Coeli blog published a letter by Cardinal Muller (approved by Pope Francis) which announced the issuance of “pastoral guidelines” for the performance of diocesan marriages in SSPX chapels, and in response, the earth has wobbled on its axis.

The implications arising from this latest Roman maneuver are so staggering as to alarm all but the most hardcore “accordistas,” and with the benefit of a few hours’ reflection, these seem the most significant consequences:

 

Subjection to, and Entanglement in, the Dioceses: 

According to Cardinal Muller, the preposterous and unimaginable has become the new normal in SSPX chapels: Diocesan clergy will show up to witness/preside over your marriages, and then step aside while the SSPX priest performs the nuptial Mass:

“the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.”

Note that there is no “opt-out” provision here: If you attend an SSPX chapel, you will be married by a conciliar cleric (presuming one is available).

Questions which arise from these pastoral guidelines:

  1. Will this conciliar cleric even be a validly ordained priest?  If the alleged purpose of issuing these guidelines was to alleviate the doubt of the faithful regarding the validity of their SSPX marriages, doesn’t the introduction of this new uncertainty run contrary to the stated motive?
  2. Regarding the validity of ordination for these conciliar clerics, presuming they were not validly ordained, does the Church have the authority to send laymen to witness marriages (and even if they did, would not such SSPX marriages be even more liberal than the craziest Novus Ordo mariage?)?
  3. The faithful are now directly subjected to the diocesan clergy for the reception of their sacraments.  True, in marriage, it is the couple who actually performs the sacrament, with the priest merely witnessing for validity.  But they are now dependent upon the good graces of the local bishop to permit it.
  4. The SSPX clergy are directly subjected to the diocesan authority in the administration of the sacrament of marriage: They must appeal to the local ordinary to request a conciliar delegate in every instance.
  5. Note the humiliation the SSPX clergy are subjected to in these pastoral guidelines: They are made to admit (at least implicitly) by their very actions, that they have not the ability to validly witness marriages in being made to call for the local modernist to assist in this capacity, regardless of any interior/exterior protestations to the contrary.
  6. Suppose an SSPX cleric, resenting this imposture, refuses to appeal to the local bishop.  Shall he be disciplined by the Society?
  7. Suppose the faithful rightly resent this imposture, and refuse to permit a conciliar priest to witness their marriage: Shall they be compelled to participate in the SSPX’s capitulation, or be told to go elsewhere to receive the sacrament?
  8. How long until the dioceses make their approval/permission dependent upon what they consider acceptable (i.e., outrageous) marriage preparation classes?

Barring the swift and unambiguous repudiation by Menzingen of Cardinal Muller’s pastoral guidelines for marriages in SSPX chapels, the entanglement of the SSPX in the conciliar Church is now official, even if incomplete: The dioceses are now directly involved in the administration of sacraments at SSPX chapels.

For a traditional Catholic priest or layman to consent to such a requirement is absolutely unenforceable and unacceptable, and no Catholic can be compelled to obey such guidelines.  So long as this new abomination remains the official policy in SSPX chapels (which, in the absence of a clear repudiation, is the necessary presumption), we no longer recommend the reception of the sacrament of matrimony at SSPX chapels so long as this policy remains in place.

The psychological damage, and deleterious consequences for the quality of the faith for those who would subject themselves to such conditions is simply too much; the spirit will be broken, and the second offense/compromise will be much easier.  Such persons will have prepared themselves for subsequent falls.

We are obliged to say Non Possumus!

 

Reading Between the Lines:

The ostensible motive given for these new pastoral guidelines is to alleviate the alleged qualms of conscience said to be roiling within the bowels of SSPX clergy and faithful over their doubts about the validity of the marriages they are witnessing or receiving.

Who are these doubting clergy and laymen?

How does Rome know anything about them?

The only knowledge Rome has about the mindset of Society laymen comes from 20 years of “discreet but not secret” conversations with Menzingen.  If, therefore, Rome has concluded that SSPXers are writhing in doubts about the validity of their sacraments, I would say those doubts were entertained and conveyed more by Menzingen and SSPX superiors, than by the average layman.  The writings of Fathers Pfluger, Simoulin, Schmidberger, and others corroborate that thought: It is the SSPX hierarchy who is torn by doubts, not the average layman in the pews.

We wonder whether this assignment of doubt to the laity over the validity of SSPX marriages is really their own psychological projection, though they dare not admit it.  Have 20 years of gravely imprudent contacts convinced them of their own defectiveness, and of a conviction that their symptoms (i.e., doubt) can only be cured by a practical accord ,even if it means coming under the thumb of heretical bishops, cardinals, and pope?

We think so.

But note what is not addressed in the pastoral guidelines: The validity of past SSPX marriages.  In fact, you are meant to notice the guidelines’ omission to deal with that issue.  Why?  Because if you are not yet doubting the validity of your marriage, they want you to start doubting it.

In other words, Rome is saying to the world: “SSPX marriages are invalid.  We have not sanated [made sound/valid] their past marriages, nor will we.  In fact, we have granted annulments whenever faced with one at a tribunal on that ground alone.  And even going forward, you will still need one of our conciliar clowns for the sacrament to be valid.”

Menzingen’s lack of repudiation quietly (but clearly) responds: “Yes, we are worried that this is all true.”

The strategy here is to inculcate doubt, so as to facilitate a willingness to support the practical accord.

But there is another stratagem subsisting within the first: The guidelines seem designed to weed out all remaining SSPX hardliners (clergy and lay) as part of what Fr. Pfluger once referred to as the “purification” of the SSPX.  Unlike Bishop Fellay (whom Pope Francis said is “a man he can work with”), those who cannot be worked with (i.e., those who will not permit themselves to be conditioned) will be made to seek options elsewhere, little by little, one sacrament at a time.  Not by force, as in 2012-2014, but by choice: The new SSPX is being made to be less appealing to those still grounded in doctrine, and not affected by appeals to legalism.

“If the salt lose its savor…”

Finally, and it cannot be emphasized enough, what must be retained is that by not opposing these pastoral guidelines, and submitting to them, Menzingen is implicitly acknowledging the invalidity of its own marriages (and this in turn helps facilitate the conciliar motive of inculcating doubt about the validity of the sacrament in the clergy and laity, as a means of garnering support for the canonical agreement).

Why else would Menzingen submit to such guidelines, unless it doubted the validity of its sacrament?

 

 

Conclusion:

Menzingen’s acceptance of the pastoral guidelines announced by Rome today represent its most serious compromise to date: The expulsion of Bishop Williamson to facilitate the practical accord; the Letter of the Three Bishops which announced the plans of Menzingen; the scandalous response of the Letter of the General Counsel; the signing of the infamous April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration: None of these represent as serious a threat to the quality of faith of the SSPX clergy and laity as the pastoral guidelines released today:

Where those other instances pertained to Menzingen, or the SSPX generally, they did not impact the rank and file clergy and laity so directly, immediately, and concretely as do these pastoral guidelines.  These guidelines, however, make those who will continue to avail themselves of marriages at SSPX chapels under such conditions directly complicit in the compromise of the Society, and in their own personal lives.

For this reason, we can no longer support marriages at SSPX chapels so long as these guidelines remain unrepudiated, except in the case of grave spiritual necessity (which dispenses from all legal considerations……but which also requires no conciliar witness for validity).  Outside of this, we are obliged to exclaim:

Non Possumus!

 

 

 

 

 


Francis Subjects SSPX Marriages to Diocesan Control?

[Commentary will follow in a separate post -SP]

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/04/step-by-step-vatican-issues-marriage.html#more

Step by step: Vatican issues Marriage Pastoral Guidelines for SSPX

In a letter approved by Pope Francis, Cardinal Gerhard Müller says, “The Holy Father . . . has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society.” The Pope’s decision adopts a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, both of which are headed by Cardinal Müller.

The new provisions are part of a number of ongoing meetings and initiatives aimed at bringing the Society into full communion; Cardinal Müller’s letter mentions specifically the recent decision of Pope Francis to grant all priests of the Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful in order “to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.”

The grant of faculties for the celebration of marriage is subject to several provisions: “Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary [that is, normally the local Diocesan Bishop] is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.” That is, a priest in good standing is to preside at the celebration of the marriage itself, which in the extraordinary form takes place before the nuptial Mass. The Mass itself may then be celebrated by a priest of the SSPX.

The letter also foresees that circumstances may exist where those provisions are not possible, or where no Diocesan priest is able to receive the consent of the parties. In such cases, the Pope allows the Ordinary to grant faculties to the priest who will celebrate the nuptial Mass.

Cardinal Müller closes his letter expressing his conviction that “in this way any uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated, and at the same time that the process towards full institutional regularization may be facilitated”; and that, to that end, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei “relies” on the cooperation of the prelates of the Episcopal Conferences concerned in this matter.

Below, please find the full text of Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s letter:

Your Eminence,

Your Excellency,

As you are aware, for some time various meetings and other initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion. Recently, the Holy Father decided, for example, to grant all priests of said Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful (Letter Misericordia et misera, n.12), such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.

Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions.

Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.

Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.

Certain that in this way any uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated, and at the same time that the process towards full institutional regularization may be facilitated, this Dicastery relies on Your cooperation.

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 24 March 2017, confirmed his approval of the present letter and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 27 March 2017.

Gerhard Card. L. Müller

President

+ Guido Pozzo

Secretary

Titular Archbishop of Bagnoregio


Eleison Comments #506-507: Slow Decline (Parts I & II)

DECLINING SLOWLY – I

Number DVI (506)Printable PDF

If I will not live up to what I think,
My thoughts to the level of my life will sink.

Here follows an abbreviated testimonial from the United States, which hits many a nail on the head:—

The Society of St Pius X has been “rebranded,” and it is not the same as it was. As the original SSPX belonged to the Catholic Church, so the Newsociety belongs to the Newchurch. To those old enough to remember, it seems like Vatican II all over again, only worse, because this time there is no direct doctrinal attack, nor a major Council, instead the revolution is being spread by slow, almost imperceptible social transformation.

For while the appearances of Tradition are being maintained, the Traditionalist Movement is being slowly changed from within. Outwardly and materially things appear to be more successful than ever, with increasing amounts of money and buildings, but inwardly and spiritually there is decay, because the disease of modernism is imperceptibly infecting the ranks. A variety of symptoms indicate that the modernism is the same, for instance the new, young happy-faced Society priests who are just like the “peace priests” of the 60s and 70s, as the great Cardinal Mindszenty called them. But unlike the previous generation of priests they lack masculinity, and so do some of the Newsociety’s leading lay teachers.

Thus the Mass may still be Traditional, but the whole culture around it is Novus Ordo. Traditionalists want to preserve the Old Mass and the Sacraments, and some of the morals from the Catechism, but at the same time they want to have everything else the modern world has to offer. This makes many so-called Traditional Catholics, outside of the Mass and the Sacraments, largely indistinguishable from their counterparts in the rest of the modern world. The statistics are the same when it comes to divorce, annulment, “single mothers,” etc. If Traditionalists want to go with the modern world, they cannot stay with the true religion. It is one or the other.

As it is, the Traditionalist Movement is now opening up to the world, to become socially acceptable and normal. and the process of modernization is underway, slowly but surely. There is a new, young generation in charge and they are changing things. The old, quirky, embarrassing hardliners have been replaced, and Tradition has a new image, a young, happy, friendly face. The mainstream Church had its aggiornamento fifty years ago, the Society is being updated today. The old generation which fought so many battles to preserve things is now being replaced by a new generation which never knew the Novus Ordo, or how it came to be, and has never had to fight for anything. Today’s youngsters are liable to have grown up in a Traditional bubble, and have too little knowledge of yesterday’s war, background of today’s. Before the Council Bella Dodd testified to the Communist infiltration of the Church. Are we so sure that the same thing is not being done now to the Traditionalist Movement?

It was all too predictable. Being neither infallible nor indefectible, the Society is now going through what the Church went through fifty years ago – infiltration, compromise, disintegration and the same process of autodemolition. Archbishop Lefebvre would have noticed the radical change immediately, but a large number of the frogs in the Society pot have not even noticed how the water temperature is rising. The Archbishop”handed down what he received,” but how can the new generation hand down what it is no longer receiving? Therefore we now hear that the “inevitable reconciliation” is at hand. The SSPX will be accepted as part of the Newchurch, and conversely, it will have to accept the Newchurch. It will now be just one of many side-chapels in the Pantheon of the New World Order. And as for “reconciliation,” which side has given in to the other? Has the Conciliar Church become Catholic? Far from it!

See next week further examples from the same witness.

Kyrie eleison.

 

 

Declining Slowly – II

Number DVII (507)Printable PDF

The modern world has wholly lost its way.
I cannot follow, and not go astray.

The original letter of last week’s writer from the USA was rather longer than the EC taken from it, and many interesting things were left out. Here are another two valuable paragraphs, on Traditional schools and Traditional women. The great lesson is always the same – if I do not live as I think, I will inevitably think as I live. Patience. God does not ask of us the impossible, but on the other hand He does expect us to do our best possible:—

Perhaps modernism is making its greatest inroads into the Traditionalist Movement in education. All kinds of modern practices have made their way into its schools without anyone seeming to notice. The modernist pedagogical and psychological philosophy of the 50s and 60s is being brought in, along with all the usual buzzwords and paraphernalia. Old-fashioned teachers have become the problem. A modern army of administrators, curriculum specialists, educational experts, child psychologists, etc., is now in charge, promising as usual to make everything better, especially in worldly matters such as test scores, college placement, and lucrative careers. Supposedly Traditional schools are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the public schools.

The social revolution going on among the children in our schools daily, is especially strong among the young ladies. There is a virulent new strain of Traditionalist feminism. Many have imbibed the modern poison of equality with, and competition against, men. From a young age they are pitted against men. They want to compete against them, and they think they can do almost anything a man can. They think that the only test of whether or not a woman should do something is whether she is physically capable. To whatever Tadition may say about the role of women, they pay little or no attention. They believe the same lies that have already ruined a generation or two. They have the idea that they can have a highly successful professional career in any field, and still be a good Catholic wife and mother at the same time. The old phrase “A woman’s place is in the home” is not heard anymore in Traditional circles, in fact it is openly scorned. Worst of all, our young ladies are hearing and learning this not from the world, but from our own people. There are too many women in positions of public authority in our schools and there are too many women teachers. This is Revolutionary, and it sets a terrible example for our young ladies, which cannot be overcome by any amount of preaching. Yet what good does it do for a woman to dress modestly if she acts like a man in every other way, especially socially, economically, and politically? A few years ago anyone, not just Traditionalists, would have known this, yet now here it is, being promoted as Traditional.

Then what is so wrong with modern education and its modern methods? Answer, the heart and soul of true education is the Catholic Faith, meaning adults with the backing of the (true) Church, using their authority to teach youngsters, by direct human contact, firstly how to get to Heaven, secondly how to live sane lives as adults in the world, consistent with getting to Heaven. How many “administrators, curriculum specialists, educational experts and child psychologists” even have experience of the living classroom, let alone have the Faith? For lack of the Faith, today’s living classroom is a jungle full of wild beasts. No wonder the “experts” flee it. They are clueless, and powerless to educate.

And what is so wrong with modern women? Modern men, who have let them get out of control. God made women to be under their menfolk, even before the Fall. So what can a good girl do? Pray to St Joseph and to St Anne – both found wonderful spouses – to find a husband that she can respect. God’s arm is not shortened by the wickedness of men (cf. Is. LIX, 1). And men? Your womenfolk will find it much easier to obey you, if you yourselves obey God (I Cor. XI, 3).

Kyrie eleison.