ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXVIII (March 6, 2010) : PARKINSON'S DISEASE.

People choosing to observe that kind of thing had noticed that a hand of Bishop Williamson trembles, so for years a rumour had been circulating that he suffered from Parkinson's Disease. Recently the rumour was given another run for its money. An examination being called for, two weeks ago a London neurologist duly observed, amongst other symptoms, that the muscles of the two arms show no marked difference, and that the trembling occurs when the arm is active and not, as in Parkinson's Disease, when it is inactive. He duly ruled out Parkinson's and pronounced that the symptoms are rather of Benign Essential Tremor. (In other words a trembling hand proves that the Bishop has a Malady of Trembling. Ah, how re-assuring are all the syllables of medical diagnoses !)

However, let nobody be disappointed at this news. Let them take their pick from a rich variety of ways of not having to take the Bishop seriously. Some of them actually come from enemies !-

He is a Rosicrucian (member of a pernicious secret society, as is proved by his episcopal arms which show the Rose of England on a Cross ).

He has always had strange ideas (like, 9/11 was an "inside job").

He is like uranium, difficult to have in one's possession, but difficult also to leave by the roadside (that last bit is nice !).

He gets ideas into his head, becomes fixated on them, and exaggerates (like, he believes what he says).

He is a Fabian Socialist (pernicious ideological left-winger from England).

He is an artist and not a scholar (well, at least the "not a scholar" bit is true).

He talks, on serious questions of truth or falsehood, in public, "nonsense".

The less he talks, the better off is the Society of St Pius X (oh dear, talking is his trade !).

He is an idealist (follower of Immanuel Kant -- well, blow me down with a feather !).

He is growing old, and soon he will be 70 (that one is true !-- In exactly two days' time).

He is a badly converted Anglican (also true - he greatly needs to convert).

He is a live grenade, just waiting to explode, but it is difficult to throw him away (oh, come now ! -- with just a little extra effort ?).

It all puts me in mind of an episode from the life of Frederick the Great, 18th century King of Prussia. High in a tree of a town he was visiting in his kingdom was a portrait of him in caricature. When he noticed it, the courtiers accompanying him were horror-struck - how would the King react ? "Bring it down lower so that everyone can see it", said the King.

Kyrie eleison.

The New Mass: What We Know and What We Don't Know

The introduction of the new rite of Mass — Novus Ordo Missae — in 1969 during the reign of Pope Paul VI remains perhaps the greatest and most grievous culture shock the Catholic clergy and faithful have ever experienced. (See: www.fatimacrusader.com/cr91/CR91pg37.pdf) ;

Not only was the principal language of the Mass changed from Latin to the vernacular, but the text of the Mass itself, the Tridentine Rite, underwent major revisions and innovations that left many priests and laymen in varying states of confusion, scandal and doubt.

And the imposition of the new rite was accompanied with an illicit suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass, which unfortunately remains a de facto condition in many dioceses throughout the world despite the motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, issued in 2007, which affirms that every priest may celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass without the special permission of his bishop.

And while the Holy Father's pronouncement settles once and for all the juridical status of the Tridentine Rite, known as the extraordinary form of the Mass, questions about the validity of the new rite, called the ordinary form of the Mass, persist, and with good reason.

For the past 40 years, the validity of the new rite has been argued from many vantage points. Some defend it on the basis of authority: the Pope has authorized its use and, therefore, it must be valid.

But the degree of authority one can attach to its promulgation is also a matter of controversy. And doubts about the validity of the new rite are not primarily about its authoritative status, but about its sacramental form. (See: The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy)

Most every vernacular translation of the Latin edition of the new rite has changed the form for the consecration of the wine. The Tridentine Rite contains Our Lord's words: “For this is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins.”

With an audacity that is shocking in the extreme, vernacular translations of the new rite alter the formula for the consecration of the wine, changing Our Lord's words, as though such authority had been granted them.

The International Commission for English in the Liturgy, ICEL, has seen fit to translate the Latin words in the originally promulgated text of the new rite from “for many”—pro multis — to for all.”

Every sacrament comprises form and matter. The Latin rite requires grape wine, (and except for the small amount of water added by the priest at the offertory) with no admixture of anything else, be used in the Mass. This is the matter. The form is the words of Our Lord that change the wine into His Blood through transubstantiation.

If one changes the form, does one invalidate the consecration? And what are the essential words of the form without which no consecration can occur?

For forty years, this debate has continued, and will continue, so long as vernacular translations alter the words of the consecration. At the heart of the argument is the question: what is the minimum requirement, in terms of form, for valid consecration of the wine?

For the consecration of the bread, the Church has affirmed that “This is My Body” suffices. But the magisterium has not pronounced with equal decisiveness on the form for the consecration of the wine.

St. Alphonsus Liguouri investigated the question, consulting 20 theologians. Ten said that the words, “This is the chalice of My Blood” effected a valid consecration. Ten said that the full form, quoted above, including the words “for many” was required.

All agreed that the full form guaranteed a valid consecration. But not all agreed that the shortened seven-word form was adequate. This means that we cannot have the same certainty of the validity of consecration with the short form as we can have with the long form.

And this raises the question: Why risk a doubtful consecration with the short form?

An analogy may make the matter more clear. When an engineer designs a bridge, he takes into account the maximum weight it will have to bear, then adds another 10 or 20 percent reinforcement above the maximum so that he can be certain of the soundness of the structure.

If he did not add this additional strength and his calculations were less than exact, or some circumstance were to arise that put more stress on the bridge than he anticipated, he would risk the possibility that the bridge would collapse.

If an engineer is obliged to safeguard the lives of those who will use his bridge by adding such strength, what should be the Church's obligation to safeguard the souls in Her charge by making certain that the consecration of the wine is valid?

The engineer is dealing with physical life, which is temporal, but the Church is dealing with spiritual life, which is eternal. There can be no more serious obligation for the Church than to guarantee that the sacraments She administers are valid and confer grace, as Our Lord intends.

Common sense dictates that a doubtful form of consecration should be avoided. One need not be a great theologian to grasp this obvious truth.

So the answer to the question of whether the consecration of the wine in the new rite is valid must be: we don't know. Just as the answer to the question of whether the consecration of the wine in Tridentine Rite is valid must be: Yes, without a doubt.

So why would the Church allow a doubtful formula for the consecration of the wine?

Get your FREE copy of The Fatima Crusader! Provide your name and mailing address on the form at https://secure.fatima.org/forms/crusader.asp or call toll-free 1-800-263-8160. There is NO OBLIGATION of any kind.


The Third Secret Speaks about the Mass

We know that we have only received part of the Third Secret of Fatima in the Vatican's June 2000 publication, The Message of Fatima. (See: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_
cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html)

We also know that the hidden text of the Third Secret deals not only with the vision, but also contains the words of Our Lady about a great crisis in the Church and dangers to the faith and life of the Christian and the life of the world. (See: http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr93/cr93pg3.pdf)

It is through the Mass that the faithful have their chief contact with the Church. If there is to be a danger to the faith of the Christian, it would make sense that it would have its source in the Mass. (See: “The Secret Warned Against Vatican Council II and the New Mass”)

And this is precisely what has occurred. The old saying, “lex orandi, lex credendi” — as we pray, so we believe — has been borne out in the effects of the new rite on the faith and practice of Catholics.

Not only have we seen a great falling off in Mass attendance since the introduction of the new rite, but polls show an alarming loss of belief in the Real Presence among those who identify themselves as Catholic.

The diabolic disorientation of the Church that Sister Lucy spoke about is nowhere more evident than in the fact that the Church allows the use of a doubtful form of consecration in Her supreme worship.

Only the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the revelation of the full Third Secret can end this diabolic disorientation.

We must work and pray ever more fervently that the Holy Father and the bishops will heed the requests of Our Lady of Fatima. (See: Petition to Our Holy Father — The Consecration of Russia and Petition to Our Holy Father — The Release of the full Third Secret)

The Fatima Network

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXVII (Feb.27, 2010) : MUSLIM DISTRESS.

A little example of a big problem came across my path last month when I met in London a Muslim born and living in France, being torn between his Mohammedan ancestry and his European environment. The clash for him between loyalty to his ancestral roots and loyalty to his land of birth was clearly agonising. Some Mohammedans might completely adopt French values, many others might completely reject them, but he could do neither.

His problem is of course much more than just cultural or political or even historical. It is religious. Islam began some 1400 years ago as a breakaway from Catholic Christendom in the Middle East. Rooted in the Monophysite heresy which holds that there is only one Person in God, it spread like wildfire through a dried out Christendom in the Middle East and North Africa, occupied Spain for many centuries and broke briefly into France. A simple and violent religion, it seeks to conquer the whole world by the sword. It is a scourge of God, which for a thousand years Christendom could only hold at bay by the sword.

However, now that the European Christians themselves are losing nearly all belief in Christ or in Christendom, they are allowing - and their anti-Christian governments are positively encouraging - Mohammedans to come back into Europe, not by the sword but by immigration, which is how this young man's family have been in France for two or three generations. What is behind this immigration ? The Globalists want it to help dissolve the once glorious Christian nations, and melt them down into the New World Order. Liberals want it to proclaim their folly that men's differences of race or religion are insignificant. The Mohammedans want it to enable them to take over Europe.

Yet even though Europe is daily more rotten, still there are traces of its ancient glory, a glory which it owed to the Catholic Church. These traces are enough on the one hand to inspire in someone like this young man a loyalty of patriotism rivalling the loyalty of blood to his ancestors, on the other hand to rouse still in many Europeans such a love of their own way of life that they will defend it with a bloodbath if it seems or becomes too threatened from outside. Satan is no doubt planning for that bloodbath. God may allow it as a punishment. It is looking more and more likely.

Meanwhile what should this young man do ? Ideally, he will go to the root of the problem, which is whether Jesus Christ is the Second of the three Persons of God, or just a Prophet, however sublime. Then if he is intelligent, he will connect the gifts of France he so admires with their giver, the same Incarnate God, and if he then became a true Catholic, not only for himself would he see how to combine all true good in his roots with all true good in his land of birth, but also for others he would be able to contribute, in however limited a way, to the avoidance of the looming bloodbath.

And what should the ancestral Europeans do to avoid it ? Return to their ancestral Faith and to its practice, which alone has the power to unite all peoples and races in the Truth, in justice and in peace. This is their ancient responsibility and vocation from God, to give such an example as will draw the whole world to Our Lord Jesus Christ. If they continue to be unfaithful, the blood is sure to flow.

Kyrie eleison.

Ecclesia Dei latest

Important Clarifications from Ecclesia Dei

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has recently answered some important questions regarding the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum submitted by the moderator for the faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form of the diocese of Rzeszów, Poland. The answers, however, are applicable generally. The original questions (in German) and answers (in Italian), published by Nowy Ruch Liturgiczny are reproduced below. Here is an NLM summary; questions 2 and 3 have easily the biggest impact:
1. If there is no other possibility, because for instance in all churches of a diocese the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum are already being celebrated in the Ordinary Form, the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum may, in the same church in which they are already celebrated in the Ordinary Form, be additionally celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, if the local ordinary allows.
2. A Mass in the usus antiquior may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the Ordinary Form. The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very inconvenient mid afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter to the prudent judgement of the parish priest, and emphasises the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
3. A parish priest may schedule a public Mass in the Extraordinary Form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior. The response of the Commission here is identical to no. 2.
4. The calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Missale Romanum may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Missale Romanum in Masses in the Extraordinary Form.
5. While the liturgical readings (Epistle and Gospel) themselves have to be read by
the priest (or deacon/subdeacon) as foreseen by the rubrics, a translation to the vernacular may afterwards be read also by a layman.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXV (Feb. 13, 2010) : MANE, THECEL...

Should a Catholic bishop leave to one side matters of economics on the grounds that he should keep to matters of religion ? By no means ! What a narrow view of religion one must take in order not to see that economics, or the art of managing the material goods necessary for life, is entirely governed by the view one takes of life, and the view one takes of life depends on religion. For how can religion (or its lack) be adequately understood except as the total view of life by which a man binds himself (or refuses to be bound) to the God who gave him his life ?

If multitudes of men today think that economics have nothing to do with God, it is only because beforehand they think that he is either non-existent or insignificant. And supposing that there is an after-life, think they, then Hell is either non-existent ("We all go to Heaven") or unimportant ("At least all my friends will be there", they joke). Upon which presuppositions follow the shift from the economics of yesterday, economics of thrift, to those of today, spendthrift economics.

Yesterday, do not spend more than you earn. Save, and do not borrow, to invest. Do not solve debt with more debt. Today, it is patriotic to spend. Everybody will be prosperous if you spend regardless of what you earn. Do not save, because idle money benefits nobody. By all means borrow to make profitable investments. And if your debts turn sour, borrow more to get out of them.

These eat-drink-and-be-merry economics were intellectualised in particular by the highly influential British economist, John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), who once famously said, "In the end we all die". By the 1970's President Nixon (1913-1994) was saying, "We are all Keynesians now". And since the 1970's the Keynesian build-up has been continuous all the way to the 2000's orgy of lending, borrowing and spending, made possible only by the people's having given up on the old common sense of not spending more than you earn, and of shunning debt - "Owe no man anything but to love one another", says the Word of God (Rom. XIII, 8), and "The borrower is servant to him that lendeth" (Prov. XXII, 7).

Right now the world is enslaving itself to the money-men, the orgy is collapsing, and the collapse is by no means over. Unemployment is far higher than the politicians can afford to admit, yet still they garner votes by promising jobs and free lunches for the people. The politicians have encouraged these unreal expectations by which they rise to power but on which they will not be able to deliver. The people are about to rise up, are rising up, in anger. The politicians will have to start foreign wars to take the people's mind off domestic troubles.. War is around the corner, to be followed, if God permits, by the usurers' World Government. All because the people thought that God had nothing to do with life, and life nothing to do with God.

But see Daniel V, 5-6 and 24-28 ! The Lord God has our number ("Mane"), we have been weighed in his balance and found wanting ("Thecel"), our fun-land is over ("Phares"). It remains for us to take our medicine.

Kyrie eleison.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXIV (Feb. 6, 2010) : PAPAL ERROR II

Just coming out in English (see truerestoration.blogspot.com) is the valuable 100-page treatise in French by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of St Pius X on the doctrine of Pope Benedict XVI : "The Faith imperilled by Reason". The title says it all. Bishop Tissier's thesis is that Benedict XVI allows human reasoning to adulterate the Catholic Faith. Let me paraphrase a paragraph from the Bishop's conclusion which goes to the heart of the matter :-

"Benedict XVI frequently calls for a "hermeneutic of continuity", meaning an interpretation of Vatican II and of Catholic Tradition which shows that there is no break but continuity between them. After studying the Pope's teachings, I now realize that this "hermeneutic" goes further than I originally thought. It means not just a new reading of Faith and Reason, but a new birth of both, and it is of universal application. Firstly, each is to purify the other : Reason will stop Faith from sliding into intolerance, while Faith will heal Reason's blind independence. Secondly, each is to regenerate the other: Reason will enrich the Faith with the liberal values of Enlightenment thinking, while Faith, suitably re-expressed for modern times, will win a hearing from Reason. And this process is to be applied across the board to all religions and all ways of reasoning. Without any one system of values being imposed on everybody, those values which keep the world going will be strengthened."

Note here firstly how, on his own admission, Bishop Tissier originally under-estimated the breadth and depth of the Pope's vision. Catholics following Tradition know that the Conciliar reconciling of the Faith with modernity (especially the sentence that I have underlined above) is wrong, and is destroying the Church, but they do need to recognize that it has been thought out with intelligence, however misguided, and it is held with conviction. Benedict XVI believes profoundly both in the old way of believing and in the new way of thinking, and he is confident that by his own way of solving any apparent problems between them, all men can be brought together. This "solution" drives his Papacy.

Alas, I cannot reconcile 2+2=4 with 2=2=5 by saying that four is "more or less than four and a half", while five is "more or less than four and a half", because four apples will remain obstinately four, while five oranges will persist in being five. Thus the true Faith may tolerate the person erring, but it cannot tolerate the error, while modern Reason may wish to see, but as long as it is modern it insists on putting its own eyes out, the eyes of the mind (Kant). At every turn Bishop Tissier demonstrates that the eternal Faith, revealed by God, cannot lie down with modern reasoning, fabricated by men, which is designed to exclude either God or at least his demands on men (Religious Liberty).

Thank you, your Excellency ! For, however charming may be the Pope's prospect of "peace in our time", it is not charm but truth in charity that will get us to Heaven.

Kyrie eleison.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXIII (Jan. 30, 2010) : PAPAL ERROR I.

Speaking two weeks ago on relations between the Rome of Vatican II and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Pope Benedict XVI showed once more how subtle and powerful the Conciliar error is. He was addressing on Jan.15 a plenary session of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Holy Office). The three first paragraphs of his twelve-paragraph address need to be quoted in full, but a summary, as faithful as possible, will have to do.

1. Your Congregation shares in the special ministry of the Pope to ensure Church unity by safeguarding Catholic doctrine. That unity depends on unity in the Faith of which the Pope is the foremost defender. To confirm the brethren in the Faith and keep them united is his prime task.
2 Your teaching authority, like the Pope's, involves obedience to the Faith, so that there may be one flock under the one Shepherd.
3. At all times the Church must get all Christians to witness together to the Faith, "In this spirit I place a particular trust in your commitment to overcoming any remaining doctrinal problems in the way of the SSPX achieving full communion with the Church."

The problem here is much more than just whether or not the SSPX is in "full communion with the Church". The problem is the whole relationship between unity and the Faith.. In reality, Catholic unity is essentially dependent on the Catholic Faith. A Catholic being defined firstly by what he believes, then wherever there is no Catholic Faith there can be no Catholics to unite, and wherever there is that Faith there is the essential basis of Catholic unity. Now the Pope does say (1) that "Unity is in fact primarily unity in the Faith", but generally (1,2,3) he connects unity and Faith as though they are on an equal footing, almost as though they are interdependent, whereas true unity is entirely dependent on the true Faith. How else could he arrive at his conclusion of (3), quoted above in full, where he gives the impression of instructing his Congregation to overcome doctrinal problems for the sake of Rome-SSPX unity ?

Yet the duty of Christ's Vicar is not to unite Rome and the SSPX at any cost, so to speak, but to unite them in the Catholic Faith as given us by Christ. So if there is a doctrinal difference between Rome and the SSPX (and there is, and it is huge !), then his prime problem is which of the two has the Catholic Faith, and which has not. And then he must unite the whole Church around whichever of them has that Faith, even if that happens to be the poor li'l SSPX ! "Li'l", or little, because it is insignificant except by its Faith !

Alas, Benedict XVI is more Conciliar than he is Catholic. But the Council, putting man before God, constantly undermined the Revealed doctrine of God, or the Faith, in the name of the ecumenical unity of men. That is why Benedict XVI is incapable of grasping, short of a miracle, the significance of the SSPX's doctrinal stand. Yet how many Catholics are not liable to be deceived by the smoothness of his transition from much Truth ( in 1,2) to its undoing (in 3) ? Few ! The error is as powerful as it is subtly conceived and expressed ! We must pray for the miracle.

Kyrie eleison.

Fatima Center Announces “Fatima Challenge” Symposium in Rome

Tuesday, January 26, 2010: Fort Erie, Ontario: A unique event of major importance to the Catholic Church and all those affected by the Church's actions is set to take place in Rome from May 3 through May 7.

The Fatima Challenge will gather the world's experts, writers and researchers on the prophecies and promises made in the apparitions of the Blessed Mother to three shepherd children in Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

Many of these prophecies have been fulfilled and others, contingent upon the Church's actions, ominously await fulfillment.

Pope Benedict XVI's commission on Fatima; Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State; along with all Catholic bishops and a number of priests, are being invited to participate in the forum and to present their views.

The Fatima apparitions have been deemed worthy of belief by the Catholic Church. Two of the shepherd children, Jacinta and Francisco Marto, were declared Blessed during a ceremony in 2000 presided over by Pope John Paul II at the Shrine of Fatima.

Pope Benedict XVI has announced he will travel to Fatima on May 12, 2010. Speculation about his intentions has aroused great interest. It appears likely the Pope will use the occasion to beatify the last of the Fatima seers, Sister Lucia dos Santos, who died in 2005.

The Third Secret of Fatima, which the Vatican published, along with an “interpretive key,” in the year 2000, has ignited a firestorm of controversy, with many claiming that the full text was not disclosed.

Also very much debated is whether the Church has fulfilled the Blessed Mother's request that Russia be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart by the Pope and all the bishops.

The Blessed Mother promised at Fatima that if the consecration were performed, Russia would be converted and a period of peace granted to the world. She also warned that were the consecration not done, Russia would spread her errors, “various nations would be annihilated,” the Church persecuted, and that the Pope “will have much to suffer.”

Russia has never been the subject of a consecration to the Immaculate Heart made under the conditions specified at Fatima, that is, by the Pope in conjunction with the world's bishops. Some Vatican officials have claimed that a consecration of the world made by John Paul II in 1984 fulfilled the request, but this has been disputed.

The late Pope did not mention Russia specifically, nor did he act in conjunction with the world's bishops. Critics point out that the promise of Russia's conversion and a period of world peace has certainly not followed.

The Third Secret was also purported to be about the assassination attempt on John Paul II in 1981, but the published vision is of a Pope being killed, not wounded, and this is but one of many problems with the interpretive key offered by the Vatican officials.

These and other questions of importance relating to the Fatima controversy will be the subject of the five-day forum.

Father Nicholas Gruner notes, “We will be there to defend the position that the Third Secret is still not fully revealed, and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has yet to be accomplished. We have invited those who claim the Third Secret is completely released and the Consecration is accomplished to likewise attend and to defend their position. The discussions will take place in an atmosphere of charity and civility.”

So far, speakers at the symposium include Father Nicholas Gruner, Father Paul Kramer, Christopher Ferrara, Edwin Faust, Dr. Peter Chojnowski, Michal Semin, Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari. Other participants will be announced at a later date.

The Fatima Center has a limited amount of space open for those friends and supporters who may wish to attend The Fatima Challenge in Rome. The Center is still putting together the pricing, but estimates the cost to attend (including airfare, two meals per day, hotel and conference) to be around $2100 USD.

Since time is short, those interested in attending this historic event should contact the Fatima Center as soon as possible. Phone: 1-800-845-3047.

Father Gruner and the organizers ask that many fervent prayers be offered (especially many Rosaries) that this Symposium be effective for the greater glory of God; that it help hasten the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and world peace as promised at Fatima.

Please pass on this media release to all your friends, neighbors and email lists.
FROM: The Fatima Center
452 Kraft Rd., Fort Erie, Ontario, L2A 4M7, Canada
CONTACT: Coralie Graham, Director of Communications and Public Relations
TELEPHONE: 905-871-4078 CELL: 905-993-2490 FAX: 905-871-5274
EMAIL: fatimachallenge@thefatimacenter.com OR WEBSITE: www.fatimachallenge.com

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXII (Jan. 23, 2010) : SENSIBLE ECONOMICS.

When too many powerful people have a vested interest in "economists" being confused and confusing, it is a relief to come across (on jsmineset.com) the common sense of the "Seven Commandments"of the Austrian School of Economics. The first two, as listed below, are elementary. The last five condemn five ways in which many State governments today, no doubt under political pressure, are trying to get out of obeying the first two. Here they are, each with a commentary:--

1) "Thou must earn". With all men's continual need to spend on food, clothing and shelter, every person, family and State must somehow earn. They can only earn by producing or providing the other members of the community (or other States) with goods or services which those others are willing to buy.

2) "Thou shalt not spend more than thou earnest". No person, family or State can go on for ever spending more than it earns. Otherwise it must pile up debt until the creditors call a halt. Then the debt must at last be repaid, which is painful, or it must be defaulted on, which can be disastrous

3) "No State may make too many rules". A State must make rules for the common good, but if it restricts the citizens' productive activity by making too many rules, it will harm the common good by restricting instead of promoting that activity.

4) "No State may tax too much". Similarly too much State taxation levied on productive activity will hinder, even paralyse, that activity, so that an excess of taxation will even diminish a State's tax income.

5) "No State may spend its way out of a recession". In a recession where most citizens of a State are both earning and spending less, no government can resurrect that earning and spending simply by spending more itself, because to get that extra money to spend, it must either borrow (see 2) or tax (see 4) or print money out of thin air (see 6). All three alternatives have strict limits.

6) "No State may print its way out of a recession". Nor can a government solve a recession by fabricating extra money to spend merely by printing more and more banknotes or by hitting more computer keys, because unless there is an increase in the production of goods corresponding to the increase in the money supply, too much money chasing too few goods will force up prices until hyper-inflation can eventually destroy the money altogether.

7) "No State may employ its way out of a recession". Nor can a Government solve unemployment merely by hiring the unemployed as non-productive government bureaucrats (see 1), or by paying out more and more unemployment checks (see 5).

However, if "democratic" peoples so adore Mammon that they keep on voting for politicians bought out by the servants of Mammon, who can they blame but themselves if these money-men take over their government ? And if the result will be a living misery for the same peoples, will not the Lord God have punished them by where they have sinned ? And will they have left him with any other way of making them understand that he did not give them life just for production, economics and money or even the Austrian School ? Or of bringing home to them that these things are necessary in their rightful place, but that above and beyond all of them there is an eternal Heaven and an eternal Hell ?

Kyrie eleison.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXI (Jan.16, 2010) : UNDESIRED CELIBACY.

Last Sunday's Feast of the Holy Family may be a suitable moment to quote a reader's question arising from the pronouncement of "Eleison Comments" three weeks ago that, normally speaking, an unmarried man is a "zero" while an unmarried woman is "less than a zero": what about a man or woman who might have liked to get married, but for whatever reason either could not or did not do so ? Not everybody that does not marry has a religious vocation, the reader added.

I began by replying that unnatural loneliness is all too normal today. Modern life, especially big city life, causes not only marriages not to happen which should happen, but also many marriages which have happened to come apart. That is one punishment amongst many others of liberalism, which by glorifying individualism engenders an inaptitude to live in the married state. Liberalism also glorifies freedom from all ties, and the marriage bond is nothing if not a tie. "Hence the collapsing birth-rates of the Western nations and the suicide of once Catholic Europe. It is all immensely sad and immensely serious."

I continued : "Obviously to call all men "zeros" is a colorful way of saying that, firstly, we are all before God minute creatures, and secondly, men are not nearly as great as they think they are. (Two Russian proverbs say that a man without a woman is like a garden without a hedge (to surround it), or like a man out in January (in Russia) without a fur cap !) To go on to call women "less than zeros" is a likewise provocative way of saying that firstly, contrary to the dreadful disparaging of their complementarity by the enemies of God everywhere today, women are not the same as men, and secondly, they are more profoundly dependent on men than men are on women - see Eve's punishment in Genesis III, 16: "Thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee". But the "zero" and "less than zero" are not primarily to provoke but to be put together in an eight, to demonstrate graphically the natural power of the union of marriage."

Alas, today many a priest comes across young women who would love to marry but can hardly find a young man that strikes them as fit to be a husband. The young men seem all too often virtual dishrags, washed out by a liberalism which dissolves their minds by which God meant them to lead. Liberalism does not so easily undo the instincts and emotions which God makes natural to woman, although when it does, the results can be even more terrible.

In conclusion, I referred to the Eighth Station of the Way of the Cross, where Our Lord consoled the weeping women of Jerusalem (Lk. XXIII, 27-31): such a punishment, he warned, would soon come down on deicide Jerusalem as would make them envy the women who had never had husband or family. In our own day that is not a reason not to marry, but it may be a consolation for anyone to whom Providence has not given to marry but who might have liked to, because coming down upon us in what cannot be the too far distant future is... tremendous reason to start putting now more trust than ever in God's unfailing Providence...

Kyrie eleison.

The Breviary

Commentary on the Breviary

THE BREVIARY is the official prayerbook of the Church. The Holy Ghost and the Church have been working on it for more than 3,000 years, and it has become the basic book of prayer, a precious common fund to which the great men of prayer from every age have contributed their thoughts and sentiments. The two chief objectives which the breviary fulfills are : 1. it is the prayer of the Church as a body and, 2. it is a guide to genuine spiritual growth for the individual soul.

1. The breviary is above all the prayer of the Church, the prayer said in the name of the Church. It is helpful to understand the difference between private prayer and liturgical prayer. In private prayer I pray, mostly, for myself and my own affairs. It is the isolated person who stands in the centre of the action, and the prayer is more or less individualized. But in liturgical prayer, and therefore in the breviary, it is not primarily I who am praying, but the Church, the bride of Christ. The object of her prayer is broader, too: all the needs of God's kingdom here on earth. In liturgical prayer, I feel more like a member of a great community, like a little leaf on the great living tree of the Church. I share her life and her problems. The Church is praying through my mouth, I offer her my tongue to pray with her for all the great objectives of redemption, and for God's honour and glory.

We weep, too, or rather the Church weeps through our tears, together with those who weep, rejoices through our joys together with those who rejoice, does penance with the repentant. All the sentiments of Holy Mother Church find their echo in our heart. This gives a deeper content to our prayer; we spread out far beyond our own selves.

This basic element of our prayer with the Church gives the key to understanding and appreciating many of the psalms. For there is not room enough within the narrower confines of our own personal experience to sound all the rich variety of sentiments and moods and affections that these hymn-prayers contain. It is through the breviary that we participate in the official ministry and care of souls. The objectives of the Church, the objectives of Christ's redemption, become our own personal interests and objectives. We have become pastors in our own living room, from early morning until late at night.

So important, so essential, is this basic understanding of liturgical prayer that we should write it on the opening pages of our breviary and read it over at the beginning of each liturgical Hour: Now the Church is praising God through my mouth; now the Church is struggling after souls with my hands! Proper liturgical prayer is a most efficient tool in the ministry and salvation of souls.

2. There is a second side to the breviary, a second purpose it fulfills. In the universal spirit of prayer described above, the individual soul is not to lose sight of itself. The individual, too, must grow; that is the subjective side of liturgical prayer. For the man who prays, the breviary needs to be staff and guide and way to heaven.

The Church accompanies the priest and religious with this book all during his life. The breviary might be compared to the Angel Raphael who led the young Tobias successfully through all the dangers of his journey. The breviary is our own personal Angel Raphael—from the time of subdiaconate or profession up until the hour of death. It leads us through the Church year; almost every day it holds up a special guide, a special hero for our imitation—the saint of the day. It is not easy to list all the advantages that one day's liturgical prayer in the breviary has to offer.

But the most prominent feature of the breviary's benefit lies in its wonderful arrangement of prayer in the sequence of canonical hours. Each day we are to make some further progress in building up the temple of grace within our soul. By means of the "hours" of the Divine Office the Church puts sword and trowel into our hands for every time-segment of the day. The breviary, as the prayer of the canonical hours and as the prayer of the Church year, is in the highest sense the guide for souls; we need to get acquainted with this guide, and let ourselves be led.

These, then, are the two principal objects of the breviary. Worldwide pastoral prayer and personal interior growth in prayer unite and intermingle. The one makes pastors of us, the other makes us saints. Two great realities are at work in the prayers of the breviary, both together; for they are as alike as mother and daughter. Just as each human individual carries a little world of his own within himself (microcosm) which is quite similar to the bigger world around him (macrocosm), even so the child of God carries about within himself a kingdom of the soul that is very like the great kingdom of God outside him, the Catholic Church.

One more thought: Breviary and Mass belong together; they form a unity, the liturgical day. We might compare the relationship to the sun and the planets. The Mass is the sun about which the planets, that is, the canonical hours, gravitate. The canonical hours prepare for the Mass, they surround the Mass, they try to realize and retain the fruits of the Mass, and spread them over the day.

Our Lady's Electronic Newsletter: January 2010

There are still many within the Catholic Church — including the hierarchy — who prefer to think that the New Mass — the Novus Ordo Missae — has effectively and irrevocably replaced the Traditional Latin Mass, also known as the Tridentine Rite, and that this has been a great boon to Catholicism. More...

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXX (Jan. 2, 2010) : PSALMIST'S PERSPECTIVE.

Another year begins. What does it bring ? If a global disaster in finance and economics is on its way, it has certainly not yet hit with full force. Will it hit in 2010 ? In any case it will draw closer. As the pressure mounts, it will become more and more important to see in that pressure the hand of God and not just the machinations of men. Here, with comments for the 21st century, is one of the 150 Psalms to help us see things as a soul close to God sees them. Psalm 27 has only nine verses :--! "Unto thee will I cry, O Lord" (and not to the media or governments): "O my God, be not thou silent to me: lest if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit"

A powerful soft current is pulling all souls today towards the pit of eternal hellfire. God can easily help me, and he longs to do so, but I must turn to him and beg his help. The Psalmist will beg -

2 "Hear, O Lord, the voice of my supplication, when I pray to thee; when I lift up my hands to thy holy temple.

3 Draw me not away together with the wicked; and with the workers of iniquity destroy me not: who speak peace with their neighbour, but evils are in their hearts."

The Psalmist is not a silly soft liberal who pretends that all men are nice and mean well. He knows that in many sweet-talking men God has wicked enemies who are powerful enough to have set up a whole environment, such as we have in 2010, that threatens to drag him down to Hell (verse 1). To deal with them, it is to God that the Psalmist will turn -

4 "Give them according to their works, and according to the wickedness of their inventions. According to the works of their hands give thou to them: render to them their reward.

5 Because they have not understood the works of the Lord, and the operations of his hands: thou shalt destroy them and not build them up."

We need never worry that God will not deal with his (and our) enemies, even in our 21st century, when they may seem to have triumphed. They do not deceive him, nor will they escape him. What is more, God certainly looks after souls that turn to him -

6 "Blessed be the Lord, for he hath heard the voice of my supplication.

7 The Lord is my helper: in him hath my heart confided, and I have been helped. And my flesh hath flourished again, and with my will I will give praise to him."

Note that the Psalmist is neither an idiotic angelist, pretending he is too perfect to have bodily interests - God has looked after him, "heart" and "flesh". Nor is he a self-centred individualist, as is shown by his prayer for all of God's people --

8 "The Lord is the strength of his people, and the protector of the salvation of his anointed (meaning, ever since the death of Our Lord upon the Cross, souls anointed with the Catholic sacraments). 9 "Save, O Lord, thy people, and bless thy inheritance: and rule them and exalt them for ever."

Today we would say, save, O Lord, thy Catholic Church.

Kyrie eleison.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXIX (Dec. 26, 2009) : CHRISTMAS FEAR.

So Christmas Day has come and gone once more, reminding us of the great joy which Our Lord brought to the entire world by His Incarnation and Birth, but especially to his Mother. At last she holds him safe in her arms where she tends to him like a mother, but where she also adores him as her God. Alas, who that has an inkling of religion cannot lament how the world around us cashes in on the joy, but in large part forgets the God ?

In this respect the joy of Christmas today resembles the smile of the Cheshire Cat, especially in capitalist lands (but Pius XI observed back in 1931 that capitalism was extending all over the world -- "Quadragesimo Anno", 103-104). Readers of "Alice in Wonderland" will remember how the smile of the Cat could still be seen when the rest of the Cat had disappeared. The substance is gone, but the effects linger, at least for a while. Belief in the Divine Child is being killed off all the time, thanks especially to Vatican II, yet the joy of Christmas is lingering. This is partly because God, being supremely generous, commemorates each year the Birth of his Son amongst men with a flood of actual graces, to which many souls respond by being a little nicer than they are at any other time of year, but it is partly also because joy is enjoyable. This is rather less secure.

For as the true worship of God continues to disappear, and with it any true grasp of what the coming of the Saviour meant, indispensable for our eternal happiness, so the joy of Christmas is being reduced to the commercialism and carousing we all know. The smile cannot indefinitely survive the Cat. Even the nicest of NIFs (Nice Internal Feelings) cannot survive indefinitely without their object. If Jesus Christ is not God, let alone the one and only Saviour of mankind, why rejoice in his birth ? I love my Nifs, but if they are based only on themselves, sooner or later they will collapse, leaving only a sour taste of disillusion behind them. I may love feeling all "Christmassy", but if I am reacting to my feelings instead of to what they are based on, I am heading for some emotional collapse or other.

It is the difference between sentimentality and sentiments. Our Lord was full of sentiments, when for instance he met the widow of Naim, distraught over her only son being carried to the grave (Lk. VII, 11-15). But there was no trace of sentimentality in Our Lord (nor, I declare, in "The Poem of the Man-God"), because the sentiments are never being sought out for their own sake. His sentiments were always stirred directly by a real object, eg the widow's grief, which put him vividly in mind of what would be his own Mother's desolation when he himself was being carried to the grave.

Subjectivism is the plague of our times, i.e. man shutting out objective reality in order to re-arrange it how he likes it subjectively within himself. Subjectivism is the heart and soul of the Neo-modernism now desolating the Church. And subjectivism cutting off the mind from its outside object necessarily engenders sentimentality in the heart, because it takes away from the heart all outside object for its sentiments. Capitalist Christmas will finally be killed by sentimentality. Either men return to the true God, to Our Lord Jesus Christ and to the true importance of his Birth, or the collapse of some of their nicest Nifs, the "Christmassy" Nifs, risks leaving the little that remains of "Western Civilization" with one more reason for suicidal sourness.

Kyrie eleison

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXVIII: CHRISTMAS CHEER.

Here is some good news for Christmas, drawn from England's "Catholic Herald" of Dec. 11: a report from the United States tells that the present economic recession is helping marriages. The recession began towards the end of 2007. In that year the divorce rate in the USA was 17.5 for every thousand married women. In the following year it was 16.9. Lessons at what Americans call "The School of Hard Knocks" are costly, but they sure teach !

"Marriage in America : The State of Our Unions 2009" is the title of the Report published jointly at the Institute for American Values, University of Virginia, by the Center for Marriage and Families and the National Marriage Project, whose director, Brian Wilcox, wrote the Report. He says that millions of Americans have adopted a "homegrown bailout strategy", and "are relying on their own marriages and families to weather this storm". As our new-fangled world collapses, so the old proverbs come back into their own : "Every cloud has a silver lining"; "Blood is thick and water is thin"; "There's no place like home".

Another piece of evidence quoted by Wilcox to prove that the economic crisis is helping marriages is the decision of many married couples to get rid of credit card debt. As reported by the Federal Reserve Board, Americans have reduced their collective revolving debt by $90 billion over the past year. Wilcox says the recession has revived the "home economy" as more and more Americans are growing their own food, making and mending their own clothes, and dining out less often : "Many couples appear to be developing a new appreciation for the economic and social support that marriage can provide in tough times".

Husbands, behave like men, and lean on your wives for support. Wives, glory in your womanly gifts which men do not have in anything like the same measure, and lean on your husbands for strength. A man without a woman is normally a zero (yes, zero!). A woman without a man is normally even less, an incomplete zero, or an open U. But put the U as support beneath the zero, and you suddenly have 8 ! On the Miraculous Medal, is not the Cross of Our Lord shown resting on the M of Mary ? To go through with his Passion Our Lord chose to renounce all his divine Strength. But could his humanity alone have performed our Redemption without the human support of his Mother ? Never !

Not many economists have any common sense, but the few that are not living in la-la-land all see this recession getting much worse yet. Mothers, re-learn domestic skills. Fathers, re-learn vegetable gardening. All lovers of truth and reality, strengthen not only family ties, but also neighbourhood ties. It is going to be a question of survival, and our governments and media are not going to help, on the contrary, unless they seriously change direction. "Our help is in the name of the Lord", figuring at this time of year as a powerless human baby. Yet this baby is the Almighty !

Kyrie eleison.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXVII (Dec. 12, 2009) : CALMING CONFUSION.

It has taken three issues of "Eleison Comments" to disentangle why the alleged death-bed testimony of Cardinal Lienart (EC 121) could easily be true, given that it corresponds exactly to how the validity of the Catholic sacraments has been imperilled by the Conciliar sacramental Rites introduced after Vatican II (EC 124, 125, 126). A friendly critic thinks that I have been too concerned to defend the validity of the Conciliar sacraments. But I no more want to exaggerate their validity than their invalidity.

For indeed no reasonable person who loves the truth wants to do anything other than conform his mind to reality, because truth is defined as "the matching of mind and reality". If a situation is black, I want to call it black. If it is white, I want to call it white. And if it is varying shades of grey in between, I want to make that grey in my mind no more grey-black nor grey-white than it is in reality.

Now it is true that any one sacrament administered in real life will have been either valid or invalid. There are no more shades between valid and invalid than there are between pregnant and not pregnant. But if we consider the Conciliar sacraments being all the time administered throughout the Newchurch as a whole, we can only say some are valid, some are invalid, but they have all been placed on a slide towards invalidity by the Conciliar Rites' total thrust to replace the religion of God with the religion of man. That is why the Newchurch is on its way to disappearing altogether, and why the Society of St. Pius X can in no way allow itself to be absorbed into it.

But at what exact point on that slide any given priest or priests, for instance, so lose the true idea of the Church that they can no longer Intend to do what the Church does, God alone knows. It may well be that to reach that point takes more than I suggested in EC 125. Maybe it takes less, as our critic suggests. In any case, since only God can know for sure, I do not need to know. All I need to have clear in my mind is that the Conciliar Rites have put God's sacraments on a slide away from God, and once it is clear to me that they are helping to destroy the Church, that they were even designed to destroy the Church, I should stay away from them.

Meanwhile, as to just how far down the slide is this or that priest, or even the Newchurch as a whole, I will apply the great principle of St. Augustine: "In things certain, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity". And within the framework of certainties such as, within the Newchurch neither already nothing, nor everything still, is Catholic, I mean to extend to my fellow-Catholics the same liberty to judge of things uncertain as I hope they will extend to me. Mother of God, obtain the rescue of the Church !

Kyrie eleison.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXVI: UNIQUE DELINQUENCY - III

For a Catholic sacrament to be validly administered, the Minister must have the Intention "to do what the Church does" (EC 124). That Intention requires that he have a minimally correct idea of what the Church is and does (EC 125). It remains now to be shown that Vatican II undermined that Intention by corrupting that idea, and in such a way as it can never before have been corrupted in all Church history.

This is because Vatican II was the officialization, or rendering official within the Catholic Church, of the anti-Catholic humanism going back at least to the Renaissance in the1400's. For centuries after, the Catholic churchmen adoring the true God had stoutly resisted the modern world's substitute adoration of man, but as that world over 500 years grew only more pagan, the churchmen finally gave up resisting in the 1960's, and with Vatican II they set about following the modern world instead of leading it. There had always been in the Church followers of the world, but never before had that following been made official in the Universal Church !

However, the Council Fathers would not and could not give up the old religion altogether, partly because they still believed in it, partly because they had to keep up appearances. That is why the Council documents are characterized by their ambiguity, mixing the religion of God in the place of God with the religion of man in the place of God. This ambiguity means that both conservative Catholics can appeal to the letter in the Council texts to maintain that Vatican II does not exclude the old religion, and progressive Catholics can appeal to the spirit in the same texts to maintain that the Council was promoting the new religion - and here both conservatives and progressives are right ! Thus the old religion was still present in Vatican II, but the skids had been put under it, and it has been disappearing ever since.

A similar ambiguity afflicts the sacramental Rites re-written in the spirit of the Council which paid outward respect to the religion of God but inwardly was embracing the religion of man. The old religion can still be there because the sacramental Forms (words essential for validity) are as a rule not automatically invalid, but at the same time all of the Rites surrounding these Forms are sliding towards the new religion. So, given the soft but fierce pressure of the modern world to put man in the place of God, and given that all sacramental Ministers have our poor old human nature which under pressure easily prefers the easy way, then these new Rites are tailor-made to undermine eventually the Ministers' sacramental Intention and therewith the sacraments' validity.

Catholics, while avoiding the new Rites, keep the balance of truth. Say neither that these Rites are automatically invalid, nor, because they can be valid, that they are harmless. Even if they are valid, they undermine the Faith. As for the clergy that use them, say neither that they have lost the Faith if they use the new Rites, nor that they are harmless if they use them. These Ministers may well still have the Faith, but they risk harming you if they use Rites designed to undermine your Faith. Seek out the old Rites, and the clergy that use them. By so doing you will help to save the honour of God, His true religion, and numbers of souls lost without that religion.

Kyrie eleison.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXV: UNIQUE DELINQUENCY II

Last week's "Eleison Comments" promised to show that Vatican II was designed to invalidate the Church's sacraments by introducing sacramental Rites whose deliberate ambiguity would in the long run ("after 50 years", said Cardinal Lienart on his death-bed) corrupt the Ministers' indispensable sacramental Intention. But Vatican II will have to wait till next week. This week we need to take a closer look at the mechanism of human intention to understand how a sacramental Minister needs in his head a fundamentally sane idea of what the Church is and does.

When a human being intends something, or intends to achieve some goal, he must beforehand have in his head an idea of the goal he wants to achieve. In fact nobody can go for any goal without first having in his head an idea of it, and he can only go for his goal through the idea he has of it. But ideas inside his head may or may not correspond to reality outside his head. If his idea corresponds to reality, he can achieve his goal. If it does not, he may achieve his idea but he cannot achieve his goal.

Take for instance a family father who intends to make his children happy, but whose idea of how to do that is to relax all discipline in the home. Alas, indiscipline makes children unhappy, not happy, so when the father relaxes the discipline, he achieves the relaxation but not the children's happiness. He achieved his idea but not the reality, because his idea was disconnected from the reality.

Now for a sacrament to be valid, the Minister (bishop, priest or layman) must intend "to do what the Church does", as explained last week, in order to put his instrumental action under the prime action of God, lone source of all sacramental grace. So before he administers the sacrament, he must have an idea of "what the Church does", which requires a prior idea of what the Church is. Then if his ideas of what the Church is and does do not correspond to the Catholic realities, how can he intend to do what the true Church does, and so how can he administer true sacraments ? If he really thinks the Church is a sort of Club for Believers in Being Nice, that Mass is their community picnic and Baptism the rite of initiation into their Club, he may achieve the picnic and initiation, but never Catholic Mass or Baptism.

Now one may object that he has the implicit Intention of doing "what the Church does and has always done", but the sacramental Intention may remain insecure. For instance, ever since the Newchurch's "hermeneutic of continuity" there is to be no break interpreted between the Catholic Church and the Newchurch, or between Mass and picnic, it must all be interpreted as only a harmonious development ! So the intention to celebrate Mass excluding a picnic or to enjoy a picnic excluding Mass are meant to be both the same intention to bring about a "Mapicniss" ! Such a "hermeneutic" can reconcile any things at all which are in reality irreconcilable ! But can anyone with such a "hermeneutic" in his head confect in reality valid sacraments? As Americans say, "Go figure !" God alone knows.

Here is why there is almost hopeless confusion throughout the Church. What will it take to bring the churchmen back to cats being cats and not dogs, and to dogs being dogs and not cats ? A cataclysm !

Kyrie eleison.

Let's get it straight: Irish child abuse was perpetrated by the trendy, modern post-Vatican II Catholic Church

A spin is being put on the shocking revelations in the report on abuse in the archdiocese of Dublin to implicate the “pre-Conciliar” Catholic Church in the wrongdoings of post-Vatican II pederasts. In the process, the name of a good man has been dragged into the cesspit, for political purposes.

The Most Reverend John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin (1940-1972) was a great Catholic prelate. Under his pastoral leadership, the numbers of clergy and religious increased by more than 50 per cent, he created over 60 new parishes and built over 80 new churches and 350 schools. But he was a Vatican II sceptic who implemented reform conservatively, in accordance with what would now be called the “hermeneutic of continuity”. So he is a bogey figure to radicals.

Most unjustly, his name has been dragged into this scandal. The official Commission’s Report states: “During the period under review, there were four Archbishops – Archbishops McQuaid, Ryan, McNamara and Connell.” Not so. The “period under review” is set out in the Commission’s Terms of Reference as “the period 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004”. Archbishop McQuaid retired in 1972. The Report very misleadingly claims that by 1987 three Archbishops – McQuaid, Ryan and McNamara – had between them complaints against 17 priests.

But only one of them, the anonymous “Father Edmondus”, was suspect during McQuaid’s watch and even the report concedes that, of the 320 complaints relating to those priests, only three dated back to the McQuaid era, presumably against “Father Edmondus” and in a period prior to that covered by the Commission’s Terms of Reference. On the basis of that isolated allegation they attempt to align Archbishop McQuaid with his negligent successors.

Revealingly, the Report says: “As is shown in Chapter 4, canon law appears to have fallen into disuse and disrespect during the mid 20th century.” Yes; and we all know why – the post-Vatican II anarchic denunciations of “legalism”, of “oppressive” sexual morality and Church teaching generally, promoted by the modernists. As regards implementing canon law against abusers, the Report concedes that Archbishop McQuaid “set the processes in motion but did not complete them [difficult to do when you are dead]. Archbishops Ryan and McNamara do not seem to have ever applied the canon law.”

Well, who ever did, in the trendy, let-it-all-hang-out 1970s and 1980s? The image that has sedulously been propagated is of Irish child abuse perpetrated by priests in soutanes and birettas, cowled monks muttering Latin incantations and nuns in starched wimples and mediaeval habits.
On the contrary, the nightmare orgy of relentless mortal sin recorded in this report was committed by modern priests, with a strip of white celluloid in place of a Roman collar – if they deigned to wear clerical dress – devastating their church sanctuaries as badly as they devastated childrem’s lives, abolishing all the devotions such as Benediction, the Rosary, regular confession, devotion to saints, etc that had sustained Irish faith for centuries. One priest admitted to abusing over 100 children. For that he was indulged; but if he had celebrated the Latin Tridentine Mass his feet would not have touched the ground.

The BBC (to turn to light relief) has exploited this scandal in a style that vindicates its claim to have succeeded Pravda as the leading disseminator of disinformation. A radical priest was produced on Radio 4 to testify that an excessively strict code of sexual morality in the Church was to blame: one shudders to think what excesses would have been committed if the code had been more lax.

Was clerical celibacy the problem? prompted a BBC interviewer. Of course it was. We all know that what a priestly abuser of boys (and this is mainly a homosexual scandal – the Report records a ratio of 2.3 boy victims to 1 girl) needs is a wife – ask any of the Anglican vicars who have provided a living to the red-top tabloids for generations.

Let us set the record straight. This filthy abomination was a scandal of the post-Vatican II, open-windows, relevant, touchy-feely (often, it seems, inappropriately so) Catholic Church. So let the ecumaniacs, the liturgical animators, the Easter People take ownership of it and desist from blackening the reputation of a decent prelate and, by implication, of the unchanging Church that sustained Ireland through centuries of oppression.

On the First Sunday of Advent

On the First Sunday of Advent (November 30), 1969, the New Missal entered into force officially (it would take a few years before it was to be completely phased in worldwide).

In his words in the General Audience which immediately preceded that date, Pope Paul VI was clear:
We may notice that pious persons will be the ones most disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others.

Not Latin, but the spoken language, will be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price.

ENDGAME- ALEX JONES - Blueprint for Global Enslavement

The European Commission...

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby
English will be the official language of the European Union rather
than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in k
plan that would become known as 'Euro-English'.

In the first year,'s' will replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly, this will
make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard 'c' will be dropped in
favour of 'k'. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one
less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year
when the troublesome 'ph' will be replaced with 'f'. This will make words
like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always
ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent 'e' in the languag is
disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
Replasing 'th' with 'z' and 'w' with 'v'.

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary 'o' kan be dropd from vords kontaining
'ou' and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi TU
understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze
forst plas.

If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl

UNIQUE DELINQUENCY I

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXIV (Nov. 21, 2009) : UNIQUE DELINQUENCY I
In order to highlight once more the unique delinquency of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), two weeks will not be too many to reply to a reader's reasonable objection to the argument of "Eleison Comments" of three weeks ago (Oct. 31). That argument maintained that the sacramental Rites of the Newchurch, introduced in the wake of the Council, are of a nature to invalidate the Church's sacraments in the long run, because they were designed by their ambiguity to erode the Minister's sacramental Intention, without which there can be no sacrament.

The reader objected with the Church's classic teaching that personal failings of the sacramental Minister, even his lack of the Faith, can be made up for by the Faith of the Church in whose name he is administering the sacrament (cf. Summa Theologiae, 3a, LXIV, 9 ad 1). Thus - classic example - a Jew who has no Catholic faith at all can nevertheless validly baptize a dying friend so long as the Jew both knows that the Catholic Church does something when it baptizes, and means to do that thing that the Church does. This Intention to do what the Church does he shows by saying the words and performing the actions laid down in the Church's Rite of baptism.

Therefore, argued our reader, the Newchurch may have corrupted the Minister's Catholic faith, but the Eternal Church will make up for any lack of his faith, and the sacraments he administers will still be valid. To which the first part of the reply is that if the Newchurch's sacramental Rites attacked only the Minister's faith, the objection would be valid, but if they also undermine his sacramental Intention, then there will be no sacrament at all.

Another classic example should make the point clear. For water to flow down a metal pipe, it does not matter if the pipe is made of gold or lead, but for the water in either case to flow, the pipe must be connected to the tap. The water is sacramental grace. The tap is the main source of that grace, God alone. The pipe is the instrumental source, namely the sacramental Minister, through whose action flows from God the grace of the sacrament. The gold or lead is the personal holiness or villainy of the Minister. Thus the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the personal faith or unfaith of the Minister, but it does depend on his connecting himself to the main source of the sacramental grace, God.

This connection he makes precisely by his Intention in performing the sacrament to do what the Church does. For by that Intention he puts himself as an instrument in the hands of God for God to pour the sacramental grace through him. Without that sacramental Intention he and his faith may be of gold or lead, but he is disconnected from the tap. It remains to be shown next week how Vatican II was designed and is liable to corrupt not only the Minister's faith, but also any sacramental Intention he may have.

Kyrie eleison.

THE SNEEZE

They walked in tandem, each of the ninety-two students filing into the already crowded auditorium. With their rich maroon gowns flowing ... and the traditional caps, they looked almost as grown up as they felt.

Dads swallowed hard behind broad smiles, and Moms freely brushed away tears.

This class would NOT pray during the commencements----not by choice, but because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it.

The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the graduates or their families.

The speeches were nice, but they were routine.....until the final speech received a standing ovation.

A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then, it happened.

All 92 students, every single one of them, suddenly SNEEZED!!!!

The student on stage..simply looked at the audience and said,

'GOD BLESS YOU, each and every one of you!' And he walked off stage...

The audience exploded into applause. This graduating class had found a unique way to invoke God's blessing on their future with or without the court's approval.


Isn't this a wonderful story?

GOD BLESS YOU!!!!

This is a true story; it happened at the University of Maryland. Oh, how I wish THIS one would take off and FILL our whole world!!

The Catholic Church will never ordain women

by Damian Thompson
Damian Thompson is Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group.


Thanks to technical problems, I wasn’t able to comment on Rowan Williams (”Archbishop of Canterbury” in the Henrician usurpation tradition, as Gerald Warner calls him) lecturing the Vatican on the virtues of women priests. I’m glad he did, because it is high time that the Church of England stopped apologising for this innovation. Anglicans have women priests; Catholics and Orthodox don’t. End of story, so far as corporate reunion is concerned.

“Oh, but the Roman Catholic Church will certainly ordain women one day,” Dr George Carey once told me. No it won’t. Why do Anglicans find this so hard to grasp? When Pope John Paul II decreed that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, he was reiterating a teaching that has never changed. It was, nonetheless, a historic declaration, for it meant that henceforth the Church could ordain women only by denying that the Pope has the divine authority to define an unalterable doctrine. (NB: doctrine, not discipline.)

Interestingly, many liberal Catholics reluctantly obeyed the Pope. What JPII was doing was closing down a debate that, from the point of view of orthodox Catholicism, was always illegitimate. And, by and large, it has indeed closed: these days, the tiny “Catholic” women’s ordination movement is drifting towards either Anglicanism or the world of episcopi vagantes.

As they don modern chasubles that, fortunately, already look as if they were designed for the larger lady, these excommunicated womenpriests declare that they have been led out of the offical structures of the Church by the Holy Spirit. And I’m far too much of a gentleman to contradict them.

Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Motu Proprio and the Reform of the Reform

An Interview in L'Homme Nouveau
by Shawn Tribe

Yesterday the French journal, L'homme nouveau, published an interview Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

Much of what is said in this interview has been commented on before; the situation as it relates to the implementation of the motu proprio, the need for all to adopt a hermeneutic of continuity both in relation to the sacred liturgy and the Second Vatican Council, and so on. Accordingly, we shall leave those aside with these quick mentions. However, there were two questions which seemed to be of some interest to translate; the first being a comment on the long-expected interpretive document from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and the second looking at the broader liturgical picture as it relates to the reform of the reform and how that relates to the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum in Msgr. Pozzo's view.

Here are those excerpts in an NLM translation.

An interpretative document on the motu proprio was announced several months ago. Will it appear soon?

In Article 11 of the motu proprio it said, amongst other things, that "the Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it." An instruction should follow at the appropriate opportunity to specify certain aspects concerning the competencies of the Pontifical Commission and the application of several normative provisions. That project is being studied.

[...]

On a more general note, how does your work fit in as part of a "reform the reform"?

The idea of a "reform of the liturgical reform" has been suggested on several occasions by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. If I recall correctly, he added that this reform would not be the result of the administrative work of a commission of experts, but it would require maturation in the life and very whole reality connected with the Church.

I think that at the point where one arrived from there, it is essential to act in the line which the Holy Father indicated in the explanatory letter of motu prorio on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, namely that "the two forms of usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching" and that "what was sacred to previous generations remains sacred and great for us, and not a thing suddenly entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It is good for all of us to preserve the riches which have grown in faith and prayer of the Church, and give them their proper place. " Thus spoke the Holy Father.

To promote this line then means to contribute indeed to this maturation in the life and the liturgical conscience, which could be, in a not too distant future, a “reform of the reform”. What is essential today is to recover the deeper sense of the Catholic liturgy, in the two uses of the Roman missal, in the sacred character of the liturgical action, in the centrality of the priest as mediator between God and the Christian people, in the sacrificial character of the Holy Mass as an essential dimension from which derives the dimension of communion.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXIII (Nov. 14, 2009) : FEMININITY REDISCOVERED.

ELEISON COMMENTS CXXIII (Nov. 14, 2009) : FEMININITY REDISCOVERED.
When a walled town is being besieged, and the enemy are continually attacking one part of the walls, the townspeople must continue to defend that part of the walls. Today the Enemy of mankind, Satan, is continually attacking true womanhood, because without true women there can be no true mothers, no true family life, no truly happy children and finally no truly human beings. I wish I could quote the complete testimony of another ex-feminist who wrote to me several months ago to thank me for, as she now sees it, "affirming and supporting our true nature as women". The following is a cruelly brief summary of her classic letter:--

Born in the mid-1960's, I had a violent and abusive father, and I have lacked a father figure ever since. After he died when I was 14, I rejected my Catholic faith and left the Church - it is difficult to believe in a loving God when you are not loved by your own parents. Away from the Church I embraced radical feminism and paganism, and I came to hate dresses because they were portrayed as an inferior form of clothing to what boys wore. I wonder where I got the idea that women are weak ? I now understand that women aren't weak at all, but we are strong in different ways from men.

I went to college determined to prove that I could do anything a man could do, but in my next seven years as a police officer I realized that the aggressiveness and dominance needed by the job just did not come naturally to me, and that I could never be as physically strong as the men. So I equated any sign of femininity in me with weakness. At the same time, as a radical feminist, I hated men, and wanted not to need one, and because of all that feminist garbage, I almost never married. But in my mid-thirties I realized I ran the risk of being alone for the rest of my life, so I decided to date. Soon afterwards I met my future husband.

When he asked me to wear a dress because it was more attractive, I exploded ! However, I did try it just to please him. Then my behaviour slowly changed, and as I began to act and to feel more feminine, I discovered that I liked feeling feminine because it felt natural to me. When after some time we married, my priorities changed and I wanted so much to stay at home. At work I can be assertive, but I don't enjoy it. I now understand that it is normal for me as a woman to prefer not to lead, because that is the way God designed me. I have spent my entire working life trying to compete with men and to be like men, and it has made me unhappy and feel like a failure because try as I might, I am not like men and never will be, because I am not a man.

It was my husband's love that enabled me after 26 years to return to the Church, kicking and screaming, but God was calling ! There I found everything somewhat different from what I remembered, and to begin with I disagreed with the Church's position on all questions involving women. But as I read more, my eyes were opened, and I realized amongst other things how the way I dress shapes my feelings and even my personality. When I wear dresses or skirts I feel gentle and feminine, more natural. My on-going education on the Church's teachings on the role of women, which includes "Letters from the Rector", has helped me to gain respect for myself as a woman and not as a pseudo-man. It is to the detriment of everyone that feminism has become ingrained in our culture. (End of the testimony.)

Blessed Mother of God, please obtain for us manly men, without whom we will hardly have womanly women.

Kyrie eleison.

Let Me See If I Understand This

Let Me See If I Understand This . . . .............
If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labour.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

However, if you cross the BRITISH border illegally, you get a job, a driver's licence, a social security card, welfare benefits, food stamps, credit cards, subsidized rent or a loan to buy a new house, free education, free health care, a lobbyist in LONDON, a legal right to criticise and berate not only our Christianity but all of our Western ideals and principals and, in many instances, you can VOTE.
Yes, I know it is so ......... but would someone please tell me why !!!!!!! ...........

Una Voce's report upon the second anniversary of Summorum Pontificum

Excerpts from "Tradition Restored," Part 1 of the abridged report :

. . . During His teaching ministry the absolute concern of our Saviour was for the redemption and the salvation of souls – all souls. And for this purpose he left a legacy of epistles and gospels and a teaching authority under Peter and his successors. In this respect our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is exercising the teaching authority bequeathed to him by Jesus Christ in ministering to all the souls entrusted to his care.

Perhaps the greatest reason for the current crisis in the Church is that too many people in the Church, particularly in senior positions, no longer accept the authority of the Pope. Where there is dissent, and where personality and self-interest are uppermost, there is decay and lapsation. Where Christ and obedience are to the fore the traditional life of the Church is allowed to flourish unhindered and the spiritual life of the Church flourishes, parish life flourishes, priestly and religious vocations flourish, and the vitality of the faith flourishes. The evidence for this is becoming more clear as each year passes. Those who refuse to recognise this are allowing their own human rationale and agenda to blind them to the undeniable growth that is taking place before their very eyes. They wilfully refuse to see what is becoming incontrovertible.

Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum the signs, increasingly, are encouraging; tradition is no longer fighting a losing battle, it has been restored to its rightful place in the Church and is now making quite clear progress. It may not be evident in some places but the positive and confident public statements by an increasing number of senior prelates on the Missal of 1962, on a return to the celebration of Mass ad orientem, and on reception of Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling are becoming more widespread.

Tradition is the lifeblood of the Church.

The iron grip of Modernism is finally being loosened. It is a movement that has no past and no future. It is of the present, selfish and self-centred, with a blinkered vision that does not extend beyond the minds of its adherents. On the other hand, tradition has a secure foundation, a history, a present, and a future; a continuity. . . . We refuse to loosen our grip and abandon the faith and traditions so dear to our parents and grandparents, our great saints and humble sinners. We are adamant that we will not consign their lives, their faith, their liturgy, their fortitude and sacrifice in times of adversity to the fading memory of history. Tradition is a living thing and cannot be cast aside; it is impossible. Tradition is the lifeblood that flows through the veins of the Church and without it the Church will die. Our faith lives in the vibrancy of tradition as it has lived for 2,000 years and we will not dishonour the memory and steadfastness of our forebears by casting it aside in favour of an experimental modern creation; no matter how many times we are told that the new model is better for us. We would not abandon our family in life and we will not abandon them in death. This is our mentality, our driving force, and we cannot, and will not, change it.

Leadership, patience, and wisdom.

It has been a mark of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI that he is leading, by patience and wisdom, in the example of the Good Shepherd in gathering together a scattered and disenchanted flock. All his actions are guided by one principle: restoration of true Catholic liturgy for the unambiguous worship of Almighty God through the sacrifice on the altar of his Blessed Son. For it is the restoration of true liturgy that will revive the flagging spirits of clergy and faithful and be instrumental in the salvation of souls. By his courageous action in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, our Holy Father has now generated a debate at all levels in the Church about what was actually authorised by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. For forty years it has been taboo to discuss any aspect of the liturgical reform as though it were to be seen as a sign of disloyalty to Blessed Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI; as an act of disobedience to the Council, and a desire to turn back the great progress we are told, ad nauseam, supposedly has been made under the revised liturgy. Debate has been ruthlessly stifled and the liturgy has deteriorated as the nebulous ‘spirit’ of Vatican II has permeated every aspect of liturgical life.

It can be said, with some justification, that a desire for a critical examination of the liturgical reform has been driven, in great part, by the laity. Countless millions of the faithful have given their opinion of the liturgical reforms by abandoning the practice of their faith. This fact is incontrovertible. Others, who have refused to abandon their faith, have fought unceasingly for a restoration of the traditions of the Church and an authentic application of the wishes of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. Since the end of the Second Vatican Council the essential truths of the Catholic faith have been jeopardised in the headlong pursuit of ecumenism; a pursuit, for some, that desired unity at almost any cost. It is the leaders in pursuit of this all-consuming objective that resist any countenance of a restoration of such clearly identifiable ‘Catholic’ Latin liturgy as enshrined in the traditional Mass. Quite clearly, the Latin language, for example, is not ecumenical in the currently accepted understanding of the word but it is truly ecumenical, and universal, in the fact that:

“It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favour any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all…” [Bl. Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962].



In promulgating the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum the Holy Father has done a great service to the Church in the search for truth. In this respect the new publication, Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion, by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, is a timely contribution to the debate. Monsignor Gherardini concludes his book by asking that the Supreme Pontiff,

“clarify definitively every aspect and contents of the last Council. Such omnia reparare [reparation of everything] could be accomplished through a great papal document, which would go down in history as a sign and witness of the vigilant and responsible exercise of His ministry as the Successor of Peter.”



Videre Petrum.

In recent Episcopal ordinations Pope Benedict XVI said to each candidate:

“The Gospel must penetrate him, the living Word of God must, so to speak, pervade him…. The first characteristic that the Lord requires of the servant is fidelity….He is entrusted with a great good that does not belong to him. The Church is not ‘our Church’, but His Church, God’s Church. The servant must give an account of the way that he has taken care of the goods that have been entrusted to him. ….We know that things in civil society, and often in the Church too, go badly because those upon whom responsibility has been conferred work for themselves and not the community, for the common good.”



To have fidelity to the Lord also requires fidelity to Peter, and things are going badly in the Church because too many bishops refuse fidelity to Christ’s Vicar on earth in favour of temporary self-interest. But to “see Peter” is not a mere tourist, let alone administrative, endeavour. It is all too easy to go to the Pope in audience and be unaware of the tremendous graces attached to physical proximity with the Successor of Peter. That is why the Apostle Paul took great pains to write to the Galatians to assure them that, after three years of contemplative prayers in Arabia, he went to Jerusalem to “see Peter.” Since Paul was the only apostle who did not witness the Resurrection, nor even met Our Lord, it was important for him to prove that he was no less of an apostle. Therefore, he had to establish the moral authority upon which his Pauline doctrine would be based. Sin ce that time Catholics, have always yearned to Videre Petrum.

However, Paul went to “see Peter” for an even more important reason, upon which the first reason rests. The Apostle Paul wished to ensure that his doctrine was in perfect accord with the doctrine taught by Peter, Prince of the Apostles. . . .

Thus, the faithful bishop, or, indeed, any Catholic, will always have the desire to videre Petrum, to “see Peter”, to refine his faith and discern his role in the Church in the light of the faith. We cannot “see Peter”, beneath what is human in his successors, unless we look, listen and speak with the spirit of faith. On an even more concrete level, bishops must approach the audience of the Holy Father in a spirit of love, which will open the soul, attuning it to the wisdom of what one will hear. That is required both before and after the audience, to better ruminate what one has heard. Those many bishops who fail to act in perfect accord with Peter should think very carefully about their leadership under Peter and the adverse affect it is having on their priests and their flocks. Perhaps, at the second anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, and entering the third year at the end of which they have to provide “an account of the way that [they have] taken care of the goods that have been entrusted to [them],” it is an ideal moment to consider their fidelity to Peter and ensure that their teaching is in perfect accord with that of the Vicar of Christ. Therein lies the “interior reconciliation” and “peace and serenity” so desired by our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to Bishops that accompanied his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Lisbon Treaty: David Cameron's referendum U-turn is another test of trust

From the Daily Telegraph, 5th november 2009

'We choose our words carefully and we do mean what we say." So wrote William Hague in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago, defending the Tory promise of either a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, or an equally robust (if mysterious) response if the latest version of the plan for a European superstate had come into force before the Conservatives got into power.

Yesterday, David Cameron emerged to explain what he means to do now the latter situation has come to pass. He employed a new set of words, carefully chosen by those around him, who realise what a sticky spot they have got themselves into over the party's position on Europe. Because, to judge by this newspaper's heaving postbag, those who do not live and breathe the subtleties of Westminster may have missed the small print in the "cast-iron guarantee" the party leader offered when he promised to give voters the say on the treaty that Gordon Brown (and Tony Blair) denied them.

To them, it was a simple proposition: Mr Cameron said they would get a referendum, and they, trusting souls, believed him. They assumed that Mr Cameron meant what he said. Or at least, what they thought he had said. They did not hear the "but" that limited the pledge to the eventuality that the Treaty had not come into force. And boy, are they angry as a result.

You might think voters are naïve for believing the words politicians choose, the things politicians say. They fell for it when George Bush Snr said: "Read my lips, no new taxes." They nodded when Mr Brown and Tony Blair said Lisbon would have to be put to the people.

This week, all the politicians were talking great guns about the need to restore trust in politics. If only they had chosen their words more carefully – because none of them mentioned a more urgent imperative, namely to restore trust in politicians themselves. As voters have long noticed, it is not the system that has become untrustworthy: it is the people.

This is proving to be a terrible time for trust, yet it is perhaps the most vital quality in public life. It is trust, after all, that lets you take a politician at his word when he promises a referendum on Europe. It was trust that you displayed when you voted for an MP who turned out to be a thief. And it is worth noting that it was trust that allowed British soldiers to take their body armour off in front of the Afghan policemen they were trying to train, with murderous results.

On every front this year, our capacity to trust those who claim to lead us is being tested to destruction by their actions, and by the gulf between what they say and what they do. "I cannot forget the follies and vices of others so soon as I ought, nor their offenses against myself… My good opinion once lost is lost forever," Mr Darcy told Miss Bennet. We know how he feels. Which is why Mr Cameron argued yesterday that Mr Brown's decision to renege on the promise of a referendum on Lisbon ranks alongside the MPs' expenses scandal as one of the reasons why trust in politics has collapsed so far. In this, he showed an acute awareness that, while ultimate responsibility for the denial of democracy on Europe lies with the prime minister, trust is a finely balanced issue for him and his party.

This does not only apply to the contract with the voters: trust is a toxic issue for the Conservatives internally, and for Cameron's leadership. Those few Tories who have taken to the airwaves to press for a referendum this week have muttered ominously about it being a point of honour for the leader, effectively a suggestion that he himself may not be a man to go tiger-shooting with. And in the background, the problem of the poisoned relations between party headquarters and the grassroots over candidate selection continues to fester. If you are a Conservative in South West Norfolk, for example, you trusted the Tory high command to alert you if there was anything worth knowing about Elizabeth Truss, the new candidate, only to be told that to find out about her private life, you should have put your faith in Google instead.

Across the country, trust – or the lack of it – strains the relationship between the centre and constituency associations. The former is unwilling to leave the choice of future MPs to the latter. The associations in turn are contemptuous of what they say is the discrepancy between Conservative HQ's talk of localism and its policy of imposing Identikit candidates from Notting Hill casting.

How does Mr Cameron restore trust? He has thought carefully about this, and is active on many fronts. The speed of his response to the expenses scandal is part of it, including his willingness yesterday to embrace Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations in full and without question.

Another element is his work to revolutionise both the way Government and Parliament work. Take, for example, his proposal to reduce the number of MPs by 10 per cent for starters, from the current 649 to 585. Although this will make the Westminster establishment smaller and leaner, burdening the taxpayer with fewer costs (and fewer politicians), some have suggested that it is just another empty pledge that cannot be achieved either quickly or without cost. But I gather preparations are well advanced on legislation that will simplify the process at a stroke, by fast-tracking what are currently interminable boundary reviews, standardising seat sizes, and ending the tyranny of county borders. The work is being carried out by former MP and Tory psephologist Rob Hayward, under the supervision of party chairman Eric Pickles. Westminster – and incoming MPs – will be surprised to find that the election after next will be for a substantially smaller House.

Yesterday, however, it was Europe that threatened to define whether Mr Cameron is a man we can trust. Conservatives complain privately about the way he allowed himself to be defined by rhetoric on referendums that was intended to placate the Eurosceptic Right and buy off the Sun. If Tories are angry this morning, it is because he was not sufficiently clear enough about the prospects for a referendum if, as everyone predicted, the Lisbon Treaty got through before he was in a position to do something about it.

With his statement, Mr Cameron took a difficult but necessary step to restore our trust not in politics but politicians, by promising no more than he can deliver. To have gone further – including any sort of promise of a post-election referendum to strengthen his hand in negotiations with Europe – would have invited ridicule. Instead, we had a thought-through, realistic scheme for stopping the drift to ever greater European integration. And those holding out hope for a broader referendum over our relations with Europe will have noted his explicit desire to put them on a "more permanent footing".

This policy will not satisfy everyone. But it has the merit of being genuinely Eurosceptic and – for once – achievable. "Plain speaking" from a Government in waiting, Mr Cameron calls it. But he will have to do a lot more of it if he is to restore our faith in those whom we elect.