ELEISON COMMENTS DCCCIV (December 10, 2022) QUESTIONS ENSUING – III
3 Excellency, following on the last few issues of these “Comments” I am somewhat confused. Was or was not the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X in 2012 the work of traitors ? If so, why be at all lenient with them ? If not, why call their work a “disaster” ?
Any lack of clarity can be blamed on the confusion wrought by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), where, asthe murder of Duncan makes Macduff cry out (Macbeth, II, 3), “Confusion now hath made his masterpiece”. Let the Catechism try to clear up the confusion.
For a sin to be mortally grave, three things are required: that the sin be in itself, objectively, grave enough to cause the spiritual death of the soul; secondly, that the sinner be aware that his act is mortally sinful; and thirdly that he give his full consent to committing the sinful act. What this means is that if somebody commits what is in fact a mortal sin without his knowing that it is, then the act is objectively sinful, but not subjectively, because of his ignorance. Such was the case of many Catholics after Vatican II.
For at Vatican II a diabolical plot to destroy the Catholic Church succeeded in persuading the Church’s leading churchmen to replace the true God-centred Faith with a false man-centred parody of that Faith. And these churchmen – two Popes and about 2,000 bishops – went on in turn to persuade a large majority of Catholic souls all over the world to adopt the new humanist religion, because these Popes and bishops seemed to be that Authority of which these souls knew that Christ had instituted it to know, preach and protect the Truth, i.e. His own unchanging truths of salvation. Therefore the ringleaders of Vatican II who knew exactly what they were doing to destroy the Church were supremely guilty, while any bishops, priests and laity beneath them who were duped – and that was the mass of them – were relatively innocent. As Archbishop Vigano says, he was at the time unable to believe that his colleagues could possibly have been wanting to destroy the Church. He believes it now, because confrontation with the immorality that always follows on corruption of Catholic doctrine opened his eyes to how Authority had betrayed Truth.
Now the exact degree of guilt or innocence in each single soul that has taken part in that betrayal ever since, is known to God, but common sense is enough to tell that a large proportion of Catholics following the apostasy of Vatican II ever since have been more sinned against than sinning, and here is the common sense reason for ourselves to judge them leniently. The more the shepherds were guilty, the more the sheep have been innocent, because when they followed the representatives of Catholic Authority, they seriously believed that it was a sure source of that Truth which is absolutely necessary for them to save their souls.
3b Yes, but the bad fruits following on the Council should have opened by now many more eyes than they have done. Many Catholics prefer the soft new religion. Leniency must have its limits !
True, and here is where the objective sin of betrayal of the Faith comes in. The doctrine of the Conciliar religion is false, it corrupts morals, it is destroying the Church and sending countless souls to Hell. The Council itself was the final product of centuries of moral rot, ever growing, from the decadence of the Middle Ages onwards. This growth explains – without excusing – the blindness of the bishops voting at Vatican II, because what Archbishop Lefebvre then saw, they should all have been able to see. Instead, at least objectively, they then betrayed, and now the leaders of the Society that he built to resist the rot still want to put themselves under its ringleaders, more rotten than ever, e.g. Traditionis Custodes. Such creators of the Newsociety are traitors in their turn. Their Founder repudiated the Romans whom they love, and with whom they are today, reportedly, plotting to change the Statutes of the Society with which he gave it its structure. If the report is true, no wonder the Roman modernists insist on a new structure, open and no longer closed to appropriation by the traitors of Rome and of the Newsociety.
How can the Archbishop’s heirs be quite so blind ?
Evil is good, to the liberal’s “open mind”.