In defense of Father Hewko's points, I don't think Bp. Williamson ever retracted or apologized for his statement to the trad novice lady, that going to the Novus ordo missae was okay?



So what exactly was Bp. Williamson's error? 

His Excellency knows well that the Novus ordo missae is a desacralized rite because it contains a verse from the Kabbalah in the offertory. This is a fact gloated over by Anniabl Bugnini in correspondence to his masonic superiors. 
He laughed at how dumb Catholics were not to detect this and to allow these changes.

As a Bishop, and Apostolic heir and one of the supposed leaders of the Traditional Catholic remnant, HE has the obligation to feed Our Lord's lambs and sheep.

Notes:

1. Father Hewko needs re-formation after spending 7 years in a independent priory run by a Santeria warlock.

2. Sean Johnson will defend the fake SSPX resistance to his dying breath.

Notes:

1. Father Hewko needs re-formation after spending 7 years in a independent priory run by a Santeria warlock.

2. Sean Johnson will defend the fake SSPX resistance to his dying breath.

I (and other "undisclosed recipients") received this email yesterday from Fr. MacDonald, which I thought would be of interest here.



Madame,

I address you as Madame as I am sending this to a few other people including Fr. Hewko.

Not long ago I told you that I thought Fr. Hewko had stopped attacking Bishop Williamson. I erred. He has published another attack on the catacomb website. [color=var(--interaction-norm)]https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3998[/color]

Sean Johnson has ably answered Fr. Hewko in the attached docuмent. I concur with what he says, and recommend that you read it.

Fr. Hewko was very confused when he wrote this. Probably he was tired. It is curious that the editor of catacombs did not ask him to re-read it before it was published. Anyway, I have added comments to what he wrote.

God bless,
Fr. MacDonald

Fr. Hewko again attacking Bishop Williamson

Sean Johnson has well refuted this argument of Fr. Hewko. I enourage you to read what he has written. It is attached. I have added comments in red.

Firstly, Fr. [...] is wrong in saying I condemned Bp. Williamson and called him a heretic. This never happened. What is true, is I have called his opinions on the New Mass erroneous and dangerous to the Faith, both to priests and faithful.

In no place, that I am aware of, did Abp. Lefebvre ever say "the New Mass nourishes your faith" and "gives grace," as Bp. Williamson did numerous times. I do hold that the theological position of Bp. Williamson is a wrong opinion and I completely submit my opinion to the Church's decision on these matters, when God grants us a good Pope. But until then, I side with Abp. Lefebvre who never hesitated to call the New Mass a "Messe batarde" an "illegitimate Mass" and one that erodes the Faith rather than nourishes it!

Does the New Mass gives grace? Abp. Lefebvre said it is sterile and doesn't pass the grace. A sacrament is defined in the traditional catechism as "an external sign, instituted by Christ, that gives grace." This is presupposing the "sign" is a Catholic sign, and not tampered and modified to give a Protestant and Modernist expression. The New Mass expresses a sign that is no longer Catholic, but Modernist. This is Fr. Hewko’s main error. He is very confused througout this docuмent. He confuses the Mass with a sacrament. The Mass is not a “sign”. There are only seven Sacraments. The Mass is not one of them. The Catholic Mass is a sacrifice. The New Mass is a memorial meal. Neither of them are sacramental signs. This is because the New Mass incorporates some Catholic elements, some Protestant elements and some Modernist elements, all combined into one liturgical action. So, taken as a whole, the sign expressed in the New Mass is a Modernist sign, a Modernist Liturgy, one that no longer expressing the Catholic Faith! This is correct. The Catholic Mass expresses the Faith.

Consequently, it can be debated at tHe theological level if this New Mass, expressing a non-Catholic sign, actually confers grace, even if it be valid at times. It appears Abp. Lefebvre never thought it did. Read Sean Johnson. Bp. Williamson holds that if it is valid then it automatically gives grace. Perhaps, one could argue that POTENTIALLY it could give grace (if it's valid), but ACTUALLY it doesn't, in many cases, because of the lack of dispositions necessary. No one with the Catholic Faith could argue this. Fr. Hewko’s confusion is leading him into serious error. If the Mass is valid this means that Transubstantiation has happened. On the altar (table) are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. This, because the priest and many attending the New Mass, have a non-Catholic understanding of the Mass, and if it's merely a "symbol of the faith of the community," as is taught by Modernists, then their lack of Faith and proper dispositions, blocks the transfer of grace in their souls. In this case, for many souls, the New Mass doesn't give grace. Sacraments infallibly give grace to those receiving them worthily. There understanding of it does not prevent them getting grace.

As I said, perhaps there's room to debate at the theological level, but at the practical level, it is extremely dangerous for clergy to promote the erroneous opinion that "the New Mass gives grace" because uninformed souls will take this as a green light to attend it and put their Faith in grave danger! Uninformed about what? If they are uninformed about the crisis in the Church they probably do not know Bishop Williamson. Even Abp. Lefebvre said that he believed the New Mass doesn't fulfill the Sunday obligation, precisely because it expresses a different Faith from Tradition. "Lex orandi, lex credendi," as the axiom from St. Vincent Lerins says, "as we pray, so we believe." If we pray as Catholics, we will believe as Catholics; if we pray as Protestants and Modernists, we will believe as Protestants and Modernists!

I have never condemned Bp. Williamson, who I respect and honor as a seminary professor and the bishop of my ordination, but yes, I have publicly warned souls against the erroneous opinions that he promotes because it is contrary to Abp. Lefebvre's position and for the obvious danger such a message presents. As Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, O.F.M. used to put it, "Do you need proof the New Mass doesn't give grace? Look at the catastrophic fruits! There's your proof! As Christ said, 'By their fruits you will know them.'"

After all is said and done, it is ultimately Mother Church who will authoritatively decide on these matters, when she returns to Tradition, and on this point, The Church decided long ago that sacraments infallibly give grace to those worthily receiving them. To worthily receive Holy Communion one must be in the State of Grace. I'm sure we all agree and eagerly await. What will Mother Church decide when that day comes? How will she judge the New Mass and New sacraments? We shall see. But it is my humble opinion, that it will be a close repetition of her decision on the Anglican orders, which were all declared invalid (and therefore not grace-giving) by Pope Leo XIII in "Apostolicae Curae" in 1896. Why? Because the Anglican adaptations to the Mass and sacrament of Holy Orders expressed a faith different from the Catholic Faith. This alone sufficed to make them invalid. Do not the New Mass changes do the same? Apostolicae Curae limited itself to the sacrament of Holy Orders. Anglican Orders are infallibly declared invalid. It said nothing about the Anglican liturgy or purported Mass.

Tribute to Fr. [...] who did publicly oppose Bp. Williamson's opinion on this point, and warned of the great dangers of the New Mass and Indult Masses, and continues heroically taking care of the scattered souls everywhere, in the aftermath of Vatican II.

Tribute to Bishop Williamson, who in spite of promoting some erroneous opinions and signing the petition to remove the "excommunication" that never was, did at least consecrate bishops for Tradition, which the Conciliar-SSPX bishops will never do. Pray they ALL return to the unwavering stand of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre!

The time of the Church's return to Tradition will come. Until then, Abp. Lefebvre was proven right on many other things, I'll take his side on this point as well. "In doctrinal matters defined by the Church, full consent; in matters of custom, respect; in debatable matters of opinion, always charity."

In Christ the King,

Fr. David Hewko

But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal. [3] For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man? [4] For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? [5] The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given.

Does the New Mass gives grace? Abp. Lefebvre said it is sterile and doesn't pass the grace. A sacrament is defined in the traditional catechism as "an external sign, instituted by Christ, that gives grace." This is presupposing the "sign" is a Catholic sign, and not tampered and modified to give a Protestant and Modernist expression. The New Mass expresses a sign that is no longer Catholic, but Modernist. This is because the New Mass incorporates some Catholic elements, some Protestant elements and some Modernist elements, all combined into one liturgical action. So, taken as a whole, the sign expressed in the New Mass is a Modernist sign, a Modernist Liturgy, one that no longer expressing the Catholic Faith!

Consequently, it can be debated at the theological level if this New Mass, expressing a non-Catholic sign, actually confers grace, even if it be valid at times. It appears Abp. Lefebvre never thought it did. Bp. Williamson holds that if it is valid then it automatically gives grace. Perhaps, one could argue that POTENTIALLY it could give grace (if it's valid), but ACTUALLY it doesn't, in many cases, because of the lack of dispositions necessary. This, because the priest and many attending the New Mass, have a non-Catholic understanding of the Mass, and if it's merely a "symbol of the faith of the community," as is taught by Modernists, then their lack of Faith and proper dispositions, blocks the transfer of grace in their souls. In this case, for many souls, the New Mass doesn't give grace.

As I said, perhaps there's room to debate at the theological level, but at the practical level, it is extremely dangerous for clergy to promote the erroneous opinion that "the New Mass gives grace" because uninformed souls will take this as a green light to attend it and put their Faith in grave danger! Even Abp. Lefebvre said that he believed the New Mass doesn't fulfill the Sunday obligation, precisely because it expresses a different Faith from Tradition. "Lex orandi, lex credendi," as the axiom from St. Vincent Lerins says, "as we pray, so we believe." If we pray as Catholics, we will believe as Catholics; if we pray as Protestants and Modernists, we will believe as Protestants and Modernists!