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?
28 June 2015 Conference (https://youtu.be/vzI4WKwDlPk)
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.
…I completely submit my opinion to the Church's decision on these matters, when God grants us a good Pope.Should be a more positively skewed distribution.
Agreed 100%
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.
Agreed 100%
I (and other "undisclosed recipients") received this email yesterday from Fr. MacDonald, which I thought would be of interest here.1st. Fr. Hewko has done lasting damage to his own credibility (Pfeiffer) so why should anyone care about his opinions?
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] (https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3998)
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. MacDonaldFr. Hewko again attacking Bishop WilliamsonSean 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] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=3&l=3-#x) For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man? [4] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=3&l=4-#x) 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] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=3&l=5-#x) The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given.
2nd. Why did Fr. MacDonald think it necessary to even respond?
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!
You believe that Bp. Williamson has an obligation to feed the lambs sheep, but you also believe that the Resistance is fake. So, since you believe that the Resistance is fake, why would you be concerned about whether or not Bp. Williamson is feeding the lambs and sheep? Do you believe that fakeness can still teach properly?
Well then, you are probably happy then that Sean Jonson doesn't participate on this forum anymore. Why should he, with the attacks from sedevacantists that he had to deal with?I am. I am also very close to not participating here, too, for the same reason.
Perhaps if you read the first three sentences of his response, the answer would come to you?Thank you for your gracious response, Mr. Johnson. If you would be so kind please answer points 1 & 3 as well.
Well then, you are probably happy then that Sean Jonson doesn't participate on this forum anymore. Why should he, with the attacks from sedevacantists that he had to deal with?
Or, similarly, of a Satanic Mass, "Well, although it's Satanic, if you go there and receive the Sacraments with the proper dispositions, you could receive grace."I don’t understand what you mean by a Satanic Mass. Why would the Sacraments be at a Satanic Mass?
Do we believe that the NOM is a sacrilegeous bastard Rite of Mass or don't we? If we don't, we might as well just head back to the Motu or even the local clown Mass.
One has to wonder if we're on the right side of this when each and every trad group keeps fragmenting and going into schism with each other.Agreed
AgreedHistorically-speaking it's the heretical groups that splinter and fight like this, not the true Church herself.
Historically-speaking it's the heretical groups that splinter and fight like this, not the true Church herself.The heretical New Order has been splintered and fighting since its inception. The Church has a problem that nobody wants to deal with and that is the terrible situation of a dangerously extended interregnum.
Do we believe that the NOM is a sacrilegious bastard Rite of Mass or don't we? If we don't, we might as well just head back to the Motu or even the local clown Mass.Well said. If we can attend the Novus Ordo, then there is zero need for a Resistance. It undercuts the entire raison d'etre of resisting the sspx. A little common sense goes a long way here.
Father Hewko - 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?
Sean Johnson - 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.
Sean Johnson is either ignorant, or he's of bad will here.
Pope Leo XIII exhausted his theologians and gave the Anglicans every opportunity to prove their ordinations were valid. When he released Apostolicae Curae, he tasked the English Bishops with writing a reply to the Anglican Archbishops. Here is just one excerpt from the "Vindication" suggesting they took into account the Reformers attitude concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as countless other false doctrine's of theirs, when considering Anglican Ordinations...
A Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, #38, The Destruction of Altars
"The destruction of the altars was a measure so distinct in its meaning that we have never been able to conceive how that meaning could be misunderstood. The measure meant a bitter hatred of the Mass, and a hatred directed against the Mass itself, not merely against some obscure abuse such as recent writers have sought in vain to unearth from the ambiguous phrases of one or two theological writers. Usum non tollit abusus. Surely if these reformers had desired only to remove an abuse, but were full of reverence for the great Christian Sacrifice itself, they would not have destroyed and desecrated the altars, and substituted tables in their place, alleging as their reason, in unqualified terms, that ’the form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass unto the right use of the Lord’s Supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it ; the use of a table is to serve men to eat upon it."
What a striking resemblance to the Vatican II counter church...
Your quotation is from Fr. MacDonald, not Sean Johnson. Nobody has quoted Sean Johnson's article yet, despite it being appended to the OP.Apologies to Sean Johnson...
Perhaps Sean should re-read his own "Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX."
Particularly #1, highlighting the "change" that the SSPX no longer considers the New Mass participation 'sinful.' Clearly, this "change" applies to +Williamson as well, who used to say the New Mass was intrinsically evil.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/msg644466/#msg644466
As far as I can tell, Mr. Johnson's article does not address new Masss participation, but whether grace passes to well-disposed Novus Ordo communicants.
Well then, you are probably happy then that Sean Jonson doesn't participate on this forum anymore. Why should he, with the attacks from sedevacantists that he had to deal with?Sean seemed to be angry all the time at just about everyone on this forum who disagreed with him on any topic at all, which was just about everybody. I think he left because he just didn't like posting on here.
Father Hewko admits that there's a possible theological argument to be made along those lines, but points out that the line is blurred for the faithful in terms of attending the NO and receiving communion.
Fr. Hewko's answer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxU2LJ1sO5w
Prescinding from commenting upon the dispute between l'Abbe Hewko and M. Johnson, Abbe Hewko makes an interesting argument at 11:19 and 38:20, where he says that no pope can create new rites for the Church (elsewhere implying that if he did so, these new rites would not be Catholic, and therefore Trent would not apply).Right. That's why the whole "illicit" argument is silly, the Pope most certainly can introduce new rites.
But if I understand Pope Pius XII correctly, he says precisely the opposite:
"58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
Well where does that leave Quo Primum then, which said the old Mass cannot be changed?
Greg Taylor responds
In Re: SJ is a Dishonest, Deceitful Buffoon who Needs to Stop Writing Garbage (https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4402)
1st. Fr. Hewko has done lasting damage to his own credibility (Pfeiffer) so why should anyone care about his opinions?Well I personally found it useful because I was not familiar with the issue and I was not aware of Fr Hewko' s issue.
2nd. Why did Fr. MacDonald think it necessary to even respond?
3rd. Why did you, OP, think it a good idea to post this publicly? Do the sheep really need to see how pathetic their self-proclaimed shepherds are? Do we need more titillating infighting to occupy our time? Is it going to bring ANYONE closer to Heaven?
Either we are truly traditional Catholics who defend Tradition against a cursed New Mass or we are not. If we defend grace in the New Mass then we are no better +Fellay who signed that all the New Sacraments are legitimately promulgated, which was a scandal at the time. Yet this grace in the New Mass nonsense is simply a regurgitated version of that.In the May 5, 1988 protocol that was signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and withdrawn the next day due to the delaying tactics for the episcopal consecrations:
In the May 5, 1988 protocol that was signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and withdrawn the next day due to the delaying tactics for the episcopal consecrations:Archbishop Lefebvre only admitted to validity. Everyone should know that validity does NOT equal grace (see the Church's teaching on attendance at VALID Orthodox sacraments that nevertheless are not allowed). See also here for how +W and Johnson are wrong on this issue according to Church teaching. https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569
4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
So the new rites are recognized as valid by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX as long as they are validly celebrated according to the typical editions. However, to my knowledge, no SSPX priest or publication has publicly said that it is OK to attend the New Mass. It seems that Bishop Williamson and the Resistance faction associated with him are even more liberal with regards to the New Mass.
Well I personally found it useful because I was not familiar with the issue and I was not aware of Fr Hewko' s issue.
Archbishop Lefebvre only admitted to validity. Everyone should know that validity does NOT equal grace (see the Church's teaching on attendance at VALID Orthodox sacraments that nevertheless are not allowed). See also here for how +W and Johnson are wrong on this issue according to Church teaching. https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569
I've been around long enough to recall when both +W and Johnson used to say the opposite of what they are saying about grace in the New Mass. It's actually well docuмented, particularly in +W's case. Maybe the fight has gone out of him?
Interesting.I have zero interest in doing your homework for you. If you don't know where to look the sspx archives are a great starting place. You are perhaps new to tradition? Otherwise these requests make no sense.
I have a task for you:
1) Please quote Williamson or Johnson denying grace passes to well-disposed communicants. J
ohnson has 10,000 posts on this forum alone, and Williamson has 7 volumes of books and countless internet sermons and conferences, so unless you are completely full of shit, backing your contentions shouldn't be difficult.
2) Please also quote either contending that Orthodox sacraments are allowed (outside the case of necessity).
3) The article you link pertains to the new rite of Mass, not the matter at hand (i.e., the passage of grace to well disposed communicants).
So there are no faithful bishops left in the world (an opinion which comes perilously close to implicit denial of the dogma of indefectability), and now the world is down to two priests: Frère Arizaga (a Benedictine who spends more time wantering the face of the earth than Cain from Kung Fu) and Fr. Ruiz.
Either he was lying before when he said to the avoid the New Mass or he is lying now saying people can attend.AFAIK +Williamson has never been omniscient, so he may have simply changed his mind. I disagree with HE's opinion on this, and other things, but I would be cautious in declaring him to be mendacious.
I have zero interest in doing your homework for you. If you don't know where to look the sspx archives are a great starting place. You are perhaps new to tradition? Otherwise these requests make no sense.
But in the interest of being helpful, please see His Excellency's EC #387, in which he states “Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. ... f I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth ....”
But even more plainly said by His Excellency was in a recording wherein he notes that while valid it is ILLICIT. Nothing illicit can give grace. He calls the New Mass "intrinsically evil" and that we must not attend. https://youtu.be/f0gV0qyZN50
The new Rite of Mass is evil according to His Excellency. Also according to Trent. Also according to +Lefebvre.
There is no defense for His Excellency's change of mind on this subject. He is too well educated and too well-formed to make this mistake. Either he was lying before when he said to the avoid the New Mass or he is lying now saying people can attend. But no man can serve two masters as Vigano says with respect to the New Mass and the Old Mass.
Most of this post is stuck in the same rut: Hewko discussing the rite, where Johnson is discussing the passage of grace.
It begins by quoting Williamson saying the new Mass must always be avoided, but overlooks qualifying that remark with the objective-subjective distinction (i.e., nobody should go to it, but there can be subjective reasons which permit it), as it necessarily must.
Let's let Greg Taylor explain it to us by quoting...Bishop Williamson (1996, nearly 20 years before Mahopac):
"When Archbishop Lefebvre said it [i.e., that Catholics can satisfy the Sunday obligation by attending the new Mass], he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfil their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass.”
https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4402
What could be clearer?
We have Taylor quote mining in an attempt to highlight an alleged contradiction betwen Williamson and Lefebvre, but he ends up vindicating Williamson unwittingly, by explaining Williamson and Lefebvre see it the same way, per Williamson's 1996 explanation.
The post mentions grace once, but immediately conflates it with the rite (yet again), calling it "illicit," and concluding that "nothing illicit can give grace." Need I point out ad nauseum that Johnson is speaking of the sacrament, while you continually lapse back to speaking of the rite?
Do you think Vigano believes noconciliarists receive grace from Holy Communion?
Good catch: How was that woman in Mahopac not among those who are "unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation?"
Good catch: How was that woman in Mahopac not among those who are "unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation?"I stand to be corrected but in the video didn't the woman ask about Novus Ordo Masses only during the week and elsewhere, that she was well aware of the Traditional Mass? If so, that plainly shows that she was not ignorant of the true Mass.
If so, subjectively she would be among those fulfilling their Sunday obligation at the new Mass, and retaining her good disposition, would receive an increase of sanctifyin grace at Holy Communion.
I'm not seeing the problem (unless like the other post states, this is a manufactured confusion erected to divide the resistance by playing upon the unlettered ignorance of the faithful, some of whom have bought into the ruse).
I stand to be corrected but in the video didn't the woman ask about Novus Ordo Masses only during the week and elsewhere, that she was well aware of the Traditional Mass? If so, that plainly shows that she was not ignorant of the true Mass.
The 1996 criterion of Msgr. Williamson (which M. Taylor says was also the thinking of Msgr. Lefebvre) is not that one be ignorant of the traditional Messe, but that one is "unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation."
From what I recall of that video, this description would certainly have fit the woman.
I stand to be corrected but in the video didn't the woman ask about Novus Ordo Masses only during the week and elsewhere, that she was well aware of the Traditional Mass? If so, that plainly shows that she was not ignorant of the true Mass.
She asked +W about attending the New Mass on weekdays, if it was alright to do that. He said "Yes."
There was quite a bit more than, "Can I go to the new Mass? Sure."
To refresh your memory, begin listening at 1:01:44.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik
He begins precisely as M. Taylor said was correct (and in line with Msgr. Lefebvre) in 1996: Distinguishing between principle and practice; the objective principle and subjective circuмstances.
Can anyone explain why Msgr. Williamson's position was correct in 1996, but erroneous in 2015-2022?
M. Johnson had it right all along: Abbes Pfeiffer/Hewko saw an opportunity to exploit their simple faithful, in an attempt to get the resistance to head their way.
I don't have a problem with someone attending the New Mass on weekdays. That may be trad heresy, I know. +W has been convicted of the same.
Archbishop Lefebvre only admitted to validity. Everyone should know that validity does NOT equal grace (see the Church's teaching on attendance at VALID Orthodox sacraments that nevertheless are not allowed). See also here for how +W and Johnson are wrong on this issue according to Church teaching. https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569
I've been around long enough to recall when both +W and Johnson used to say the opposite of what they are saying about grace in the New Mass. It's actually well docuмented, particularly in +W's case. Maybe the fight has gone out of him?
And yet the Resistance accuses the SSPX of going liberal. :facepalm: :popcorn:
Christ said we are either for Him or against Him. Anyone, anyone(!) who promotes a cursed Mass is in great spiritual danger. Trent cursed the New Mass. Quo Primum cursed the New Mass. It was created by a Freemason. It is cursed. It is anathematized. Lest some of us forget: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/original-sins-eucharistic-prayer-ii.html
Archbishop Lefebvre, in his own words: Keep the Mass of All Time! - https://youtu.be/dfoW4jl3vOk
Then you have no problem with someone attending the New Mass. Period. At that point, why are you a Traditional Catholic again, refusing submission to the lawful hierarchy of the Church (as you see it)?
It's not like the woman in question was fulfilling her Sunday obligation at the NO.LOL. Why is going to a NO on Sunday bad but on weekdays good?
LOL. Why is going to a NO on Sunday bad but on weekdays good?
:jester:
What does this post have to do with the thread? Nobody here is promoting the new Mass.To divorce the idea of grace from the New Mass from the New Mass itself is kind of schizophrenic. They are inextricably linked. :fryingpan:
To divorce the idea of grace from the New Mass from the New Mass itself is kind of schizophrenic. They are inextricably linked. :fryingpan:
Mass (and Holy Communion) quoad se (intrinsically or in and of themselves) have infinite grace. One Mass has enough grace to convert the entire world, and one Holy Communion to turn the most abominable wretch into a the greatest saint.
But not ALL of this grace transmits to or gets applied to souls. So, quoad nos, the amount of grace we receive depends on God's will. Nor is it necessarily just proportionate to the dispositions of someone receiving Holy Communion. So, for instance, saints have said that if an unworthy priest offers Mass, even if it's valid valid, let's say the priest is a grave sinner, a sodomite, child rapist, etc., then the amount of grace from the Mass that gets applied to the faithful is much less, if any.
So the difference is between intrinsic grace, and applied grace.
If a Satanist priest says a Black Mass, even if valid, I doubt that any graces will flow from that into the world. Instead, it's quite the opposite.
If a Catholic went to a Greek Orthodox Liturgy to receive Communion (let's say he didn't know that was wrong and committed no sin, subjectively speaking), there's nothing that says God has to apply the graces of that Communion to the recipient's soul.
There's no theological principle that dictates that God must apply grace from the Mass or the Sacraments to a soul at all, any more than there is a principle that God needs to apply 100% of the grace (if it weren't infinite and could be thus quantified).
So, again, assuming that 100% is the amount of grace intrinsically available from a Mass, God could dispense / apply 80%, or 50%, or 10%, or 3% or ... 0% of the grace. Johnson's misguided theory would hold that there must be grace given. So if God dispensed .000000000001% of the grace, that would comply with his made-up principle. We know that God does not dispense all of it. So, perhaps Johnson could come up with some math about how much grace God is bound to bestow.
M. Ladislaus-
"CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.
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!
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.'"
That's already been explained, Sean. This means that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato vs. the Protestant errors. Prots held that the Sacraments were mere outwards signs, but that person received grace via their dispositions ex opere operantis. There's no guarantee, as explained above, that in any particular situation or scenario, that God would grant or apply 90% of the available grace, 50%, 10%, 3%, or 0%. God is not REQUIRED by any stretch to confer graces from a Greek Orthodox Liturgy, a Black Mass, or else a Protestantized Bastard Rite of Mass that blasphemously replaces the Catholic Offertory with passages from the тαℓмυd. And by "receiving [the Sacraments] rightly" is not meant merely some personal piety or fervor, but they must be received rightly from a Catholic Mass that is licit. If a priest were excommunicated or suspended, and a layman tried to receive from said priest (even if he had convinced himself subjectively that it was OK0, that is not objectively a right reception of the Sacrament. Nor is receiving via the NOM.
Apologies, M. Ladislaus, but the previous post was written by me (I forgot to check the box, and when I tried to do it after the fact, I was not permitted).Me
In any case, if I understand you correctly, you think to evade the Tridentine anathemas by interpreting "receives rightly" as pertaining to the rite of Mass used to confect the sacrament, rather than whether or not the communicant is in the state of grace.
Is this correct?