DISTINCTIONS NECESSARY

December 13, 2014
Number CCCLXXXVII (387)

 
The Council works from dangerous greys to black. A Catholic seeks out white to stay on track.

The principle that cancer of the liver will kill me without my necessarily having lung cancer (cf. the EC of Nov. 29) is annoying, because it means that I may need to distinguish instead of indulging myself in blanket condemnations, but distinctions are common sense and correspond to reality. So in today’s universal confusion, to stay in touch with reality there are times when I need to recognize that a mixture of good and bad will be bad as a whole, but that does not mean that its good parts, as parts, are bad, any more than that the goodness of the good parts means that the whole is good.

Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The new Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths (the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, the sacrificing priesthood, etc.) that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. But that does not mean that that part of the Mass which is the sacramental Form of Consecration of the bread and wine is bad or invalid. “This is my Body” is certainly valid, “This is the chalice of my Blood” is most likely to be valid, and it is certainly not invalidated by the new rite as a whole being so uncatholic. Therefore if I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth, but if I say it is always invalid, I am not telling the truth and sooner or later I will pay the penalty for exaggerating.

Similarly with the new Rite of priestly Ordination. The new Rite as a whole has severely diminished the expression of essential truths of the Catholic priesthood, especially that it is a sacrificing priesthood, but that part of the new Rite which is the sacramental Form is, at any rate in the new Latin version, if anything stronger (by the “et” instead of “ut”) than the old Latin version. Therefore assuming that the ordaining bishop is a true bishop and had the true sacramental Intention, it is simply not true to say that no priest ordained in the new Rite can be a true priest. And if one says it, sooner or later one will pay some penalty for departing from the truth.

Now from the de-catholicisation of these two new Rites as wholes, while one may not argue that their sacramental Forms are invalid, one may well argue that in the end they will undermine and invalidate the priest’s or bishop’s sacramental Intention, but that is a different argument, no longer in black and white but, alas, in grey. For indeed the argument is that the steady use of de-catholicised Rites will slowly so alter the priest’s or bishop’s concept of what the Church does with those Rites that in the end he will no longer have the Catholic Intention to do what the Church does, Intention necessary for validity of the sacrament. In other words, white will only gradually turn through grey to black. But who, other than Almighty God, can know for certain when the grey turns into black? Once more, I must take care if I want to discern and know the truth.

This playing between white and black, this ambiguity, is what is properly diabolical in the Conciliar reform of the sacramental Rites. If I wish to tell the truth, I will not yet say that they have destroyed the Catholic sacraments, but they are certainly undermining them, and so if I wish to keep the Catholic Faith, I will certainly as a whole avoid them.

Kyrie eleison.

This is God we are talking about.  I can't see how not always completely bad is in anyway acceptable or tolerable.

It's absolutely clear to me that the intention behind the new mass was evil, its application has produced disastrous fruits.  The sacraments, whether valid or not, are much less utilised and much less effectatious.

How can that be grey?

From the brochure of the St Thomas Aquinas Seminary, " Why the Traditional Latin Mass--- 62 Reasons Why-- and Why Not the New (Mass)?"


The New Mass was Fabricated; it is Clearly a meal; it is centered on Man; it is Half Protestant; it is Barren!;
It is not a profession of the Catholic Faith; We cannot pray the New Mass in Protestant Fashion and still believe as Catholics! The New Mass represents a striking Departure from Catholic Theology; Because the differences between the two are not simply differences of mere details;
Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence; Because the New Mass blurs the priesthood into the common priesthood of the people; Because six Protestant Ministers colloborated in creating the new mass;Because the narrative of the "consecration" shows it is only a memorial, not a true sacrifice; Because the New Mass was designed in accord with the protestant definition of the Lord's Supper as an assembly of the people; Because , in less than seven years, the new Mass produed a decrease in the world wide priesthood of almost fifty percent; Because the nature of the new mass facilitates profanation of the Holy Eucharist; because the new mass exposes us to the wrath of Almighty God by facilitating invalid celebrations; Because one may be allowed to doubt that priests could be able to celebrate the new mass validly"doing what the Church does"; Because along with the new Mass comes the new catechism, the new morality, the new prayers, the new ideas, the new calendar--in one word-- THE NEW CHURCH-- a complete revolution from THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ; Because the altar and tabernacle, being separate, divide Christ in His Priest and Christ in His Presencewhich two things must remain together by nature; because the new mass is not a vertical worship of God by man, but a horizontal worship of man to man.

  So, how can it possibly be, that , after some forty five years of driving right past hundreds, neigh, thousands of "New Mass" tables in  the New Church, NOW we are being told that there are good parts in there-- and the sacraments are valid?

 Take the fourth paragraph. Why the concern over whether the (pres-by-ter) is doing what the Church does?? of course he's doing what the "church does! he's been trained and placed there by the "church."!! BUT WHAT CHURCH??

I had a Monsignor tell me directly, as I critiqued his "funeral Mass", "I am doing exactly what the 'Church' does ( he claimed); I am doing exactly what the 'Church' intends;
all 'funerals' (now) celebrate the resurrection of the soul into heaven!"

This nonsense that there are "good" parts of the Novus Ordo mass, really means that there are "good" parts of the Protestant "Suppers" and "memorials", from which the Novus ordo mass was lifted, as is described very clearly in the SSPX  brochure of the St Thomas Aquinas Seminary, from the eighty's!

Remember reason number 43 : We Cannot attend the new Mass BECAUSE IT EXPOSES US TO THE WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD by facillitating invalid celebrations!  Archbishop Lefebvre said that this is serious! That these were "not just words he threw out in the air"! The new Mass is a bastard Mass of a new "conciliar " Church. They, themselves, labeled their new church-- and they adopted new sacraments, new creed, and new worship. Why are we confusing faithful and letting them think that there are good parts to this "bastard"  Novus Ordo mass?

If attending the new mass in the 1980's exposed us to the wrath of Almighty God, how in the world could we attend a "mass" celebrated by a novus ordo Pres-by-ter 9 IN 2014)  who clebebrates, and was trained with, and ordained in, that new mass? How could one attend a Church in which novus ordo pres by ters , ordained by Novus ordo "bishops", who themselves believe in and accept the new religion of vATICAN II ( the Conciliar religion) , pretend to "offer" a Traditional  Catholic Mass?  If the man was trained to believe its a meal, and simply a memorial of the crucifixion of Christ,then it doesn't matter a whit what words he uses-- - he believes its a meal! There can be no consecration-- valid or otherwise.And, therefore, Christ Our Lord cannot, and is not, present in the hosts or the Tabernacles as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

+Williamson said,

The principle that cancer of the liver will kill me without my necessarily having lung cancer (cf. the EC of Nov. 29) is annoying, because it means that I may need to distinguish instead of indulging myself in blanket condemnations, but distinctions are common sense and correspond to reality. So in today’s universal confusion, to stay in touch with reality there are times when I need to recognize that a mixture of good and bad will be bad as a whole, but that does not mean that its good parts, as parts, are bad, any more than that the goodness of the good parts means that the whole is good.

What principle is this?  If cancer of the liver stayed in the liver, a simple liver transplant would cure the patient.  But that is not how cancer operates.  Cancer spreads.  Cancer of the liver will kill the patient precisely because it spreads to the lungs and every vital organ.  

Therefore the "good parts" will become bad once the cancer is present in the body.  The only way to prevent this is to remove the cancer at the earliest possible opportunity, to prevent its spread which will eventually destroy the entire body.

Sincere question:  Is +Williamson angling for his old job?   :sign-surrender:

Sincere question:  Is +Williamson angling for his old job?   :sign-surrender:

How can I believe this is a sincere question? Are you unaware that +W and the SSPX have never stated the N.O. Mass and rite of ordination is invalid? Indeed, having listened or read a good number of interviews and writings of +W spanning three decades he is saying the exact same thing he always has. Why the sedevacantists and the invalid police want the good bishop to be something he is not or ever will be is beyond me especially when there are other bishops and priests that hold that line of thinking.

Oh dear, yet another infusion of grey into the discourse of partially rotten fruit.......

This is God we are talking about.  I can't see how not always completely bad is in anyway acceptable or tolerable.

.

How can that be grey?

When I commit a venial sin I'm not completely bad, my soul is grey.

I hope God tolerates me

Wessex

Quote

: Saying that the Council is not all bad is the bishop's return ticket back into Roman favour.

All the usual suspects have immediate accidents in their pants.  It is utterly amazing, but oh so predictable.  Wessex, the resident intellectual really puts his foot in it by this semi-intelligible remark.  The would be CI seat-of-wisdom has just informed us that the good bishop is trying to curry favor with Rome, that he, perhaps, wants back in.  Astounding!  Wessex, listen up:  When pigs fly!  Can any of you Sasquatches point to even one sentence in this EC inviting us back to Rome, or suggesting in any way that we should reconsider attendance at the NO Mass, or that we should in any way compromise with the Conciliar church?  Alas, I have asked the question.  Now we must all sit back and allow ourselves to be inundated in an avalanche of drivel.  :stare:

This is an excellent point. Bishop Williamson is saying nothing here that he has not been saying for the last 34 (in my experience) years! It seems that the only reason that so many do not know this is that they have not read what he says or listened attentively to his sermons and conferences.

He is not saying it is okay to attend the N.O., he says plainly that it is to be avoided. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that the Mass in the new rite contains poison and that if you consistently imbibe a little poison it will eventually kill you. That indicates that he also believed that the N.O. is not entirely without validity and that was his firm position. The Society has all along consistently said to avoid it even though there may be validity, because it is dangerous to the Faith and the life of the soul.