Host’s Parasite – I

Upon the good, to exist depends the bad.
Thus Newchurch with no true Church can’t be had.

The purpose of saying half a year ago that a priest is not obliged in every case to forbid a Catholic to attend the New Mass (NOM) was obviously not to say that the NOM is perfectly alright to attend. The NOM rite is, in itself, the central act of worship of the false man-centred religion of Vatican II, in whose wake it followed in 1969. In fact the obligation to stay away from the NOM is proportional to one’s knowledge of how wrong it is. It has enormously contributed to countless Catholics losing their faith, almost without realizing it.

But there are two factors which even to this day have made it easy for Catholics to be deceived by the NOM. Firstly, it was imposed on the entire Latin-rite Church by what Paul VI did all he could to make look like the full force of his Papal authority, which in 1969 seemed immense. Still today the NOM passes for the “ordinary” rite, while the Mass of all time is officially discounted as the “extraordinary” rite, so that even 47 years later an honest Catholic can still feel obliged in obedience to attend the NOM. Of course in reality there can be no such obligation, because no Church law can oblige a Catholic to put his faith in danger, which he normally does by attending the NOM, such is its falsity.

And secondly, the NOM was introduced gradually, in a series of skilfully graduated changes, notably in 1962, 1964 and 1967, so that the wholesale revolution of 1969 found Catholics ready for novelty. In fact even today the NOM rite includes options for the celebrant which make it possible for him to celebrate the NOM either as a full-blooded ceremony of the new humanist religion, or as a ceremony resembling the true Mass closely enough to deceive many a Catholic that there is no significant difference between the old and the new rites. Of course in reality, as Archbishop Lefebvre always said, better the old rite in a modern language than the new rite in La tin, because of the diminution or downright falsification of the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in the NOM.

Moreover these two factors, the official imposition of the changes and their sometimes optional character intrinsic to the NOM, more than suffice to explain that to this day there must be multitudes of Catholics who want and mean to be Catholics and yet assume that the right way to be Catholics is to attend the NOM every Sunday. And who will dare say that out of these multitudes there are none who are still nourishing their faith by obeying what seems to them (subjectively) to be their (objective) duty? God is their judge, but for how many years did easily most followers of Catholic Tradition have to attend the NOM before they understood that their faith obliged them not to do so? And if the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition? Depending on how a celebrant uses the options in the NOM, not all the ele ments that can nourish faith are necessarily eliminated from it, especially if the Consecration is valid, a possibility which nobody who knows his sacramental theology can deny.

However, given the weakness of human nature and so the risk of encouraging Catholics to go with the new and easy religion by the least word said in favour of its central rite of worship, why say a word in favour of any feature of the Newchurch? For at least two reasons. Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement, and firstly to ward off what is coming to be called “ecclesiavacantism,” namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever. In theory the Newchurch is pure rot, but in practice that rot could not exist without something not yet rotted still being there to be rotted. Every parasite needs a host. Also, had this particular host, the true Church, completely disappeared, would not the gates of Hell have prevailed against it? Impossible (Mt.XVI, 18).

Kyrie eleison.

Well done. This needed to be said. A bishop of the Church need not pander to the horde, but His Excellency's words in Connecticutt had many up in arms.

I personally never disagreed with his position in an academic sense. I just believe that the context in which it was said was COMPLETELY inappropriate.

A traditional catholic bishop telling someone at a traditional Catholic conference, after a Traditional Latin Mass, in a room full of traditional catholics that one must "do whatever nourishes their faith" in regards to attendance at the new mass, is just asking for trouble.

As the Bishop said in the Comments, the obligation of avoiding the new mass is proportional to their knowledge of how bad it is.  

I saw this posted on other forums and thought it would be interesting to share what one R&R priest has to say:

Letter from Fr. Altamira to Bishop Faure

 
 Dear Bishop Faure (cc. Bp. Williamson), dear Fathers,

 Permit me to speak frankly to you: it seems to me that we are not showing ourselves to be honest, either with ourselves or with the faithful.

 We are doing what Bishop Fellay does and we will provoke the same consequences. In the current situation of the crisis in the Church and the “crisis in the Resistance”, there is not a lot left and what is left is ill.

 What’s more, our comrades who are still in the SSPX (priests and brothers), seeing the way we are, will never join us. One of them said: if we do do something (against Bishop Fellay), we won’t come over to the Resistance.

 Bishop Fellay and his group continue and will continue to laugh at us. The fact that we are the way we are is the best thing that could have happened to him.

 On the subject of Bishop Williamson:

 Some (four) have tried to defend Bishop Williamson and his words about the New Mass (USA, Eleison Comments, etc).

 I have the impression that we are not showing ourselves to be honest: if Bishop Fellay had said those things, we would have criticised him roundly. But it’s Bishop Williamson who said them: “So let’s not say anything, we have to defend him.” Please excuse me if I speak frankly, but what we’re doing is shameful, we’re the laughing stock of the world.

 Bishop Faure defends Bishop Williamson with insistence (in his declarations on his trip to Mexico, in emails, etc.)

 Bishop Faure affirms that there is no error in the Eleison Comments, which is debatable.

 It is more serious if one takes into consideration the words of Bishop Williamson in the USA (if anyone wants to listen to it again, here’s the link. I don’t approve of the mocking style, but the information is exact. ) I will merely remark that, from a moral point of view, what Bishop Williamson said to this lady is unacceptable.

 Even more serious if one takes equally into consideration the other information concerning Boshop Williamson (the “nαzι” business, the reintegration into the apostolate of Fr. X, his words to several priests of the SSPX, etc.

 Another argument of Bishop Faure to try to defend Bishop Williamson’s miracles in the New Mass is the fact that God can work outside the Catholic Church, and that God has made miracles among certain sacrileges.

 But that’s a sophism since, if God permits a miracle, for example, in a false religion, from all evidence it doesn’t serve as a guarantee of what is false or evil, but will be against all that.

 The same goes for a miracle in the case of a sacrilege, with hosts, it is always against the sacrilege, never in its favour.

 However, the “miracles” put forth by Bishop Williamson clearly favour the new Mass, including the “fruits”: thus, the “great” national sanctuary in Poland… at the service of the false religion of the Council.

 Dear colleagues: I believe that it is time to cease trying to look for arguments to defend what is indefensible. Otherwise, we could incur a divine curse. “The Eleison Comments and declarations in the USA are only ambiguous”: isn’t that funny: that’s exactly what Bishop Fellay does.

 Dom Tomas said more or less the same thing to defend Bishop Williamson.

 Fr. Cardozo has already written two articles against this subject of so-called miracles of the New Mass.

 And that’s without even getting to the subject of the risk of invalidity of the modern episcopacy and priesthood. On this subject, and quite logically, Bishop Williamson endorses the thesis of their validity.

 And all this without forgetting the other problems which we have (re-read the letter “The same causes will produce the same effects”).

I imagine that you have already seen the abberant video of Francis about his intention for 2016 and the different religions:

 www.youtube.com/user/vaticanfr

 Faced with the scandals and heresies of Francis:

 1. Surrendering to False Rome. Bp. Fellay: I’m going to Rome. Bp. Williamson: I’m going to Rome. Bishop Faure: I’m going to Rome.

 2. Agreement. Bp. Fellay: I want an agreement. Bp. Williamson: A canonical regularisation or a juridical status would be desirable, of course. Bp. Faure:…?

3. Francis. We criticise Bp. Fellay because, publicly, he doesn’t say anything, or almost, about Francis. Bp. Williamson: same thing. Bp. Faure: same thing.

4. We deny the theological and factual possibility of sedevacantism. And this, against good theology which speaks of the possibility. And we evoke the possibility of making sermons against sedevacantism, which is absurd: you can’t make sermons against facts which are possible.
 
 5. Fr. Altamira is a sedevacantist. That’s not true: I pray for Francis, sub conditione. But I do not exclude nor put to one side colleagues who refuse to do so, be they in France or Spanish-speaking America. And even less so after such a video.

 Dear colleagues: Permit me to share with you my opinion, in all simplicity: we need to change course. We are acting like Bp. Fellay and his group. He will destroy the SSPX. And we, we are doing the same to the Resistance, almost before it has been born (and the same goes for the USML).

“The interests of the group are more important than the truth, the priests of the Resistance qho refuse are put to one side, isolated, marginalised, they find themselves alone.”

If we continue to act thus, the risk is great that God will leave us and that withdraw his blessing. Pray God that some of you decide to act in the face of this situation, to resolve it. I fraternally greet you in Jesus and Mary (Sunday 10th January)



 Fr. Altamira

Page 6 of spiritual journey, it's foundation was an imposture inspired by Hell for the destruction of the Catholic religion, of it's Magisterium, of it's priesthood, and of the sacrifice of our Lord.

The words of the Archbishop speaking of the conciliar church.

His position is the same has it has always been; be critical but stay inside the structure that feeds you. The quintessential maverick! Only expulsion ends this state of affairs and shakes his feelings of indispensability. But what new structure or movement does he now occupy to continue playing the role of maverick? Why, the resistance, of course, where he can institute enemies to his right and to his left and make him appear so moderate and reasonable to seekers of saintly high priests.

To the left are old familiar enemies within the organisation to which he still thinks he belongs  ......  and to whose company he would gladly return if they would have him. (Like the SSPX and Rome). To the right are hardliners whose dynamism he has a natural urge to control. This is the same model that ABL settled on for himself. The essence of pure R & R .... and a formula that pleased (and corralled) a large part of the remnant.

The topical issue of attending Novus Ordo services (and by extension SSPX Masses) demonstrates this strategy of 'moderation'. Make an industry out of discouraging folks from going to mainstream churches, yet leave the possibility open that the new order may still be a road to salvation. We are here riding on the bishop's oft remark that "I could be wrong" which leaves the faithful in a more confused state than ever. Do we want to endure a regime of such doubt and uncertainty in order to bolster the importance of career mavericks in our midst?    

     

If the situation is confusing and complex, we have to endure it and recognize it for what it is.  That's the reality.  Distorting the reality in order to simplify things is just living a lie.  

There is a failure to understand the craftiness of the conciliar crisis.  It is not a matter of doctrinal substance.  There are policies, not teachings at work that undermine the peoples' practice of the faith.  

A liturgy from the year 120 AD would be hardly suitable for protecting Catholics from the onslaught of today despite the fact that it would be 100% Catholic.  People raised exclusively on the TLM would be horrified by the innovation and ad hoc piecing of the liturgy together as they go.  

But Christians of that time were sustained and nurtured in their faith, probably to a greater extent than trads of today are.   Of course the persecutions helped.  

So, maybe the Novus Ordo is just God's way of allowing a persecution to come about in order to wake up the Church that had grown content and took the TLM liturgy for granted.  

The Novus Ordo could be God's way of "thinning the herd" of the lukewarm.  Those who make no effort will gain no reward and those that do make an effort in the sad circuмstances of the Novus Ordo will get help in this life with helps from Tradition or they will get their reward in Heaven for persevering through a very rough terrain to find the narrow path.  

Does anyone know someone who came from the Novus Ordo to tradition?  

Does anyone know someone who came from the Novus Ordo to tradition?  

Haven't we all?

Just sayin' - St. Pius X condemned Modernism.  This "New Mass" is the devil's attack against Christ Himself - Modernism's trophy, weapon, temporary victory.  It should not even exist. It has been condemned.  The Church never has "two Masses" running concurrently - !

Death to the Novus Ordo.