Eleison Comments by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson  
Number CDXXXVII (437)
 
 November 28, 2015
 
 
Novus Ordo Missae – II
The eucharistic miracles are where
God shows that He Himself is truly there.

Facts are stubborn — as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research: . But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008 (e.g. jloughnan.tripod.com/sokolka.htm). And a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic.

But how is that possible? Traditional Catholics absorb with their mother’s milk that the new rite of Mass (NOM) is an abomination in the eyes of God, and has helped to make countless Catholics lose the Faith. This is because the NOM, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church, whom regular attendance at the Protestantised rite has turned into virtual Protestants. Most Traditional Catholics should be familiar with the serious doctrinal problems of this new rite, designed to diminish the essential Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence, the propitiatory Sacrifice and the sacrificing priesthood, amongst others. Then how can God work with it eucharistic miracles such as have made of Sokólka a national centre of pilgrimage for all Poland?

Doctrinally, the NOM is ambiguous, poised between the religion of God and the Conciliar religion of man. Now in matters of faith, ambiguity is deadly, being normally designed to undermine the Faith, as the NOM frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the NOM does not absolutely exclude the old religion. Thus by a devout priest its ambiguities can all be turned in the old direction. That does not make the NOM acceptable as such, because its intrinsic ambiguity still favours the new direction, but it does mean for instance that the Consecration can still be valid, as Archbishop Lefebvre never denied. Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either. In brief, the NOM as such is bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts.

Now let us imagine, with the utmost respect, how Almighty God stands towards the new rite of Mass. On the one hand God loves his Church like the apple of His eye, and will preserve it to the end of the world (Mt. XVI, 18). On the other hand He has chosen to entrust its government to human and fallible churchmen, whom He will guide, but to whose free-will He evidently grants a remarkable degree of free play to govern it well or badly, starting with the betrayal of His own Son. Now in modern times the Revolution, be it Jєωιѕн, Masonic, communist or globalist, finds its main adversary in His Church, and it has worked especially on the Church’s leaders to make the Church collapse. Their most terrible success was Vatican II and its NOM, which were surely much more the fault of the shepherds than of the sheep. “The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it,” said St John Fisher at a parallel moment in the Reformation. Then how will God look after His sheep, many of whom – not all – are relatively innocent of the Conciliar betrayal?

After Vatican II, some priests and laity had the grace to see immediately what a betrayal it was, and within a few years the Traditional movement was under way. To other sheep God gave the grace to see it later. But can we not all admit that there are many good Catholics who trusted their bishops, as good Catholics normally should do? And did not these bishops insist on the lie that the NOM was no different from the true Mass? What specified Vatican II and the NOM was precisely the officialisation of the modernist heresy within the Church. So does it not make sense that in punishment of their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward of their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass? But the Church’s future depends on the souls that understand the Revolution and utterly repudiate all ambiguities of Vatican II and the NOM.

Kyrie eleison.
 
 

With Pope Francis making a big push of late to belabor the intransient Traditionalists, esp. trad priests, and calling them neurotic, it plays right up his alley to having these "miracle" hosts happening all over.  Any of it can be a ruse, made up.  And never mind the novus ordo validity - what about the priests' ordinations being questionable?  It puts that out to pasture conveniently, too.  So if our trad. sacraments are carefully guarded and executed using proper form and matter, what does all this mean for the new church sacraments - where almost any form and any matter goes?  It does not seem plausible.  The modernists are determined to "break" the remnant of traditionalist in this world.  And even if these miracles are true, or are a trick, they do not remove us from our obligation to stay licit within the orthodoxy of Tradition.  The new church is condemned by Pius X.  

"Even if an angel from Heaven ..."  !    

What point is he trying to make in this EC?

Probably that I need not have run away from novus ordo, and alienated relatives and friends, being seen as an oddball and throwback, guilty of criticising the 'new mass'  their doubtful communions, and a whole host of other sins to add to my already overflowing burden.

Yes, how unwise it is to trust anyone, these days. Duplicity seems to be endemic among prelates and priests.

Far from returning to the mainstream to witness their grotesque rituals, I would sooner go fishing on a Sunday!

On the other hand He has chosen to entrust its government to human and fallible churchmen, whom He will guide, but to whose free-will He evidently grants a remarkable degree of free play to govern it well or badly, starting with the betrayal of His own Son.

God "evidently" grants nothing of the sort.  As per usual, this completely skirts around the question of whether the Church's MAGISTERIUM can fail the way it allegedly has and whether the Church's UNIVERSAL DISCIPLINE can fail the way it allegedly has.  Catholic theologians all agree that this cannot happen.  We've always had bad "churchmen" and bad popes who have governed badly.  We have never had nor can we ever have a pope who can use the Magisterium and the authority to impose Universal Discipline in order to actively corrupt the faith and morals of the Church.  If everything is simply a matter of ambiguities, then we need simply apply the hermeneutic of continuity in order to resolve the ambiguity in favor of Tradition (as +Fellay continues to propose) and we move along.  Then there's absolutely no reason to have a canonical rupture with the Holy See.  With this characterization regarding ambiguity, +Williamson completely shoots himself in the foot with regard to his dispute with +Fellay.

Is he drawing theological conclusions based on alleged miracles or has he already drawn these conclusions and the miracles support them?

I always thought that like baptism is hit or miss among Protestants, Consecration is hit or miss among NO. I was unaware that so many believe it is flat out invalid. That seems too black and white i.e. too easy to me. All the grey area is what always stuck me as the most diabolical of the whole Crisis. I just don't see that Satan ever works in clear cut lines.

Personally I probably wouldn't follow any of the miracles but I see how some of them could be legitimate and there are many NO for whom perhaps this is their saving grace. We hear of all the horrible abuses but there are many good, well-intentioned priests who are doing their best and people who simply don't know better. My NO grandmother prays two or three times as many Rosaries a day as probably most people here. Am I to assume God has completely abandoned her? That would fly in the face of all the promises of His Mother. That does not mean anything directly about the miracles but it does open my mind a bit about how God still works among the NO. Many receive grace and are saved in spite of the danger of the NO.

stgobnait, none of this would take away your duty to fly the NO once you knew of its danger. To some God has given this grace and our salvation depends on our cooperation with it. "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."

 

Quote from: J.Paul

This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.

Wessex, let us go fishing.......................

If +W is here "mitigating (the conciliar crisis) through subjectivism and speculations," then he is doing precisely what he has criticized others of having done in the past.

Not only that, but if he's reducing everything to mere ambiguities, which he claims a "devout priest" can readily disambiguate in order to make it in line with Tradition, then he has every obligation to apply this hermeneutic of continuity to these ambiguities and to REMAIN WITHIN THE CHURCH.  With this EC he sounds like an apologist for the +Fellay position, which is precisely that.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: J.Paul

This is beginning to show the doctrinal weakness of the Lefevbre bishops. Two are hiding from the conciliar crisis, and the other two are mitigating it through subjectivism and speculations, and the sedevacantist children are firm teachers of salvation outside of the Church and sacraments. All and all, the final report is discouraging at best.

Wessex, let us go fishing.......................

If +W is here "mitigating (the conciliar crisis) through subjectivism and speculations," then he is doing precisely what he has criticized others of having done in the past.

Not only that, but if he's reducing everything to mere ambiguities, which he claims a "devout priest" can readily disambiguate in order to make it in line with Tradition, then he has every obligation to apply this hermeneutic of continuity to these ambiguities and to REMAIN WITHIN THE CHURCH.  With this EC he sounds like an apologist for the +Fellay position, which is precisely that.

I can't tell if it is you or me Ladislaus but I can't make sense of your position. How does understanding the ambiguities make one obligated to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to them? Why can't he be obligated to fight them? If a priest is devout yet doesn't fully grasp the problems with the NO as a whole, then he, yes, would be obliged to apply the hermeneutic of continuity. That in a way is his personal proof of goodwill. But if a priest, or bishop in this case, grasps the entirety of the problem, then his obligation shifts to one more serious which is actively to fight such ambiguities and give everything for them to be clarified and restated in light of tradition.

Also doesn't +Williamson already consider himself within the Church? Isn't it +Fellay who has begun to speak as though the SSPX is outside and needs to be brought back in? I don't understand the capitalized phrase. I have the impression it is supposed to be in opposition of +Williamson's position but it isn't so I am confused.
 

I think Ladislaus means that if there are only "ambiguities" and no positive errors in the theology of the New Mass than there is no justification for breaking communion with the Holy See over this issue (same with Vatican II). The fact that +Williamson considers himself to be within the Church is irrelevant, since he is not in canonical submission to the man who - according to him - is the Roman Pontiff.