Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on December 17, 2016, 08:46:35 AM
-
Number CDXCII (492)
Distinguish, Discriminate
When all is truth, I cannot pick and choose,
But lies mixed in with truth I must refuse.
If the evidence, apparently serious, for Eucharistic miracles taking place within the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) is to be believed – and such miracles may even be happening frequently, one of the latest seeming to come from Legnica, also in Poland (see here) on Christmas Day of 2013 – then indeed some of us may need to do some rethinking. Here is how one reader put it: “God cannot contradict himself, so his miracles cannot contradict his Church’s teaching. But the NOM does depart from essential Catholic doctrine on the Mass. Therefore either the miracles are false or the NOM is from God, in which case what is the justification for Traditionalists clinging to Tradition? For if the NOM at the heart of the Newchurch is confirmed by miracles, then the Newchurch is also confirmed by God, and the Newpopes, and I have to obey them. I cannot pick and choose, can I?” Yes, you can, and not only you can, but you must, in order to fulfil your absolute duty to keep the Faith.
That is because another name for what you call “picking and choosing” is “distinguishing.” All of us need to distinguish all day long. That is common sense, and that is what St Thomas Aquinas does from beginning to end of his miraculous Summa Theologiae. Let us take a closer look at our friend’s argument.
The basic bone of contention is the NOM. The NOM is a rite of Mass, a book of hundreds if not a thousand pages, containing many things. From a Catholic standpoint the rite as a whole is unquestionably bad, because it radically changes the concept of the Mass from being a propitiatory sacrifice centred on God to being a community meal centred on man. As such, since most Catholics live their religion by attending Mass, then when its concept changes, their religion in effect changes. That is why the NOM is the principal destroyer of the t rue Church, and the main engine of the Newchurch. That is why the NOM as a whole is not only bad, but very bad indeed.
But that does not mean that all its parts, as parts, are bad. As parts, some are still Catholic because they had to be, in order to deceive the mass of priests when the NOM was introduced in 1969, that it was not essentially different from the Tridentine rite of Mass, especially in the Consecration. Otherwise they would have refused it, and it could not have done its work of destroying the Church. So the NOM is, as to its parts, part good and part bad, while as a whole, it is ambiguous, treacherous, a crooked piece of work.
However, as for men, “to the pure all things are pure” ( Titus I, 15), and so to inn ocent souls not yet aware of its intrinsic danger for the Faith, it can by its Consecration and good parts, still give grace and spiritual nourishment, especially when these are less strangled by a priest making the ambiguities as Catholic as possible. And as for God, he “writes straight with crooked lines,” says the proverb, and so the bad parts of the NOM need not stop him from working miracles with the Catholic parts to nourish the innocent and to warn the guilty.
Therefore on the one hand the NOM as a whole is very bad, and Traditionalists are absolutely necessary to the Church to witness to its badness, and to make available a true Mass for when souls wake up to the NOM’s badness, as they do at different times and different speeds, so that such souls can keep the Faith and last out the crisis. On the other hand the NOM is in parts still good enough to nourish innocent souls and to enable God to work miracles, also for souls’ nourishment or for their warning. God is not thereby confirming either the NOM as a whole, or the Newchurch as a whole, or the Newpopes as a whole, but he is relying on me to use my brain and the Faith which he gave me to discern good from bad. He wants no mindless robots in his glorious Heaven!
Kyrie eleison.
-
Unfortunately there are plenty of men today whose minds are mush, who seem to have lost the ability to make distinctions at all. Sad.
It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that most "bad" things have good elements in them. The Novus Ordo is only bad taken as a whole -- the new priesthood (with its worldly training), the congregation that surrounds you, the protestant ambiance (which is often borderline iconoclastic towards beauty and images) the ambiguities, the novelties, the abuses, the poor translations, the many SINS OF OMISSION (for example, downplaying the sacrificial aspect, almost never mentioning the poor souls or purgatory, or the Blessed Virgin Mary)
Bonum ex integra causa
Malum ex quocuмque defectu
A thing is good if ALL of its parts are good.
A thing is evil if it has ANY defect.
If the Novus Ordo had nothing Catholic in it, then who would They have managed to deceive? That is a very good question.
Instead, they plod along on their path of attacking Bishop Williamson constantly and ruthlessly, out of a misplaced loyalty to a given priest (Fr. Pfeiffer) or a given position (sedevacantism, home aloneism).
For those who think we shouldn't make any distinctions -- Just remember, many Novus Ordo priests pray the Rosary and worship Jesus Christ as well. Shall we toss out that baby along with the foul Novus Ordo bathwater? That is to say, shall we stop doing EVERYTHING the Novus Ordo priests do, because we assume they are pure evil?
-
This is THE MASS we are talking about. Is it not supposed to be ALL GOOD?
Some people don't seem to be Catholic enough to know when ABSOLUTES are required - as with the True Mass. Quo Primum and its Missale Romanum are the absolutes with the Mass. What do you think Pius V efforts and concerns were?? Read the docuмent.
Otherwise - why are we traditional? And why are you people who are soft on the Novus Ordo traditional? Go on though - go to it since you are eager to find some that are "alright" to attend. It is condemned by Pius X as Modernism, it is illegal by Quo Primum. But go on - and let Our Lord have some bathwater.
Make Our Lady proud.
-
This is THE MASS we are talking about. Is it not supposed to be ALL GOOD?
Some people don't seem to be Catholic enough to know when ABSOLUTES are required - like with the True Mass. Quo Primum and its Missale Romanum are the absolutes with the Mass.
Otherwise - why are we traditional? Why are you people who are soft on the Novus Ordo traditional? Go on though - go to it since you are eager to find some that are "alright" to attend. It is condemned by Pius X as Modernism, it is illegal by Quo Primum. But go on - and let Our Lord have some bathwater.
Make Our Lady proud.
Bonum ex integra causa
Malum ex quocuмque defectu
A thing is good if ALL of its parts are good.
A thing is evil if it has ANY defect.
The Novus Ordo is defective, and thus one SHOULDN'T attend it. But some people are in unique circuмstances, or they are simple and don't understand the Crisis. NOTE: All Traditional Catholics can forget about that loophole. We all know full well how damaging the Novus Ordo is for souls. We have been taught all about the dangers and defects of the Novus Ordo -- the famous "Leading Catholic Indicators" which are discussed here:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/statistics.htm
We can't claim ignorance. That is why Bishop Williamson or any other good SSPX priest doesn't give TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS the advice to attend the Novus Ordo Mass.
I'll go a step further. We need to WAKE UP as many of those slumbering Novus Ordo Catholics as possible. Because "God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, NATURE NEVER FORGIVES." When you place yourself in a worldly, Modernist milieu, you have a 99% chance of losing the Faith. Just like if you try to swim across the Mississippi River, you will likely drown. It's the inescapable law of nature.
Oh yes, Bishop Williamson has been talking theoretically about acknowledging miracles that took place in the Novus Ordo, and he gave some very public advice to an older, emotional woman -- who was certainly no Thomas Aquinas, to be charitable -- that she could attend the Novus Ordo. But A) she wasn't a Trad and B) she was obviously inclined to go, or she wouldn't have asked him for "permission".
When a priest is asked for permission to go to the Novus Ordo, that is a clear sign the person isn't a Trad to begin with, and therefore doesn't "get it". The priest will believe that for them, it's better to keep the Faith AT ALL COSTS than to adhere to some "zero tolerance" policy on the N.O.M. and have them lose the Faith. After all, if they're asking to attend the Novus Ordo, they are clearly weak, needy and desperate (like a starving person reaching for a rat, and asking if he can eat it FUR AND ALL without cooking it first)
Which is more important: the Mass, or the Faith?
Answer: the Faith. The Mass exists for the Faith, and not the Faith for the Mass.
-
We are all Trads, and none of us LIKE the Novus Ordo. Most of us would choose to stay home rather than attend it (myself included).
But which of us can truly say what God thinks of the Novus Ordo Mass -- or even speak with 100% certainty about its validity? No one.
Sure, we need to avoid it -- but that doesn't mean we can pontificate about the specifics of how bad it is, or in what circuмstances.
All we know with THAT kind of certainty is that:
1. The Catholic Faith is the one true religion, founded by God Himself.
2. We must each save our eternal souls, crisis or no crisis.
3. The Catholic Mass is the largest source of grace there is -- being the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself.
4. The Tridentine Mass has been canonized as good and holy FOR ALL TIME and can always be used by both priests and faithful without scruple.
5. The Novus Ordo Mass -- even the official promulgated version, in Latin -- has clear defects and problems, and is therefore DOUBTFUL.
6. If that weren't enough, we have the evidence of 50 years of APOSTASY (there is no other accurate word for it) by the mass of Catholics who went along with the Novus Ordo Mass.
7. Our Lord taught, "By their fruits you shall know them."
8. Catholic theology teaches that one may never choose a doubtful means over a certain means.
That is my line of reasoning why I will never attend the Novus Ordo, no matter what.
I am plenty hard on the Novus Ordo, but for all the RIGHT reasons. Not because they have cooties, or because they don't make me FEEL right. Nor do I refrain because my cult leader tells me to, or out of peer pressure from other Trads.
So let's remember our priorities, and keep sight of the big picture.
-
Otherwise - why are we traditional? And why are you people who are soft on the Novus Ordo traditional?
A great number of people are "traditional" simply because they like the "smells and bells of the traditional liturgies. They are not "traditional" because they think the Catholic Faith is immutable.
-
I am not "soft" on the Novus Ordo.
As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "It is proper to the wise man to distinguish."
So, to use St. Thomas Aquinas' favorite phrase, "Distinguo." (I distinguish.)
Apparently you are not capable of distinguishing.
Ergo...
-
That is why the NOM as a whole is not only bad, but very bad indeed.
But that does not mean that all its parts, as parts, are bad.
Very bad! with good parts? Good parts are entirely irrelevant in a matter of the supreme sacrament. Anything which can be classified as very bad surrounding it should be avoided and rejected in accordance with Catholic teaching.
Two obvious points here, the Bishop in these Novus Ordo apologia, never factors into his speculations the definite question of priestly ordinations and bishops. They make such speculations even less supportable. And secondly, Distinquish and discriminate, what he is suggesting here is that theologically untrained faithful should rummage through the infamous poisoned cake and find some relatively untainted crumbs by which to nourish their souls.
Common sense and Catholic teaching tell you that to do so, is to place your soul and salvation in danger and to participate in a forbidden doubtful sacrament.
With the holy, thou wilt be holy; and with the innocent man thou wilt be innocent. [27] And with the elect thou wilt be elect: and with the perverse thou wilt be perverted.
-
If there's one criticism that could be leveled against the good Bishop it would be this:
There are far too many people with minds trained enough to grasp what he is saying -- who are able to avoid jumping to false conclusions about what he is saying.
JPaul is certainly not a stupid man (far from it), but even HE doesn't get it. It was his post that inspired me to write the above.
Bishop Williamson is a truth loving, wise philosopher in a world where most peoples minds barely function. CathInfo is better than most, but we're all still products of the modern world.
Eleison Comments like this one are going to go over the heads of about 99.9% of people in general, and at least 75% of Trads who are willing to listen to him!
I suppose he has to try to teach us. I don't know what I would do in his case. It must be extremely frustrating -- like trying to teach a man to walk again in physical therapy. Only the most patient need apply!
-
Merry
Some people don't seem to be Catholic enough to know when ABSOLUTES are required - as with the True Mass.
HE agrees with you............
+Williamson,
When all is truth, I cannot pick and choose,
But lies mixed in with truth I must refuse.
Would that had stopped there. :scratchchin:
We know by divine faith that the true Mass IS all truth, the other is not. Go no further!
-
I am not "soft" on the Novus Ordo.
As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "It is proper to the wise man to distinguish."
So, to use St. Thomas Aquinas' favorite phrase, "Distinguo." (I distinguish.)
Apparently you are not capable of distinguishing.
Ergo...
Duh. Again, the point being, the Mass is NOT something to "distinguish" about! For almost 400 years the Roman Rite had ONLY the Tridentine Latin Mass. THEN came in a interloper, a sacrilegious "competitor," a lawbreaker, an enemy to subvert and destroy. Never before seen were TWO concurrent Masses in this way. And we were told this new sinful thing was to replace the True Mass. We were to take it and like it, nay - love it! The Communist, Jєωιѕн, Masonic hierarchy was going to squelch the True Mass - and when we say True Mass, think: OUR LORD!! Kick Him in the Face with this insulting, rule-busting New Mass. This awful, unworthy "sacrifice." Separate Him from us once and for all, with this changing of the essential Mass. Enough of it was gone wrong to threaten what it takes for a sacrament to "happen" - attack and revise form and matter, first one way then another. Novelty on novelty was ok too. But even the basic, "conservative" Novus Ordo is RADICAL! Anyone with Catholic eyes to see can't miss that.
It seems that if a person is a convert, or was not born in, at the latest, the 50's, growing up with the Tridentine Mass in one's parish for years before the tsunami of the Vat. II new mass hit - that it too often seems one does not see the forest for the trees. Such a one has been used to integrated sacrilege, or compromise, or a non-pure, unorthodox existence. One is used to a world of "blend." Maybe there are cradle trads of the post-Vat II era who "get it right," and some other honest souls of integrity, who have been of correct good will vision about it all. But it surely is a shame and a wonder when Catholic sense and sacramental theology cannot be understood aright, especially by those who claim to have a personal, essential spiritual interest or RESPONSIBILITY to do so! The grace is there for them for the asking.
(And without this grace of God, there go I, and I still may not persevere. So pray for me.)
Sadly it seems, anyone who does not see the New Mass for what it is, does not really realize what the True Mass is - what Almighty God's Holy Sacrifice is.
Cain was rejected for less.
-
There seems to be a few Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo. In each case the host turned red and then they sent it to scientists and the scientists said the red part of the host seemed to be human flesh and blood. There seems to me to be several possibilities. First, the people involved are lying. Second, the miracles are deceptions of Satan meant to fool the elect. Third, they are true miracles from God. I myself believe they are either miracles from God or false miracles from Satan. We all know Satan is very powerful and can work wonders so just because something seems miraculous it doesn't mean it is from God. But it seems that Bishop Williamson is assuming that these wonders come from God.
-
What good to Tradition can possibly come from these ambivalent comments, Bishop Williamson?
I wonder why he is persisting in doing this, precisely in these times of intense confusion.
-
What good to Tradition can possibly come from these ambivalent comments, Bishop Williamson?
I wonder why he is persisting on doing this.
Indeed. The issue just stays sticky on his fingers and he just keeps playing with it. When I saw this EC title I thought, "Here we go again." He is not at peace.
So he comes back for another try and just keeps digging a deeper hole for himself.
-
How is it possible that a rite approved and put forward by the Roman Catholic Church is partially bad?. It cannot be. Either the rite itself is all good, or it is not Catholic rite at all. That means, in reality, the Church did not promulgate it nor does it use it. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that a rite approved by Holy Mother Church is intrinsically evil, invalid, or partially bad.
If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.
-
I'm probably one of the skulls full of mashed potatoes that don't get it 100%. I am trying.....
I feel the Bishop is trying to relay God's mercy ( a difficult task) for mankind to us, as we can't know the full extent of His Mystery , but we can only abide by the objective structure and doctrine that has been given us by our Lord through His Church. And that's good and we must abide by that. Traditionalists can't "unknow" what we have come to know" (some one told me that)
Those who "know" can't accept what is outright wrong and faith destroying..( the NO)
But I am reminded of the scripture of the workers that are paid the same whether they work all day or for but an hour, and the Lord pays them the same. There was a lot of grumbling going on about that. I would have grumbled, too. Maybe these NO attendees exposed to this "Miracle" ( if it is true) will actually find "work" in these last hours.
Possibly, God, "writing straight with crooked lines" with a NO Eucharistic miracle (which is OUTSIDE of what we can accept reasonably) is a first step in pulling the truly spiritually hungry NO Catholics into acknowledgement of Reality is and what the Church is supposed to be, and the how the True Sacrifice of the Mass must be a place of Worship and Adoration and not a hootananny or "feel good" effeminate "hour of power". Eventually these people may no longer tolerate the lack of honor and respect for what in that one instance was proof of Our Lord's Real Presence. Then the learning begins. It may be an instance of Grace that can prompt some of them to the Truth and how God wants to be worshippped properly. Some may eventually get to Tradition.
Isn't that how many of us have gotten to where we are right now? ( Not from a "Eucharistic Miracle", but from an eventual disgust at the irreverence and banality directed at what we assumed(Transubstantiation) was taking place? )
I'll keep mashing...
-
There seems to be a few Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo. In each case the host turned red and then they sent it to scientists and the scientists said the red part of the host seemed to be human flesh and blood. There seems to me to be several possibilities. First, the people involved are lying. Second, the miracles are deceptions of Satan meant to fool the elect. Third, they are true miracles from God. I myself believe they are either miracles from God or false miracles from Satan. We all know Satan is very powerful and can work wonders so just because something seems miraculous it doesn't mean it is from God. But it seems that Bishop Williamson is assuming that these wonders come from God.
If you have read Bishop Williamson's earlier comments on the Eucharistic miracles at N.O. churches, you will know that he assumed nothing. He did his due diligence, including researching the fruits of the miracles, which were consistent with other Eucharistic miracles: increased reception of the sacraments, increased attendance at daily Mass, etc.
Reading the comments, it is apparent that many, if not most, posters failed to actually read what the good Bishop wrote. Those are the ones who wrote the knee-jerk responses instead of struggling with the difficulty of trying to understand why God would perform a miracle in what most of us think of as a psuedo-sacrament and an offense to Him. Maybe He did it to humble the proud.
-
How can we explain Our Lady of Akita appearing to the deaf nun? This was in a N.O. chapel. There was no Latin Mass in Japan at that time. Maybe it was Our Lady's way of saying that they are her children too.
-
It is not my job, or your job, or +W's job to try to explain 'why' God has allowed this or that in the novus ordo, or to what degree it's still catholic. It's not 100% catholic, so it's anathema. End of story. Explaining what % of Catholicism is in the novus ordo is a discussion for theologians and philosophers, and even then, it's not worth much time. All this talk about miracles and 'partial good' is pointless, unless you're telling these people to STOP going, IMMEDIATELY, and come to tradition.
God works through all false religions to try to convert people. But they can't be saved in a false religion. They have to leave it. And this must be THE MESSAGE they receive about the Truth. Otherwise, we Catholics will be held accountable for only preaching part of the Faith.
It's apparent that +W enjoys theoretical theology. Nothing wrong with that. But if theory isn't balanced by action, or by practical advice, then it can lose its purpose, since ideas are meant to be put into action. I feel that +W is stuck in a theoretical debate with sedevecantists and modernists and his end conclusion might be years away.
-
Maybe that's not Our Lady.
0r maybe if it is Our Lady, maybe they don't tell all she said. Maybe she also said for this convent to get rid of the Novus Ordo, or to go where there are true priests and the True Mass.
With the Novus Ordo, remember that Anton LaVey, head of the Church of Satan in California, said that people should know that the changes in the Church came from the devil, just from what has happened to the Mass "and to the sisters"! These sisters are still Novus Ordo and dress accordingly.
We are bound by the Church's laws and rubrics as pertains the Holy Mass and our Catholic and sacramental life. Not a locution, a miracle or whatever in Japan or anywhere else -- Poland, for instance -- that is renegade in the Modernist Church. If you want the ok to go to the Novus Ordo, just go. Don't wait. Because the true. official Catholic Church will tell you that you can't, and will always tell you that you can't.
-
Anyhow, it's enough already. How many times have we had to endure an EC on the credibility of the Novus Ordo by H.E. Williamson? In all due respect, he should move on and quit trying to convince his readership of the value therein. Like Merry so rightly put it: If you want to go to the Novus Ordo, just go. Don't look for permission from the True Catholic Church to do so.
Given the number of people making comments like this one or worse, I'd say he should keep on the topic for quite some time.
-
Anyhow, it's enough already. How many times have we had to endure an EC on the credibility of the Novus Ordo by H.E. Williamson? In all due respect, he should move on and quit trying to convince his readership of the value therein. Like Merry so rightly put it: If you want to go to the Novus Ordo, just go. Don't look for permission from the True Catholic Church to do so.
I agree. I do not know why Bishop Williamson keeps doing this, especially now when the SSPX has sunk and when traditionalists more than ever need re-assurance that true Tradition is alive and well. Tradition is ineffectual if the NOM is still an option. I wonder if these very same comments were attributed to Bishop Fellay instead, then what would these Resisters say? It seems to me, there is a double standard here.
-
From Non Possumus blog (http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2015/07/sobre-una-palabras-recientes-de-mons.html):
-Minute 6:46 “There have been eucharistic miracles with the novus ordo mass”:
Here the critics implicitly claim that in the Novus Ordo (modern) mass cannot be some miracle. It is a logical fallacy: M. Miracles are made by the power of God to prove the truth or kindness of something . m.: The New Mass is bad. C.: Then, it cannot be any miracles in the new mass. About the minor I distinguish : the rite of the Mass celebrated according to the Novus Ordo is a bad thing, I grant; the new Mass validly celebrated, as in this mass is verified the Sacrament and exist Eucharistic Sacrifice is something equally bad, I deny it ; whereby the fallacy is destroyed.
An eventual miracle in the new mass validly celebrated would confirm, for example, the catholic doctrine about the real presence of Crist in the consecrated species, not the pretended kindness of the “bastard rite.”
Even more, the prophecy is an intellectual miracle. Caifas really prophesied, but not because God wanted to prove the moral kindness of Caifas through a miracle.
-Minute 8:56 “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one´s faith instead of losing it”:
The Bishop is answering to a crying woman that said attends both, the tridentine mass and the new mass. Bp. Williamson doesn't want to give a blunt response with the purpose of “not put out the smoldering wick” or “to break the broken reed”. That explain some inaccuracies, the use of the argument “ad hominem” and the central perspective in subjective aspects (concerning the conscience) of the answer.
An example between many: A Jєω, a freemason, or a protestant start going to the new mass of his parish: this is going to get him away from God always? The obvious answer is no, in fact all of us know cases of some traditionalists that at the beginning of their conversion to the Catholicism, they used to go to the new mass. A blameless catholic who objectively ignores that it’s always illicit to participate actively in the new mass, as can be the case of the person who made the question; always and necessarily he's going to suffer a damage of his faith for actively participating in that mass with the right intention and invincible ignorance? Obviously not.
-Minute 9:53 “Be very careful, be very careful with the Novus… stay away of the Novus Ordo, but exceptionally… if you´re watching and praying even there you may find the grace of God, if you do make use of it in order to sanctify your soul” [this part is missing: but exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you find the grace of God. If you do make use of it in order to sanctify your soul].
Like in the typical case of invincible ignorance. Do we need to maintain that God deny all graces in a new mass validly celebrated, when the Sacrement is verified and constitutes a truly Eucharistic Sacrifice?
-Minute 10:37 “Therefore, I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”:
Attending the subjective aspects or the conscience, what the Bishop says is correct, but not in the objective point of view. This is according to the traditional teaching of the Moral Theology, as it's proved the following quote of the Course of Moral Theology in the seminary (SSPX) of La Reja, Buenos Aires before the current crisis of the FSSPX [...]
-
A simple answer to all this is that the novus ordo can have a valid consecration, and provide communion/grace for the faithful BUT...it is not a mass.
Because it's not a mass, yet it pretends to be, it is a sacrilege and an awful offense against Almighty God. Ergo, though there could be Eucharistic miracles because Christ is truly present, this does NOT mean God is pleased with the 'service'. Those who realize that the NOM is wrong, IN ANY CAPACITY, should avoid it, no ifs, ands or buts.
We can't offend God because of human respect.
-
It's hard to agree/disagree with the "non possumus" article...the english translation is too jumbled.
-
When a priest is asked for permission to go to the Novus Ordo, that is a clear sign the person isn't a Trad to begin with, and therefore doesn't "get it". The priest will believe that for them, it's better to keep the Faith AT ALL COSTS than to adhere to some "zero tolerance" policy on the N.O.M. and have them lose the Faith.
Matthew- If the NOM causes one to lose the Faith, or at least adds to confusion, then wouldn't a 'zero tolerance' policy be good? Sorta like a person who goes into detox to get off heroine?
After all, if they're asking to attend the Novus Ordo, they are clearly weak, needy and desperate (like a starving person reaching for a rat, and asking if he can eat it FUR AND ALL without cooking it first)
If a starving person is asking for a poisoned apple to eat, you don't give them the poisoned apple.
Which is more important: the Mass, or the Faith?
Answer: the Faith. The Mass exists for the Faith, and not the Faith for the Mass.
The Faith is more important, which is why you tell the person to forgo the false, sacrilegious, pretend mass and find a good one. It's probable they are "weak, needy" BECAUSE OF the novus ordo, not because of the lack of it. Better to avoid the novus ordo than go it. No exceptions.
-
-Minute 10:37 “Therefore, I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”:
Attending the subjective aspects or the conscience, what the Bishop says is correct, but not in the objective point of view. This is according to the traditional teaching of the Moral Theology, as it's proved the following quote of the Course of Moral Theology in the seminary (SSPX) of La Reja, Buenos Aires before the current crisis of the FSSPX [...]
Thank you for this translation Cristera...
This is the whole premise of the bishop's argument, of which I agree...
If this means I'm guilty of "Hero worship," then throw me into the basket of "deplorables" with Matthew! I pity those who don't understand the bishop.
-
Then you, and the Bishop, have principles which are subjective. Yet, the N.O.M. is wrong, not subjectively (i.e. based on circuмstances), but it is wrong intrinsically (i.e. based on what it is, which is anti-catholic).
-
You can't say that there are "good parts" in the new mass. There are only "vestiges."
See the explanation of this in Father Gaudron's, Catechism of the Crisis in the Church (below)
• Isn't it true that the schismatic communities, or even the heretical communities, conserve some elements of sanctification?
It is true that the Protestants conserve Sacred Scripture (more or less altered), and that the Eastern schismatics conserve the Sacraments. But traditional theology did not designate these realities stolen from the Catholic Church as "elements of sanctification" or "elements of the Church," but rather as "vestiges" of the true religion.
• Is the replacement of the term "vestiges" by the term "elements of the Church" important?
This change of vocabulary is not innocent because the word vestiges expressed an important truth: the elements stolen from the Catholic Church by the separated communities by that very fact cease to be a living reality. They become "ruins."
Source: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2702
-
We are all Trads, and none of us LIKE the Novus Ordo. Most of us would choose to stay home rather than attend it (myself included).
But which of us can truly say what God thinks of the Novus Ordo Mass -- or even speak with 100% certainty about its validity? No one.
Sure, we need to avoid it -- but that doesn't mean we can pontificate about the specifics of how bad it is, or in what circuмstances.
All we know with THAT kind of certainty is that:
1. The Catholic Faith is the one true religion, founded by God Himself.
2. We must each save our eternal souls, crisis or no crisis.
3. The Catholic Mass is the largest source of grace there is -- being the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself.
4. The Tridentine Mass has been canonized as good and holy FOR ALL TIME and can always be used by both priests and faithful without scruple.
5. The Novus Ordo Mass -- even the official promulgated version, in Latin -- has clear defects and problems, and is therefore DOUBTFUL.
6. If that weren't enough, we have the evidence of 50 years of APOSTASY (there is no other accurate word for it) by the mass of Catholics who went along with the Novus Ordo Mass.
7. Our Lord taught, "By their fruits you shall know them."
8. Catholic theology teaches that one may never choose a doubtful means over a certain means.
That is my line of reasoning why I will never attend the Novus Ordo, no matter what.
I am plenty hard on the Novus Ordo, but for all the RIGHT reasons. Not because they have cooties, or because they don't make me FEEL right. Nor do I refrain because my cult leader tells me to, or out of peer pressure from other Trads.
So let's remember our priorities, and keep sight of the big picture.
:applause:
-
Anyhow, it's enough already. How many times have we had to endure an EC on the credibility of the Novus Ordo by H.E. Williamson? In all due respect, he should move on and quit trying to convince his readership of the value therein. Like Merry so rightly put it: If you want to go to the Novus Ordo, just go. Don't look for permission from the True Catholic Church to do so.
Two different issues are being confused here. You say "if you want to go to the N. O. just go." I would never, under any circuмstances (grandchild's First Communion, family wedding etc.) attend a N. O. service.
The other issue, which is not being addressed, is: what are we to think of these Eucharistic miracles and the appearance of Our Lady at Akita?
-
Matthew, you forgot Point 9, the most important and damning:
The novus ordo "represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent".
So says, Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci, etc who were TRAINED THEOLOGIANS.
+W is not a trained theologian. Ottaviani and Bacci were. I trust their opinion, especially when the facts support it. +W's opinion rests on emotion and sentimentality.
Point 10: The new mass is meant to REPLACE the True Mass, which is why it's not Catholic. It is meant to be revolutionary, to be a false mass, to be deficient. So say those who created it.
-
I got four dislikes for applauding Matthew. I do agree with him. Most people that I know, who attend the Novus Ordo don't know any better or those that do believe they can reform from within.
I just finished reading a biography about the foundress of the Religious Sisters of Charity. The anti Catholic enemy still attack them as they ran several Magdalen Asylums.
Our concern is have they kept the faith and are they as doctrinally solid as in the time of Mother Mary Aikenhead? The religious sister, who wrote the book is a chaplain of a school. Only ourselves as Trad Catholics would see the problem there. The school is probably Catholic in name only as most schools in Ireland now are.
The 'Catholic' in name only school in Ireland is now a place of learning lies. The APOSTASY outlined by Matthew in his answer. Obviously a Catholic school should never be a place for learning lies. Teachers, who are Novus Ordo and clued in and vaguely aware do try. The try and keep the pupils Catholic and propagate the faith but as the Bishop stated it begins in the home with the family.
So let's remember our priorities, and keep sight of the big picture.
Let us tradify them.
-
Let us tradify them.
John Grace, I agree with this 1000%. The problem is, I question whether +W believes this. If one cannot save his soul in the V2 church, then we must warn this person of their spiritual danger. +W keeps preaching as if one CAN be saved being a novus ordo catholic. By this logic, then our motivation for 'tradifying' them is low or nonexistent. Don't you see a problem with +W's thinking?
I cannot agree with Matthew on this, his main point:
But which of us can truly say what God thinks of the Novus Ordo Mass -- or even speak with 100% certainty about its validity? No one.
Sure, we need to avoid it -- but that doesn't mean we can pontificate about the specifics of how bad it is, or in what circuмstances.
We can say, after 50 years of evidence, with absolute certainty, that the novus ordo is anti-catholic in nature, it is heretically ecuмenical in purpose, and freemasonic in origin. It is illicit, it is highly doubtful in validity and sacrilegously immoral. We have 50 years of 'bad fruits', 50 years of quotes from modern theologians, and freemasons, and modernist clerics - who admit to its 'new' catholicism, and 50 years of critique by trained theologians, priests and laymen. All this points to one conclusion - it is not catholic, ergo you cannot go, under any circuмstances.
-
PV:
John Grace, I agree with this 1000%. The problem is, I question whether +W believes this. If one cannot save his soul in the V2 church, then we must warn this person of their spiritual danger. +W keeps preaching as if one CAN be saved being a novus ordo catholic. By this logic, then our motivation for 'tradifying' them is low or nonexistent. Don't you see a problem with +W's thinking?
Why do some feel compelled to take a giant leap from the recognition of Eucharistic miracles in the NO to a mistaken conclusion that +W teaches that one may be saved in the NO? I don't see this in his ECs. It is quite possible that some or many will be saved within the NO. And who is anyone prove differently, or to assert with absolute authority that Catholics in the NO will not be saved?
-
Quote:
But which of us can truly say what God thinks of the Novus Ordo Mass -- or even speak with 100% certainty about its validity? No one.
Sure, we need to avoid it -- but that doesn't mean we can pontificate about the specifics of how bad it is, or in what circuмstances.
We know what God thinks about it by what the Church teaches and by what the
Church has condemned and those things we can know with the certainty of Faith.
We need not pontificate when we can simply judge it by what the Church teaches and the irrefutable evidence of the damage it has cause to Christ's Church and His Faithful.
Circuмstances never alter objective truths or facts. The only thing that they can change is men's subjective perception of them, as has been the case here.
-
Cera,
The other issue, which is not being addressed, is: what are we to think of these Eucharistic miracles and the appearance of Our Lady at Akita?
Have they been approved by the Catholic Church? If not, we think nothing of them until they are.
-
When all is truth, I cannot pick and choose,
But lies mixed in with truth I must refuse.
Amen.
It seems Novus Ordites think obedience is doing what you don't like, but obedience is doing the will of a superior in truth, not in truth or in falsity indifferently. Indifferentism (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm#par13) (e.g., religious indifferentism) is one of the greatest errors of Modernism. Indifferentism is lukewarmness enshrined as Modernist "dogma," and something Christ rightfully vomits out of His Mystical Body.
-
Most people that I know, who attend the Novus Ordo don't know any better or those that do believe they can reform from within.
My experience has been different. I have come to the conclusion that most people who attend the Novus Ordo would NOT attend the Tridentine Latin Mass instead, even if they knew better. They choose to remain in the NOM. Most are simply too content with the emerging liberal ideas which allow them to soften or put away altogether the perceived "negative" parts of the Catholic Faith (Hell, punishment for sin, penance, women in the home, no contraception, marriage until death etc.). They feel uncomfortable with the "rigorism" of the "old, retrograde" ideas. They even love the changes emerging from Vatican II and think the Church have actually evolved for the better. Vatican II would have never have happened if Catholics in mass would have actually had the Faith back then and had been willing to die for it. But they were already soft and pusilanime, completely liberalized, indoctrinated with Modernism, enchanted by the new liberal ways of the world.
I think that any Catholic with good sense would feel an intense, increasing repulsion towards the Novus Ordo, and would feel deep down inside that there is something really wrong there. It is Catholic common sense. Those who choose to stay today, it is most likely because they are really Protestants in heart.
-
Why do some feel compelled to take a giant leap from the recognition of Eucharistic miracles in the NO to a mistaken conclusion that +W teaches that one may be saved in the NO? I don't see this in his ECs. It is quite possible that some or many will be saved within the NO. And who is anyone prove differently, or to assert with absolute authority that Catholics in the NO will not be saved?
+W implies that those in the NO can be saved when he says that God can 'nourish innocent souls'. Well, for how long can they remain ignorant? It's been 50 years. Why is +W defending them? From whom is he defending them? I don't condemn them, I don't hate them, but the facts show that they are in danger, whether 'innocent' or not. Can one be saved in the NO? Maybe. Maybe not.
Is an 'innocent' unbaptized newborn in danger of missing heaven if they die unbaptized? Yes. Am I wrong for saying so? No, I'm being merciful for explaining their danger.
Objectively, the V2 church is in error. Objectively, the NOM is not a mass. Objectively, those who die in error and without the mass will lose their souls. As +W told us, this is how we "use our brains" - to apply Thomistic, scholastic logic to the confusing times at hand.
Now...subjectively, some will be saved in the V2 church. But...this is God's realm, as He can read all hearts, and knows the ignorance, laziness and culpability of everyone. He is the only one who can judge this realm. Not you, not me, not +W.
So, we must preach the hard, Catholic truths. Those in the V2 church are in danger of damnation. We must TEACH them, we must PREACH to them, we must WARN them of their errors. We cannot argue that this or that miracle, or this or that 'pious' new-priest is ok to follow. For this minimizes the error they are in and does not help them to LEARN.
Ignorance is a punishment for sin; it is not a one-way ticket to heaven. Ignorance does not save, for we all have the DUTY to know our Faith and to grow in the Truth. If one is ignorant of the spiritual danger they are in, objectively, they must change in order to be saved. It is our duty to help them, as did the missionaries of old. We should not be condoning their dangerous situation by saying they are 'sweet, innocent, pious' catholics whom God loves and won't punish because it's "not their fault" they grew up in the V2 church. No, they must reject the V2 errors and false mass and they must hold to the FULL faith and ALL the commandments in order to be saved. Anything less than this puts their salvation in danger. As it does for all of us.
-
Matthew, you have allowed your hero worship of +Williamson to cloud your mind. What a pity ....
I'd respond to your "argument" but it's nothing more than ad-hominem name calling.
And 8 thumbs up...wow... I'm quite disappointed in my CathInfo readership. Have they learned nothing from all the wise members as well as articles/material reposted on this forum?
For Domitilla and the rest of the "mob" who think her post is the most appropriate "response" to my posts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
But I understand. You are emotional, and your argument is so weak that you can't attack the substance of the debate. You can only attack the messenger, throw out sedevacantist propaganda, resort to emotional jingoism, and so forth.
-
Most people that I know, who attend the Novus Ordo don't know any better or those that do believe they can reform from within.
My experience has been different. I have come to the conclusion that most people who attend the Novus Ordo would NOT attend the Tridentine Latin Mass instead, even if they knew better. They choose to remain in the NOM. Most are simply too content with the emerging liberal ideas which allow them to soften or put away altogether the perceived "negative" parts of the Catholic Faith (Hell, punishment for sin, penance, women in the home, no contraception, marriage until death etc.).
I, and probably Bishop Williamson, would class these persons as "casualties" of the Novus Ordo system. These are they who have lost the Faith. The dead, the casualties.
However, this does not describe 100% of those attending the Novus Ordo, so your argument is invalid.
-
Again I ask:
Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances, the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?
I'm waiting for a show of hands, as well as details of the alleged apparition(s).
I'm thinking some humility is in order, with regards to those in a different situation, who disagree with us, who aren't "us", etc.
-
Again I ask:
Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances, the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?
I'm waiting for a show of hands, as well as details of the alleged apparition(s).
I'd be happy to.
Once you show that apparitions and locutions are the Church's criteria for knowing God's will and the truth of any doctrinal, moral, disciplinary, or liturgical question.
Or, is this just "Matthew's Criteria"?
I'll wait.
-
Again I ask:
Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances, the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?
I'm waiting for a show of hands, as well as details of the alleged apparition(s).
I'd be happy to.
Once you show that apparitions and locutions are the Church's criteria for knowing God's will and the truth of any doctrinal, moral, disciplinary, or liturgical question.
Or, is this just "Matthew's Criteria"?
I'll wait.
OK, ihsv, then how can we break up this fight?
Bishop Williamson and others say one thing,
The Sedevacantists say another,
The SSPX says another,
Fr. Pfeiffer says another,
The conservative Novus Ordo says another,
etc.
Is the present confusion (regarding the Crisis in the Church) legitimate, or is there something we can point to that PROVES one side or the other to be some combination of:
A) Stupid
B) Malicious, of bad will
If the answers were as obvious as you think, then there would be no "other side" disagreeing with you. Not everyone has to share your OPINION on the Crisis.
The only alternative is that your enemies are malicious enemies of God and His Church.
If you believe that, then please don't let the door hit you on the way out.
How can you elevate your personal conclusions and opinions to the level of objective truth, which everyone must see or be considered malicious or stupid?
I'm waiting.
-
Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances,
God works through men and he has spoken to His Church, by the analysis Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci, Fr Wathen, Fr Depauw, etc, etc. He wishes us to "use our brains" to compare the True vs the new.
the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?
No, only God knows. Just as only He knows if any protestants, anglicans, etc will be saved. But, objectively, these people are in error and one cannot be saved in error. This is the constant teaching of the Church.
-
Again I ask:
Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances, the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?
I'm waiting for a show of hands, as well as details of the alleged apparition(s).
I'd be happy to.
Once you show that apparitions and locutions are the Church's criteria for knowing God's will and the truth of any doctrinal, moral, disciplinary, or liturgical question.
Or, is this just "Matthew's Criteria"?
I'll wait.
OK, ihsv, then how can we break up this fight?
Bishop Williamson and others say one thing,
The Sedevacantists say another,
The SSPX says another,
Fr. Pfeiffer says another,
The conservative Novus Ordo says another,
etc.
Is the present confusion (regarding the Crisis in the Church) legitimate, or is there something we can point to that PROVES one side or the other to be some combination of:
A) Stupid
B) Malicious, of bad will
If the answers were as obvious as you think, then there would be no "other side" disagreeing with you. Not everyone has to share your OPINION on the Crisis.
The only alternative is that your enemies are malicious enemies of God and His Church.
If you believe that, then please don't let the door hit you on the way out.
How can you elevate your personal conclusions and opinions to the level of objective truth, which everyone must see or be considered malicious or stupid?
I'm waiting.
First, do you admit that your criteria (apparitions) is invalid, and has no place in determining these questions?
-
the Church's criteria for knowing God's will and the truth of any doctrinal, moral, disciplinary, or liturgical question.
I'll wait.
There is no such source of clear-cut objective truth, with regards to the FULL DETAILS or EXACT NATURE of the Crisis in the Church.
A Crisis exactly like this one has NEVER happened before. And by "never" I mean just that: 0 times. The Arian crisis, Great Schism, and Protestant Revolt can't hold a candle to the post-Vatican II Crisis in the Church.
Just like the Arian heresy can't hold a candle to the heresy of Modernism.
If you think there is some Canon, some passage of Scripture, some Papal pronouncement, or other tidbit that "should have ended this silly confusion in the Church decades ago!", then you're insane.
It's obviously open for debate, or not 100% clear. Hence the confusion in the Traditional world since, oh, the very beginning!
I hold it as a given that there are Catholics of good will who disagree with each other in this Crisis. That is to say, they find themselves on opposing sides, only one of which can be true.
-
First, do you admit that your criteria (apparitions) is invalid, and has no place in determining these questions?
First, can we agree that God is one, and that He can't contradict Himself? Out of all the "positions" in Tradition, one must be "the best" in God's eyes.
My point is not that our religion should be based on apparitions. You are TOTALLY missing the point (why am I not surprised, given that you didn't grasp the Bishop's point either...)
In suggesting an apparition from Heaven, I was grasping for an example of something that would "settle this" confusion right here, right now. Do you have a better suggestion?
What would force all the Traditional Catholics in the world to either
A) descend into stubborn malice (choosing their own will over the truth)
or
B) move/stay into the correct position within Tradition, preferred by God Himself
Because let me tell you, such a compelling piece of evidence certainly doesn't exist right now! If it did, then all the Trads of good will would be EITHER SSPX OR Resistance OR Sedevacantist OR Indult, etc.
But I am morally certain that there are good-willed Catholics on many or even all sides of the confusion. Ergo.
-
Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances,
God works through men and he has spoken to His Church, by the analysis Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci, Fr Wathen, Fr Depauw, etc, etc. He wishes us to "use our brains" to compare the True vs the new.
the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?
No, only God knows. Just as only He knows if any protestants, anglicans, etc will be saved. But, objectively, these people are in error and one cannot be saved in error. This is the constant teaching of the Church.
So now you're pontificating that the entire Novus Ordo Catholic Church is excommunicated. Splendid.
You'll pardon me for disagreeing with your opinion. You have no hard proof or argumentation for this -- just your own personal feeling and opinion -- which I am equally free to take OR leave.
No matter how many errors or omissions are introduced into the Conciliar Church, they still have one thing, that none of the other heretics and pagans can claim:
When Conciliar Catholics go to their parish church on Sunday (or Saturday night, as the case may be), the sign reads, "St. ______ Catholic Church".
So that fact alone opens the possibility of large numbers of people being innocently fooled into thinking that the modern-day, Conciliar Catholic Church is the Church of St. Bridget, St. Patrick, St. Dominic, St. Benedict, and thousands of other saints.
No schismatic or heretical sect can come close to that level of deception.
Oh, and Our Lord never said, "The gates of Hell will not prevail against it" referring to any heretical, schismatic or protestant sect. Only the Catholic Church has such a promise.
Our Lord's promise alone FORCES us to hold out some hope for the Conciliar Church.
-
First, do you admit that your criteria (apparitions) is invalid, and has no place in determining these questions?
My point is not that our religion should be based on apparitions. You are TOTALLY missing the point (why am I not surprised, given that you didn't grasp the Bishop's point either...)
How do you know that I didn't grasp the Bishop's point? I haven't said anything about it.
In suggesting an apparition from Heaven, I was grasping for an example of something that would "settle this" confusion right here, right now. Do you have a better suggestion?
Yes. All of the papal encyclicals, bulls, warnings and condemnations dealing with modernism, syncretism, indifferentism, liberalism, ecuмenism, etc., for the past 200 years. That is your roadmap. IF we follow that roadmap, our approach to such questions as the Novus Ordo should be a slam-dunk. No appeal to "miracles" or "apparitions" is sufficient to negate what the Church has warned us about and previously condemned.
What would force all the Traditional Catholics in the world to either
A) descend into stubborn malice (choosing their own will over the truth)
or
B) move/stay into the correct position within Tradition, preferred by God Himself
It's not my job to force all trads to do anything. Ultimately, the Church has to clear this mess up.
Because let me tell you, such a compelling piece of evidence certainly doesn't exist right now! If it did, then all the Trads of good will would be EITHER SSPX OR Resistance OR Sedevacantist OR Indult, etc.
On this question of the Mass, the evidence is clearly there. Session XXII of the Council of Trent, Quo Primum, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Lamentabili Sane, the Syllabus of Errors, Mirari Vos, and dozens of other clearly written, clearly articulated Church docuмents.
But I am morally certain that there are good-willed Catholics on many or even all sides of the confusion. Ergo.
Of course there are. If they're good-willed, they will seek the truth. If they seek the truth, they will find it. They will eventually come to the point where they stop going to the Novus Ordo and start going to the True Mass. Unless, of course, someone shoots their tires out and tells them sometimes they can go.
-
I disagree that there's anything in ANY of those docuмents that suggests ONE TRAD GROUP OVER ANOTHER.
That is what we're talking about.
Do you think this argument is Trad vs. Novus Ordo? Give me a break. Read my other posts.
If that is your argument, I vote "Trad". Argument over. There are DOZENS of clear reasons why to be a Trad. That much isn't mysterious at all. I am quite certain about this, being a Trad myself, and not just a passive one either. I've done a lot of studying and even spent 3 1/2 years at a Trad seminary.
-
Most people that I know, who attend the Novus Ordo don't know any better or those that do believe they can reform from within.
My experience has been different. I have come to the conclusion that most people who attend the Novus Ordo would NOT attend the Tridentine Latin Mass instead, even if they knew better. They choose to remain in the NOM. Most are simply too content with the emerging liberal ideas which allow them to soften or put away altogether the perceived "negative" parts of the Catholic Faith (Hell, punishment for sin, penance, women in the home, no contraception, marriage until death etc.).
I, and probably Bishop Williamson, would class these persons as "casualties" of the Novus Ordo system. These are they who have lost the Faith. The dead, the casualties.
However, this does not describe 100% of those attending the Novus Ordo, so your argument is invalid.
I said "most".
I think that the casualties pre-existed the NOM, and were indeed the reason for it, not the other way around. This means that the NOM is a symptom of a deeper illness and never had happened were the majority of Catholics would have had the Faith pristine and inviolate, starting with the Roman Pontiff himself. The NOM is a consequence of the preceding loss of Faith and general condescendence to the world. In this view, the NOM is the effect of the apostasy; not necessarily the cause of the apostasy.
I agree that no one in this crisis has the complete answer and it is foolish to presume doing so. However, it is evident that justification for the NOM defeats one of the main reasons for Tradition, that is, the abolition of the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic NOM, and the return of the Tridentine Mass as the exclusive way of liturgical worship in the Roman rite. That is why I see nothing possibly good coming from these Eleison comments.
-
Can a heretic die and go to hell? The Church says 'no'.
Does the V2 church condone/promote heresy? Yes.
Ergo, those who die as V2 catholics, will go to hell.
Does this mean that I, or the Church, condemn any PARTICULAR person? No. But, if we apply Thomistic and Catholic thinking, then we must reach the above conclusion. Therefore, we must do all in our power to try to CONVERT these poor people! Not wasting time explaining that they are still 'mostly' catholic. 'Mostly' catholic people don't go to heaven.
-
Since I have a job (actually, 2 of them), I can't spend all day rehashing something we argued about till many of us were blue in the face several months ago.
For a clearer understanding of my position, please re-read what I posted months ago.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-the-Novus-Ordo-evil-like-a-Black-Mass
-
I disagree that there's anything in ANY of those docuмents that suggests ONE TRAD GROUP OVER ANOTHER.
I'm discussing the Novus Ordo Missae, not trad groups.
That is what we're talking about.
Well, if you want to argue this trad group vs. that other one, be my guest.
Do you think this argument is Trad vs. Novus Ordo? Give me a break. Read my other posts.
I read all of the posts here. My bone of contention is the issue of the Novus Ordo Missae, the New Mass. Not trad groups vs. conciliar groups.
If that is your argument, I vote "Trad". Argument over. There are DOZENS of clear reasons why to be a Trad. That much isn't mysterious at all. I am quite certain about this, being a Trad myself, and not just a passive one either. I've done a lot of studying and even spent 3 1/2 years at a Trad seminary.
Good. We have that cleared up. Now, shall we return to the question of the Novus Ordo Missae?
-
Can a heretic die and go to hell? The Church says 'no'.
Does the V2 church condone/promote heresy? Yes.
Ergo, those who die as V2 catholics, will go to hell.
Does this mean that I, or the Church, condemn any PARTICULAR person? No. But, if we apply Thomistic and Catholic thinking, then we must reach the above conclusion. Therefore, we must do all in our power to try to CONVERT these poor people! Not wasting time explaining that they are still 'mostly' catholic. 'Mostly' catholic people don't go to heaven.
Seriously, is THIS your argument?
All heretics are damned.
But the V2 church teaches heresy.
Therefore all V2 Catholics are damned.
Go back to logic class.
I would dispute your minor. You need to clarify/distinguish. Just because the the V2 Church teaches SOME heresy doesn't mean that 100% of those sitting in the pews maliciously hold to any heresies. Perhaps they ignore any heresies, or interpret in a Catholic manner any ambiguous statements, thanks to what they learned in their TAN Books at home, or what their parents taught them.
I think a lot of you have a distorted view of what happens at the average Novus Ordo church. In the last couple years we've heard about these jaw-dropping heresies from Pope Francis, but not EVERY Novus Ordo priest talks like that. For the most part, the majority of the Conciliar clergy are guilty of MISPLACED PRIORITIES and SINS OF OMISSION, not overt heresy.
Most sane Traditional Catholics speak of POOR CATECHESIS in the Novus Ordo, not a litany of heresies taught universally.
Some of you need to install a Website blocker on your PC, and put two websites on the block list: Novus Ordo Watch and Traditio.
The evil of the Novus Ordo requires TIME to take effect. They don't outright deny the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, or anything like that. They simply never teach about Purgatory or have you pray for the Poor Souls. If you aren't reading TAN Books in your spare time, you are likely to stop believing in purgatory or think it's silly -- then you have your heresy.
And yes, some priests have clearly lost the Faith. But you can't say that everyone coming from the Novus Ordo is CONVERTING. Some have nothing to confess. They discovered problems, and then Tradition, and they entered it. They don't have to confess their years in the Novus Ordo, or make any abjuration.
THAT is my point.
-
Since I have a job (actually, 2 of them), I can't spend all day rehashing something we argued about till many of us were blue in the face several months ago.
I understand.
For a clearer understanding of my position, please re-read what I posted months ago.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-the-Novus-Ordo-evil-like-a-Black-Mass
I know your position. My position hasn't changed, either. The New Mass is a sacrilege, and no one, not even an old lady, should go, or be told they can/should/could/would/may/must go. Ever.
-
Since I have a job (actually, 2 of them), I can't spend all day rehashing something we argued about till many of us were blue in the face several months ago.
I understand.
For a clearer understanding of my position, please re-read what I posted months ago.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-the-Novus-Ordo-evil-like-a-Black-Mass
I know your position. My position hasn't changed, either. The New Mass is a sacrilege, and no one, not even an old lady, should go, or be told they can/should/could/would/may/must go. Ever.
Well I'm sure it frustrates both of us, but neither one of us can prove the other wrong, or that the other is of bad will. Only if God intervenes can He declare a "winner".
And in the meantime, both of our opinions are EQUALLY LEGITIMATE.
Until then, we can both argue until we're blue in the face. But I'll pass.
-
I disagree that there's anything in ANY of those docuмents that suggests ONE TRAD GROUP OVER ANOTHER.
I'm discussing the Novus Ordo Missae, not trad groups.
That is what we're talking about.
Well, if you want to argue this trad group vs. that other one, be my guest.
Do you think this argument is Trad vs. Novus Ordo? Give me a break. Read my other posts.
I read all of the posts here. My bone of contention is the issue of the Novus Ordo Missae, the New Mass. Not trad groups vs. conciliar groups.
If that is your argument, I vote "Trad". Argument over. There are DOZENS of clear reasons why to be a Trad. That much isn't mysterious at all. I am quite certain about this, being a Trad myself, and not just a passive one either. I've done a lot of studying and even spent 3 1/2 years at a Trad seminary.
Good. We have that cleared up. Now, shall we return to the question of the Novus Ordo Missae?
But once you're in Traddy land, it's "anything goes". Nothing touching on the Novus Ordo can be asserted with ANYTHING resembling authority, much less can it be raised to the level of dogma or objective truth. When you're talking about the Crisis in the Church, or the Novus Ordo Mass, it's all a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma.
-
But once you're in Traddy land, it's "anything goes". Nothing touching on the Novus Ordo can be asserted with ANYTHING resembling authority, much less can it be raised to the level of dogma or objective truth.
On this issue of the New Mass, the fact that it, its elements, its nature, its origin, its usage, its existence, its theology, etc., is in direct contravention of the Council of Trent (Session XXII), Quo Primum (where other missals are forbidden), the many papal encyclicals, bulls, condemnations, censures (see above), etc., for the past 200 years is clearly established, by +Lefebvre, +Williamson, Fr. Wathen, and many, many others.
Unless you hold there is some form of "hermeneutic of continuity" between the New Mass and those (clearly authoritative) docuмents, of course.
When you're talking about the Crisis in the Church, or the Novus Ordo Mass, it's all a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma.
Well, I'm not discussing the Crisis in the Church. On the New Mass, however, it may be a mystery to some. To others, it's quite clear. Of course, our perception or understanding doesn't alter the nature of the New Mass, does it? It is what it is, and must be judged based on that.
-
Not every heresy is malicious and have the intent of Martin Luther to revolutionize and destroy the church. A simple definition of heresy is: belief or opinion contrary to Catholic doctrine.
There are many good-willed, pious, V2 catholics out there - I have met many of them. But i've also met many genuine and pious protestants. Does their 'piousness' mean that they believe 100% in what the Church teaches? No. Ergo, they NEED TO CONVERT. One can be in danger of error without being a formal, condemned heretic. Heresy/modernism is so widespead nowadays that many are such, without knowing it, including some Trads.
-
But once you're in Traddy land, it's "anything goes". Nothing touching on the Novus Ordo can be asserted with ANYTHING resembling authority, much less can it be raised to the level of dogma or objective truth.
On this issue of the New Mass, the fact that it, its elements, its nature, its origin, its usage, its existence, its theology, etc., is in direct contravention of the Council of Trent (Session XXII), Quo Primum (where other missals are forbidden), the many papal encyclicals, bulls, condemnations, censures (see above), etc., for the past 200 years is clearly established, by +Lefebvre, +Williamson, Fr. Wathen, and many, many others.
Unless you hold there is some form of "hermeneutic of continuity" between the New Mass and those (clearly authoritative) docuмents, of course.
When you're talking about the Crisis in the Church, or the Novus Ordo Mass, it's all a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma.
Well, I'm not discussing the Crisis in the Church. On the New Mass, however, it may be a mystery to some. To others, it's quite clear. Of course, our perception or understanding doesn't alter the nature of the New Mass, does it? It is what it is, and must be judged based on that.
Here is one point of confusion:
The necessity -- a general call to all men -- to join the Traditional Catholic movement is one thing.
The necessity to declare the Novus Ordo invalid in all cases, or intrinsically evil (that is to say, evil quoad "anybody", like a black mass or a procured abortion) is another issue altogether.
It's about WHY we reject the Novus Ordo, and IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS is it bad. That is the only matter for debate.
All you've pointed out is why we can criticize and even abstain from the Novus Ordo. I'm 100% with you on that. I wouldn't attend the Novus Ordo if it were the only service available for 500 miles. I'd stay home first.
But that doesn't change the facts about what the Novus Ordo is. Nor does it elevate a question of prudence into a matter of dogma.
When did the Catholic Church, a Pope, a Council, or Jesus Christ Himself ever declare the Novus Ordo to be invalid? They have to mention the Novus Ordo by name. Centuries old docuмents might give us a hint that something is rotten in denmark, but they DO NOT end all debate on the matter.
Or we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?
-
We can't accept the novus ordo but we should be doing more to correct them.
-
"A criticism of the "New Rite" cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination, whether it is a fit rite for embodying and enacting this august Sacrifice." (Holy Cross Seminary, "Most Asked Questions About the Society of Saint Pius X", 1998).
A new mass can be valid?
Yes.
A valid mass can give the grace?
Yes. To deny this is heretical.
Then we can attend to Novus Ordo mass?
"If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one's Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)." ((Holy Cross Seminary, "Most Asked Questions About the Society of Saint Pius X", 1998).
-
“Even if I conceded these points, don’t you at least agree that Bishop Williamson erred doctrinally when he said that one could find “spiritual nourishment” in the Novus Ordo?”
Response:
Presuming we are talking about a valid Novus Ordo Mass, the only way one could deny Bishop Williamson’s comment is to either dispute the validity of the Novus Ordo rite per se (which was not a position held by Archbishop Lefebvre), or, to deny that the transmission of sacramental grace is “spiritual nourishment” (which would be absurd).
This is because the Council of Trent (Session 7: On the Sacraments in General) enjoined the following propositions to be held by all Catholics as a matter of faith (i.e., de fide):
“CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.
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.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.”
Moreover, the manuals have faithfully transmitted and applied these articles of faith ever since. For example, in one of the most popular pre-conciliar manuals of moral and pastoral theology, we find this quote: “"The grace of the sacraments is infallibly produced in those who are capable and fit recipients, by reason of the sacred rite itself (ex opere operato), independently of the worth or merits of minister or recipient...
The grace which is here spoken of as given by the Sacraments is sanctifying grace."
Therefore, since it is infallibly certain that those who attend a valid Novus Ordo, and receive Communion in the state of grace, have received an increase of sanctifying grace (which is the “spiritual nourishment” par excellence), there can be no question as to the doctrinal correctness of Bishop Williamson’s comment. Rather, the concern is with those who would fall into at least material heresy by denying this dogma of faith.
QUOTE OF THIS: "A Catechetical Refutation" (Regarding Certain Objections Made to Bishop Williamson’s Comments on the Novus Ordo) By Sean Johnson
http://www.cathinfo.com/Sean-Johnson-Catechetical-Refutation2ndEd.pdf
-
Here is one point of confusion:
The necessity -- a general call to all men -- to join the Traditional Catholic movement is one thing.
It's not a general call to join a movement. Its a requirement of all men to embrace and hold the faith as delivered to us, and that means rejecting novelties in doctrine and worship.
The necessity to declare the Novus Ordo invalid in all cases, or intrinsically evil (that is to say, evil quoad "anybody", like a black mass or a procured abortion) is another issue altogether.
I have never mentioned the concept of invalidity. I have no idea whether its valid or not.
Matthew, let's cut to the chase. Is the Novus Ordo Mass, considered in its theology, its words, its source (origin), its end (purpose), or in every other way, Catholic?
As you are so fond of pointing out:
Bonum ex integra causa
Malum ex quocuмque defectu
A thing is good if ALL of its parts are good.
A thing is evil if it has ANY defect.
IF it is Catholic in all of those respects, THEN we have no business rejecting it. IF it is not Catholic in any of those respects, then it is intrinsically (by its nature) defective, and thus evil. It would be sinful to attend, even if such a sin is venial, it is positively forbidden to engage in the act. That being the case, the advice supposedly (I don't believe that story) given to someone's wife, or an old lady at a conference, that it may be permissible to attend the Novus Ordo rather than educating them about the truth of the matter is unconscionable. And your continued defense of such actions is equally so.
It's about WHY we reject the Novus Ordo, and IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS is it bad. That is the only matter for debate.
Is the New Mass bad? Please define your terms. When you say "bad", are you referring to a violation of divine, natural, or Church Law? Or are you referring to something else? Externals? Rubrics? Theology?
All you've pointed out is why we can criticize and even abstain from the Novus Ordo. I'm 100% with you on that. I wouldn't attend the Novus Ordo if it were the only service available for 500 miles. I'd stay home first.
Do you choose to abstain from the New Mass because it is offensive to you personally, defective in its theology, a violation of the Church law, the product of the enemies of the Church? Ecuмenical? None of these? All of these? Other reasons?
But that doesn't change the facts about what the Novus Ordo is. Nor does it elevate a question of prudence into a matter of dogma.
There is a difference between dogma and the moral law. Morally speaking, one can not participate in a service that is a) non-Catholic, b) where sacrilege takes place, c) is a danger to one's faith. That is such a firmly established principal of moral theology I feel no need to give sources. The only way that principal doesn't apply in the case of the New Mass is if you contend that the Novus Ordo is Catholic, that it is not sacrilegious, and that it isn't a danger to one's faith.
When did the Catholic Church, a Pope, a Council, or Jesus Christ Himself ever declare the Novus Ordo to be invalid? They have to mention the Novus Ordo by name. Centuries old docuмents might give us a hint that something is rotten in denmark, but they DO NOT end all debate on the matter.
Again, I've not mentioned validity.
Just to name two examples, the Catholic Church has condemned modernism by name and false ecuмenism by name. Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and untold numbers of other writers have exhaustively shown that the New Mass is infected, in its origins, its substance, and in its effects, by both.
So are you jumping on the "centuries old docuмents" aren't relevant to modern times bandwagon? Or that they do not give principals which apply today?
Or we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?
My problem is the notion that it's permissible at all to attend. You and +Williamson continue to argue that it is in some cases.
You (and the Bishop) and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
-
“CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.
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.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.”
The Mass is not a sacrament. It is a sacrifice. We're discussing the Novus Ordo and attendance at it, not the efficacy of the proper reception of the sacraments of the New Law.
-
Those who are in the Novus Ordo religion absolutely need to be taught and educated as to why they must cease their membership in it because diluted Catholicism is no Catholicism.
Departure from the Church's doctrine in one point renders that person as objectively outside of the Church and removed from the way of salvation.
This is not a matter of one man's opinions as opposed to another man's opinions. It is a matter of one or many souls' eternal end.
There is but one path to spend eternity with God. One exclusive way only. That is the voice of Christ's Church which teaches us this. That with fear and trepidation do we seek to please Him.
What reasonable man could conclude that the deformed doctrine and ritual of the second Vatican "council" could bring one to that happy conclusion as opposed to a life lived in submission to the orthodoxy of the Christian doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church?
This is not a debate, it is about everlasting life or everlasting torments, and that is the most important thing to any living soul. There are no two options and as such, only one opinion and course is open that a soul with the Faith of Jesus Christ must follow.
Folks can continue to debate and opinionate and consider that the two positions are equally valid and arguable, but in the end when one chooses one such position, and another chooses its opposite. They will each learn the Truth for one will be saved, and the other damned.
The Novus Ordo religion is a crapshoot at best, who would take such a risk or who would let another brother in the Faith take that risk?
Put away earthly things and return to ways of the Heavenly gift which the Catholic Church offers us all for our eternal recompense. We need to listen to the Church and shut our ears to the imaginings and arguments of men.
Eschew the new religion and remain steadfast and unmoved in the old where Christ's promise abides.
Psalms 79:4
Convert us, O God: and shew us thy face, and we shall be saved.
-
At this point, we're just rehashing the "Is the Novus Ordo evil like a Black Mass" thread.
-
At this point, we're just rehashing the "Is the Novus Ordo evil like a Black Mass" thread.
Yes, all sense has been lost in the fog of subjectivity.
-
Dear Benzel,
Dear IHSV,
You don't undestund this principle of the moral Theology: "Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu". That's why you say this: "A thing is good if ALL of its parts are good. A thing is evil if it has ANY defect."
According to your interpretation of that principle, the Summa of Saint Thomas is a bad book because it has some defects (for example, in natural sciences).
According your interpretation of that principle, the life of Archbishop Lefebvre was bad because he had at least this defect: to sign the protocol of 1988.
According your interpretation of that principle, you are a bad man because you have some defects (like every man) ...
Absurd.
The principle refers to the three sources of the morality of the act. The principle does not refer to any defect, but the defect of the object or purpose or the circuмstances in the moral act.
We're discussing the Novus Ordo, not the Summa, the life of the Archbishop, or me. Neither did I give any interpretation regarding those topics.
Applied to the Novus Ordo, with its "object or purpose or the circuмstances" (all clearly spelled out and defined by the creators and authors of the Novus Ordo), the principal works quite well.
And besides, that principal is a direct quote/copy/paste from Matthew. If he got it wrong, take it up with him.
--------------------------
You say: "The Mass is not a sacrament. It is a sacrifice."
(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Council of Trent:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by
Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism,
Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema
Do you understand the distinction between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrament of the Eucharist? Clearly not.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is NOT one of the seven sacraments. Your (Sean's) quotes given above are irrelevant to this discussion.
-
So just using Benzel's argument, it was okay for the Jєω-Pope to change the "Sacrament". :thinking:
-
Benzel, I appreciate your passion for the topic, but the Mass is not a sacrament. Just like Christ's gift of Himself on Holy Thursday is not the same as His sacrifice on Good Friday, so the Eucharist is not the Mass. The Eucharist is PART of the Mass, but the Mass is much, much more.
-
Benzel, obviously the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass does not equal the Eucharist. When Trent lists the Eucharist as one of the seven Sacraments, it does not list the Sacrifice of the Mass.
You see the Blessed Eucharist can and does exist outside of Holy Mass. Some examples would be:
the priest brings the Sacred Species to the housebound person,
or as Viaticuм to the Dying,
or in the Tabernacle in our churches
or in the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for adoration.
There is nothing incredible and shameful here, no heresy here.
There has been a lot of confusion caused by incorrect terminology used in the Novus Ordo, which is another reason to stay away from it.
-
Curioustrad, I removed your posts because I'm not interested in hosting anti-Bishop Williamson rhetoric here on CathInfo.
There are at least 2 tiny forums that would love to bash Bishop Williamson with you. They'll brainstorm bad things to say about him all day long.
You are welcome to criticize THIS PARTICULAR ELEISON COMMENTS which is the subject of this thread.
It is not "open season" on Bishop Williamson.
When you start your own forum, build it up for many years, and pay the hosting bill, then YOU can set the rules.
I'm not interested in hearing (for the 1000th time) the worn-out lies about how the bishop is "controlled opposition", or negative speculation about why he chose a rose-like design for the cross on his Episcopal insignia.
Your complaints might sound legitimate to the uneducated ear, until you actually LOOK AT THE SITUATION. What, precisely, is a true, honest +Fellay-resisting prelate -- who sees no reason to change the mission the SSPX has been pursuing for decades, along the lines of +Lefevbre -- supposed to do?
I'm sick of this rhetoric from the Pfeifferites. Unfortunately, they aren't alone in their hatred of Bishop Williamson. But they ALL need to put up or shut up.
+Williamson can't claim a jurisdiction or authority that he doesn't have. He can't force priests to follow him. As I've said before, he can't jump up on the desk like a gorilla, pound his chest and say, "Me bishop. You priest. You follow!" That isn't how it works in the Catholic Church.
In normal times, yes, a bishop has jurisdiction (authority) as well as Orders. Normally they go together. But +Williamson remembers very well that he never received jurisdiction in 1988 when he was consecrated. If he had attempted to receive jurisdiction, he would have become a schismatic.
Nevertheless, like +Lefebvre, he is perfectly willing to fly around the country and perform Confirmations, even at his current advanced age. Travel is becoming more difficult for him. What more do they want? Ordinations? You have to have men trained for 6 years for that. We don't have any. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Ditto for priests. +W can't force priests to leave the SSPX, nor can he buy up 1 or 2 dozen properties to serve as seminaries, priories, lodging, Mass centers, etc.
The Resistance is in the same shape the Traditional Movement as a whole was, back in the 1970's. Few and far between, the Faithful often home alone praying for a priest, etc. And it is JUST AS LEGITIMATE because it's the main body or CORE of the Traditional Movement, at least the non-Sedevacantist wing.
The Resistance is being born from the ashes of the SSPX. It's a slow but steady process: as the SSPX decays, the Resistance grows and continues more and more to take its place.
-
Curioustrad, I think it's time for FULL DISCLOSURE.
I think it's possible -- even likely, statistically speaking -- that your heavy criticism of Bishop Williamson has a bit of self-interest.
Perhaps it's the fact that you are basically COMPETING with Bishop Williamson, as a fellow Trad bishop there in sunny Florida?
If everyone could just "wake up" and leave +Williamson, they would be more likely to follow, listen to, and financially support you instead?
True, you could be a saint and you could be slamming +Williamson out of a pure love for the truth, as you perceive it. But statistically, 99% of people are "human" or "average". Saints and heroes are rare.
So the only fair option is to let the readers be the judge.
But how can the readers accurately grasp the truth, when important details (like you being a Traditional bishop yourself) are left out?
Let's face it -- they need all the data they can get. Normally, they wouldn't know who is objectively correct: "Curioustrad" or "Matthew".
-
Benzel, I appreciate your passion for the topic, but the Mass is not a sacrament. Just like Christ's gift of Himself on Holy Thursday is not the same as His sacrifice on Good Friday, so the Eucharist is not the Mass. The Eucharist is PART of the Mass, but the Mass is much, much more.
I fully agree with this statement.
The Council of Trent lists SEVEN Sacraments, which every 7 year old learns: Baptism, Penance, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction.
The Mass is HOLY, and it is the SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS from which all SEVEN SACRAMENTS draw their power and efficacy. The Mass/Calvary is the font of all 7 Sacraments. If anything, it would be degrading the Mass to call it a mere Sacrament!
When Christ died on the Cross, was that a mere "outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace"? No. It was the Redemption, in a class all by itself.
Benzel, I appreciate your zeal, but you are wrong in this case. Please move on.
-
How did I miss TWO of them?
I just banned Magdalena and Domitilla.
Any other uppity Baby Boomers who think they know-it-all just because they were "born before 1960"?
I agree with Bishop Williamson: the 1950's were THE PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
Maybe they don't like Bishop Williamson because he criticizes the 1950's, and everything the Baby Boomers stand for as a generation.
-
Benzel, I appreciate your passion for the topic, but the Mass is not a sacrament. Just like Christ's gift of Himself on Holy Thursday is not the same as His sacrifice on Good Friday, so the Eucharist is not the Mass. The Eucharist is PART of the Mass, but the Mass is much, much more.
I fully agree with this statement.
The Council of Trent lists SEVEN Sacraments, which every 7 year old learns: Baptism, Penance, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction.
The Mass is HOLY, and it is the SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS from which all SEVEN SACRAMENTS draw their power and efficacy. The Mass/Calvary is the font of all 7 Sacraments. If anything, it would be degrading the Mass to call it a mere Sacrament!
When Christ died on the Cross, was that a mere "outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace"? No. It was the Redemption, in a class all by itself.
Benzel, I appreciate your zeal, but you are wrong in this case. Please move on.
ERGO, THE CATECHISM OF TRENTO IS WRONG:
Distinction of Sacrament and Sacrifice
They should teach, then, in the first place, that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes: one, that it might be the heavenly food of our souls, enabling us to support and preserve spiritual life; and the other, that the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice, by which our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father,
oftentimes grievously offended by our crimes, might be turned away from wrath to mercy, from the severity of just chastisement to clemency. Of this thing we may observe a type and resemblance in the Paschal lamb, which was wont to be offered and eaten by the children of Israel as a sacrament and a sacrifice.
Nor could our Saviour, when about to offer Himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross, have given any more illustrious indication of His unbounded love towards us than by bequeathing to us a visible Sacrifice, by which that bloody Sacrifice, which was soon after to be offered once on the cross, would be renewed, and its memory daily celebrated with the greatest utility, unto the consummation of ages by the Church diffused throughout the world.
But (between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and a Sacrifice) the difference is very great; for as a Sacrament it is perfected by consecration; as a Sacrifice, all its force consists in its oblation. When, therefore, kept in a pyx, or borne to the sick, it is a Sacrament, not a Sacrifice. As a Sacrament also, it is to them that receive it a source of merit, and brings with it all those advantages which have been already mentioned; but as a Sacrifice, it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction. For as, in His Passion, Christ the Lord merited and satisfied for us; so also those who offer this Sacrifice, by which they communicate with us, merit the fruit of His Passion,
and satisfy.
The Mass Is The Same Sacrifice As That Of The Cross
We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the cross. The bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose Sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our Lord: Do this for a commemoration of me.
The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say: This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body; and thus, acting in the Person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of His body and blood.
Finally:
I did not say this: "The Eucharist is a mere sacrament."
Ihsv said this heresy: "The Mass is not a sacrament."
-
Benzel,
Finally:
I did not say this: "The Eucharist is a mere sacrament."
Ihsv said this heresy: "The Mass is not a sacrament."
The Holy Sacrament takes place within the confines of the Mass which is a larger ritual. The Mass has predicate parts and post sacramental parts which combined with the Sacrament of the Altar offer a worthy form of worship to God, and therefore the Mass itself cannot be said to be a sacrament as such.
He did not pronounce a heresy and you should apologize for accusing him of such.
-
Benzel,
Finally:
I did not say this: "The Eucharist is a mere sacrament."
Ihsv said this heresy: "The Mass is not a sacrament."
The Holy Sacrament takes place within the confines of the Mass which is a larger ritual. The Mass has predicate parts and post sacramental parts which combined with the Sacrament of the Altar offer a worthy form of worship to God, and therefore the Mass itself cannot be said to be a sacrament as such.
He did not pronounce a heresy and you should apologize for accusing him of such.
TWO QUOTES OF CATECHISM OF SAINT PIUS X:
"Q. Should the Holy Eucharist be considered only as a sacrament?
A. The Holy Eucharist, besides being a sacrament, is also the permanent Sacrifice of the New Law, which Jesus Christ left to His Church to be offered to God by the hands of His priests."
1) Eucharist is a sacrament and a Sacrifice.
"Q. What is this Sacrifice of the New Law called?
A. This Sacrifice of the New Law is called the Holy Mass."
2) "Mass" is name of this sacrament and Sacrifice.
Eucharist or Mass is a sacrament and a Sacrifice.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm#Sacraments
Then, JPaul, three questions for you:
1.- Can there be a valid Mass that is not Sacrifice? Yes or no.
2.- Can there be a valid Mass that is not sacrament? Yes or no.
3.- Do you agree with this statement? "The Mass is not a sacrament." Yes or no.
-
:facepalm:
-
Dear Benzel,
You are not thinking clearly which is not uncommon among zealots.
There can be a valid sacrifice and sacrament outside of the Mass although that is forbidden by the Church. So the sacrament is not dependent upon The structure or incidentals of the Mass to be validly confected.
The Church has ruled that the only licit place for this to happen is within the structure of the Catholic Mass, as that is where the proper honor is paid to Christ in the sacrament of His body and blood.
The Holy Sacrament is contained within the larger form of a Mass and so NO the Mass as such is objectively not the sacrament. If it were then, the sacrament could not be validly confected without the surrounding ritual.
Common sense and reason can lead you to see the difference.
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass and yet it is proposed that it has valid consecrations. Can you explain that if the Catholic Mass as such is a part of the necessary sacramental form?
I think not.
-
Dear Benzel,
You are not thinking clearly which is not uncommon among zealots.
There can be a valid sacrifice and sacrament outside of the Mass although that is forbidden by the Church. So the sacrament is not dependent upon The structure or incidentals of the Mass to be validly confected.
The Church has ruled that the only licit place for this to happen is within the structure of the Catholic Mass, as that is where the proper honor is paid to Christ in the sacrament of His body and blood.
The Holy Sacrament is contained within the larger form of a Mass and so NO the Mass as such is objectively not the sacrament. If it were then, the sacrament could not be validly confected without the surrounding ritual.
Common sense and reason can lead you to see the difference.
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass and yet it is proposed that it has valid consecrations. Can you explain that if the Catholic Mass as such is a part of the necessary sacramental form?
I think not.
Its is incredible!
1.- You didn't answer my precise questions.
2.- You add more heresies.
A new precise question for you:
You say that there can be a valid sacrifice outside of the Mass. How can there be Eucharistic Sacrifice outside of the Mass?
-
The schismatic Eastern Orthodox retain the Sacrament of Eucharist, right?; but they do not offer the true Mass...
-
The schismatic Eastern Orthodox retain the Sacrament of Eucharist, right?; but they do not offer the true Mass...
Cool!
-
Curioustrad, I think it's time for FULL DISCLOSURE.
I think it's possible -- even likely, statistically speaking -- that your heavy criticism of Bishop Williamson has a bit of self-interest.
Perhaps it's the fact that you are basically COMPETING with Bishop Williamson, as a fellow Trad bishop there in sunny Florida?
If everyone could just "wake up" and leave +Williamson, they would be more likely to follow, listen to, and financially support you instead?
True, you could be a saint and you could be slamming +Williamson out of a pure love for the truth, as you perceive it. But statistically, 99% of people are "human" or "average". Saints and heroes are rare.
So the only fair option is to let the readers be the judge.
But how can the readers accurately grasp the truth, when important details (like you being a Traditional bishop yourself) are left out?
Let's face it -- they need all the data they can get. Normally, they wouldn't know who is objectively correct: "Curioustrad" or "Matthew".
You proceed from several false premises - I am not in competition with + Williamson. I do not desire financial support from anyone who reads my comments. In order to that I would have to advertise my identity which I never have - you just did that. I don't hide my IP address.
As my first post stated I recently visited a Resistance chapel making a private visit since I served there 5 years myself. I am on friendly terms with several Resistance clergy but from the beginning I have had reservations about the movement. As I observed to the priest whose chapel I visited a couple of weeks ago - "When the SSPX finally goes in, it will be the sedes and independents like you and me left - after that we'll see where the dust settles."
As to meddling I have a strict policy of not involving myself in the business of other chapels. When asked to conditionally confirm a fellow from this same chapel - my advice was to wait for a Resistance Bishop to come - Dom Thomas Aquinas did the job in November. This same fellow sent a paypal donation to me which I reversed. I told the priest "He should be supporting your church not mine." I wish you knew me personally because you would know I do not fish in other peoples' waters.
I wish + Williamson only well. I have privately disagreed with him on this matter: (but you have correctly surmised my position) I do think he should have founded a stable group like + Faure did earlier this year. In a crisis of this magnitude wringing one's hands and lamenting lack of jurisdiction is wishy washy. I have said this to him privately. I have also said to him that he is my Spiritual Father and that I learned from him what the Archbishop passed on to him. But there is another aspect that needs to be taken in mind, being English you have to take some of what he says with a grain of salt. I told this story to him once: A seminarian from England said to me "Our national vice is hypocrisy." - I replied " I know X but don't let the Americans find out." + Williamson nearly split his sides laughing.
Having said all this, I was warned by a priest in the SSPX before entering the seminary to be very careful how you approach + Williamson. He had a nickname for him: "Tricky Dicky". This epithet is very enlightening because, as + Williamson said to me on the telephone once "I like to be unpredictable" after singing a verse of "Abide with me" down the machine. It is precisely his unpredictability that has been getting people riled up lately.
Yes I take exception to this EC because I find it fundamentally flawed, just like I couldn't accept the series on the Seer of Florida. I state my objection but I never waver in my sincere affection for the man. That same seminarian said that an American classmate had told him "We Americans have no sense of humor." I said "What are you talking about - of course they do." I have come to be believe that whoever that American seminarian was, might have a point.
I come here to read intelligent debate and usually I find slanging matches and punching bags. After the election here in the States - a country divided. It's the same everywhere. Once, in Britain we could have an election and move on - now polarization.
One would think on a Catholic Forum that Catholic virtues would be at the forefront but behind the anonymity of user names - it seems the worst is brought out. You shouldn't just assume that I am like the rest of all posters here to bull-doze people into submission.
If you would check previous posts you will find I have encouraged prayer for Bishop Williamson and even posted an image of his ordination card which I treasure to this day.
I will not sign this message, because to do so would lend credibility to your claim that I'm fishing for supporters.
With every good wish and blessing to all !
-
First, I should clarify, having re-read my post. When I said you were in competition with +W, I meant "de facto" simply in light of the fact that you are both bishops, and that there simply aren't too many Trad bishops in the world today.
If you threw out there that I was in competition with another forum owner, even though I never publicly competed with them, wrote about them, or "threw down the gauntlet" in any way, I'd very much understand what you meant. Unless I go out of my way to NOT compete with another forum owner, I'm competing with them by default. It's just the way it works.
Don't get me wrong, I very much hope that you are a good and holy bishop, and going against the "statistics" -- especially the statistic that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops! Personally I still rejoice in the truth, not in wickedness.
But your earlier posts seemed to be broadening the attack on Bishop Williamson well beyond the scope of this latest EC.
And I repeat what I said earlier: I am sick and tired of people calling him unfounded, stupid names. It may not be your fault, but the fact is that Fr. Pfeiffer has been shouting this charge (that +W is "controlled opposition", "fake resistance", etc.) from every street corner for about 2 years now. And looking at the situation objectively, I *know* that he's wrong. So either they're both wrong, or +W is right and Fr. Pfeiffer is wrong. Those are the only two possibilities, just for starters.
I'm allowed to have 1 or 2 pet peeves that I just won't allow on my forum. Everyone has something they just can't stand, for personal reasons. They get disproportionately upset at this one type of person. Some examples include: rude people, the ungrateful, "racists", Jєωs, the willfully ignorant, hypocrites, liars, evolutionists, liberals, people who are mean to animals, the self-righteous, etc.
Why can't some people accept the simple truth that +W is a bishop of good will, trying to do his best to stem the tide of destruction and apostasy, dealing/fighting with whatever flaws he has personally -- as well as dealing with the flaws of the bishops, priests, and laymen who surround him! None of us are perfect.
They expect him to be Superman or something. They want him to single-handedly swoop in and save the day. Americans have watched too many Superman and other super-hero movies. One man can't single-handedly build up a large, flourishing movement like the Resistance. He needs a LOT of helpers for the thing to be large and successful.
-
I don't expect + Williamson to do everything but I would have joined had he started something concrete. I don't know or have contact with + Faure so I haven't thought about that.
As for Fr. P - he called me 2 years ago and started telling me that + Williamson was "controlled".
The reason as he explained to me was that he wanted + Williamson to do something as well but he was unwilling - there was something more but I cannot remember it now.
BTW if you also check passed posts you'll discover that I originated the expression "Calamity Joe" well before Pfeifferville went off the rails. Having been in seminary with him I knew inexorably where that would go. He is not a leader and he lacks self-discipline. It was he who tried to get me to join up - but with him as C-in-C - forget that !
I offered my not inconsiderable library to Fr. P who said his seminarians didn't need books. I recently related that to Fr. Chazal who wants them for his seminary in the Philippines. So any time he's ready he can come and get them.
As to skulls - that was said of priests (at diaconal retreat) it gave me pause for thought. Of bishops I heard it said that at the general judgment every bishop will be looking for someone else to put his miter on.
If you don't mind I'll PM you a copy of a message I shared with someone else last night because it may help you better understand some issues.
-
But returning to the subject at hand,
Bishop Richard Williamson,
From a Catholic standpoint the rite as a whole is unquestionably bad, because it radically changes the concept of the Mass from being a propitiatory sacrifice centred on God to being a community meal centred on man. As such, since most Catholics live their religion by attending Mass, then when its concept changes, their religion in effect changes. That is why the NOM is the principal destroyer of the t rue Church, and the main engine of the Newchurch. That is why the NOM as a whole is not only bad, but very bad indeed.
Here the Bishop makes the very sound case which admits to what this ritual really is and why it cannot be a work of the Catholic Church.
There is not much more which can be said and yet he then, as he is wont to do, goes about contradicting himself by saying essentially "it is very bad indeed" but, it is not that bad, and maybe you can go.
This is not logical or consistent thinking. He states the fundamental and core principle and then violated it.
After what he has stated about this sorry affair, it is impossible to say that it can be acceptable to a Catholic to endanger themselves by attending something as dangerous and non-Catholic in ethos as this is.
The Church forbids its children from attending such non-Catholic "services" where the concepts of what is taking place are not those of the Church. The Church forbids its children from proximity to heresy, or error, or anything which could alter or corrupt their Catholic Faith, which of course includes their understanding of the Holy Mass.
This Bishop would extend that permission based upon the conscience of a Novus Ordo formed Catholic who has little of no theological ability to discern or distinquish, the validity of the priest, his intent, the validity of the translation which he uses, or the matter or form which is utilized. What ability has the average person to discern if they are being slowly and subtly corrupted? It is a grave risk to take when the stakes are salvation or eternal damnation.
And after his own apt description of this corrupt service, one cannot understand why he would advise this against the will and law of the Church.
He has an international audience and influence over a countless
number of souls, and thus he has a responsibility not to lead the confused or unknowing to the poisoned spring but to lead them away from it with all haste, and to teach them why they must follow him.
It is he who has made the most effective case against his own speculative conclusions.
I pray that he will not continue this dangerous and subjectivist series of letters.
They are lessons in cognitively dissonant logic.
-
Most people that I know, who attend the Novus Ordo don't know any better or those that do believe they can reform from within.
My experience has been different. I have come to the conclusion that most people who attend the Novus Ordo would NOT attend the Tridentine Latin Mass instead, even if they knew better. They choose to remain in the NOM. Most are simply too content with the emerging liberal ideas which allow them to soften or put away altogether the perceived "negative" parts of the Catholic Faith (Hell, punishment for sin, penance, women in the home, no contraception, marriage until death etc.).
I, and probably Bishop Williamson, would class these persons as "casualties" of the Novus Ordo system. These are they who have lost the Faith. The dead, the casualties.
However, this does not describe 100% of those attending the Novus Ordo, so your argument is invalid.
Invalid? I think incomplete is a better description.
John Grace's point included those who do not know any better. Cantarella included the spiritual casualties. However, as Cantarella pointed out, if someone willingly and joyfully embraces the modernism of Conciliarism then they are more like ѕυιcιdєs than casualties.
-
A point to be made is 'resistors' within the Novus Ordo whilst a contradiction are few and far between. The Novus Ordo Bishops and most Novus Ordo clergy here in Ireland are not on our side. A few novus ordo clergy here and there and a few laity but a Trad knows they won't find allies here.
In the current battle of keeping the right to life in the constitution, I don't believe for a minute the Novus Ordo Bishops are our allies. We will have more and more casualties unless a certain approach is taken. We must continue to 'tradify'. We probably won't bring people en masse to Tradition but must try win people over for salvation of souls.
-
Curioustrad, I removed your posts because I'm not interested in hosting anti-Bishop Williamson rhetoric here on CathInfo.
There are at least 2 tiny forums that would love to bash Bishop Williamson with you. They'll brainstorm bad things to say about him all day long.
You are welcome to criticize THIS PARTICULAR ELEISON COMMENTS which is the subject of this thread.
It is not "open season" on Bishop Williamson.
When you start your own forum, build it up for many years, and pay the hosting bill, then YOU can set the rules.
I'm not interested in hearing (for the 1000th time) the worn-out lies about how the bishop is "controlled opposition", or negative speculation about why he chose a rose-like design for the cross on his Episcopal insignia.
Your complaints might sound legitimate to the uneducated ear, until you actually LOOK AT THE SITUATION. What, precisely, is a true, honest +Fellay-resisting prelate -- who sees no reason to change the mission the SSPX has been pursuing for decades, along the lines of +Lefevbre -- supposed to do?
I'm sick of this rhetoric from the Pfeifferites. Unfortunately, they aren't alone in their hatred of Bishop Williamson. But they ALL need to put up or shut up.
+Williamson can't claim a jurisdiction or authority that he doesn't have. He can't force priests to follow him. As I've said before, he can't jump up on the desk like a gorilla, pound his chest and say, "Me bishop. You priest. You follow!" That isn't how it works in the Catholic Church.
In normal times, yes, a bishop has jurisdiction (authority) as well as Orders. Normally they go together. But +Williamson remembers very well that he never received jurisdiction in 1988 when he was consecrated. If he had attempted to receive jurisdiction, he would have become a schismatic.
Nevertheless, like +Lefebvre, he is perfectly willing to fly around the country and perform Confirmations, even at his current advanced age. Travel is becoming more difficult for him. What more do they want? Ordinations? You have to have men trained for 6 years for that. We don't have any. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Ditto for priests. +W can't force priests to leave the SSPX, nor can he buy up 1 or 2 dozen properties to serve as seminaries, priories, lodging, Mass centers, etc.
The Resistance is in the same shape the Traditional Movement as a whole was, back in the 1970's. Few and far between, the Faithful often home alone praying for a priest, etc. And it is JUST AS LEGITIMATE because it's the main body or CORE of the Traditional Movement, at least the non-Sedevacantist wing.
The Resistance is being born from the ashes of the SSPX. It's a slow but steady process: as the SSPX decays, the Resistance grows and continues more and more to take its place.
:applause:
-
The Novus Ordo turned the Sacrifice of the Mass from a great Citadel housing the Holy Eucharist into a trailer park right smack in the middle of Tornado Alley. It is a Mass exposed to the elements of a fallen society. The further we get from VII, the more wreckage and roofless RVs clutter the landscape. That is not to say there won't be survivors: those who manage to avoid committing sacrilege and prepare their souls as best they can to receive the sacrament in the absence of all the missing prayers and graces. There will always be streams of refugees coming in from those areas. It's easy (for me at least) to forget how daunting it is to try to find the right TLM group, much less stay in one spot.
I think Bishop Williamson was trying to address the issue from a survivor standpoint when he made those comments way back. The problem with that from my perspective is that not all NO Catholics who come in are looking to rigorously analyze the situation; some people are coiled springs of emotional reaction just looking for an excuse to backslide. This could have been the case with the woman with the shaky voice. I believe it might have been less of a reflection of His Excellency's true position on the NO than an attempt to help keep an unstable person from panicking about their current situation. Still, by emphasizing the NO's validity over its illicit nature, his advice was destined to create more confusion than reassurance.
His belief that Eucharistic Miracles can and do occur in NO Masses ought to be far less controversial though. He has made every indication that he thinks these miracles are a warning to Catholics about the reality they are treating so casually, rather than a validation of everything VII. You can't have a sacrilege if there isn't anything sacred to start with.
With all the chaos pressing down on Tradition at the moment, I'm particularly impressed that Bishop Williamson and his Resistance confreres aren't running the show like cult leaders who demand allegiance ahead of everything else and that is reassuring... especially considering what has shaken loose over the past few years!
-
Something that I was alluding to earlier in posts here. The article requires paying a subscription
Church to use Pope’s Irish visit for last stand on abortion
https://www.businesspost.ie/news/church-use-popes-irish-visit-last-stand-abortion-374264
‘We’ll run a much stronger campaign than on gαy marriage,’ says Eamon Martin
Their last stand will be crushed. The sheep will scatter. The only way I see forward is the guerrilla warfare outlined by Bishop Williamson. Small groups of combatants here and there. Three years ago the pro-life groups mobilised 60,000 people from a population of several million. This year they mobilised about 5,000 people in Belfast.
If these groups do not take the correct approach they will demoralise supporters and bankrupt themselves which the enemies want.
The guerrilla warfare might seem like madness but as The O'Rahilly said
"It is madness, but it is glorious madness."
-
In light of his recent passing (Fr. Fulham (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/priest-found-dead/)), this post and others like it take on new significance.
.
It would seem Fr. P. had been looking for another priest he could make second in command so he eventually settled on Fr. Hewko:
.
I don't expect + Williamson to do everything but I would have joined had he started something concrete. I don't know or have contact with + Faure so I haven't thought about that.
As for Fr. P - he called me 2 years ago and started telling me that + Williamson was "controlled".
The reason as he explained to me was that he wanted + Williamson to do something as well but he was unwilling - there was something more but I cannot remember it now.
BTW if you also check passed posts you'll discover that I originated the expression "Calamity Joe" well before Pfeifferville went off the rails. Having been in seminary with him I knew inexorably where that would go. He is not a leader and he lacks self-discipline. It was he who tried to get me to join up - but with him as C-in-C - forget that !
.
C-in-C would refer to Commander-in-Chief.
.
I offered my not inconsiderable library to Fr. P who said his seminarians didn't need books. I recently related that to Fr. Chazal who wants them for his seminary in the Philippines. So any time he's ready he can come and get them.
As to skulls - that was said of priests (at diaconal retreat) it gave me pause for thought. Of bishops I heard it said that at the general judgment every bishop will be looking for someone else to put his miter on.
If you don't mind I'll PM you a copy of a message I shared with someone else last night because it may help you better understand some issues.
.
Speaking of his "not inconsiderable library," does anyone know what has become of that?
.
If his seminarians don't need books, then how are they going to learn to protect the Faith of Catholics?
.