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.

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.  

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.

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...

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!

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.  
 

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.

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.