Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite  (Read 8228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3162
  • Gender: Male
Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
« on: September 04, 2019, 05:05:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • Well, one would have hoped that when Fr. Hewko left the compound, the poison would have started to diminish within him.

    Alas, it has not happened, and he is regurgitating all the sophistries he promoted while still at Pfeifferville:

    1) Well disposed Novus Ordo communicants do not receive grace at a valid Mass (heretical);

    2) Nobody may attend any Novus Ordo Mass, for any reason, ever.

    The first sophistry is easily defeated by reading any pre-conciliar manual on sacramental theology.

    The second sophistry is derived from his confusion surrounding the term "intrinsic evil," which is actually an ambiguous phrase: Something may be intrinsically evil in the realm of human acts, or it may be intrinsically evil in the realm of scholastic philosophy.

    If we are speaking of intrinsic MORAL evil, then there are no circuмstances which can make it permissible.

    It is in this sense which the Pfeifferians (and now Hewkonians/LaRosans) mistakenly believe the term "intrinsic evil" applies to the Novus Ordo.

    But it has never been in this moral sense in which the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, or traditionalist apologists have used the term "intrinsic evil."

    Intrinsic evil as this term has been used in reference to the New Mass has pertained to its nature, not to the quality of the moral act of attendance.

    Evil as a term in scholastic philosophy means "The privation or lack of a good which naturally belongs to a nature; the absence of a good which is naturally due to a being." (Fr. Wuellner.  Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy.  See "evil.").  

    Once again, it is in this sense which traditionalists have referred to the new Mass as "intrinsically evil," not the moral sense.

    This is because the new Mass omits an offertory, and explicit reference to sacrifice or a sacrificial priesthood, which is natural to it.

    The Pfeifferians/Hewkonians/LaRosans took this term, in their ignorance, and blurred it with intrinsic evil in the moral sense, in order to conclude (consistently, but erroneously) that nobody could attend the new Mass ever for any reason, since intrinsically MORAL evil acts do not allow exceptions.

    But that just isn't the case.  They don't understand the term "intrinsic evil" as applied to the new Mass is the scholastic philosophical concept of evil, not intrinsically evil moral acts.

    Consequently, they see compromise and betrayal where they should see only their own ignorance.

    They have become enemies of the Resistance bishops because they have not understood the truth ("a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" precisely because incomplete knowledge distorts), or perhaps did not want to understand it.



    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11982
    • Reputation: +7527/-2267
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #1 on: September 04, 2019, 06:02:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If one is allowed to attend the novus ordo, for certain reasons, then one should be searching all over the country/world for such a priest/mass so that they would be "under rome".  The Trads of the 70s, who left their dioceses in order to stay orthodox, COMPLETELY rejected the novus ordo, as both a theological and a moral evil.  Now you're saying they were wrong?  It's quite contradictory to say that one can attend a novus ordo mass but then attend a resistance mass, which philosophically speaking, blames the novus ordo's evils as the reason why the resistance mass exists in the first place.
    .
    I'm with Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko on this point.  If Trads shouldn't condemn the new mass 100%, then we should be "under rome" with the FSSP (and soon with the new-sspx).  The FSSP, the new-sspx and all other similar mindsets are hypocrisy.  The new mass is why the Church is in the mess it's in.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32549
    • Reputation: +28766/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #2 on: September 04, 2019, 06:07:38 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • They also lack A) Humility and B) Common Sense.

    I understand the argument that I disagree with many Sede bishops for example. But at least I counter them with the equally powerful opinion of a bunch of Resistance bishops! In other words, I am forced to choose WHICH BISHOP is correct, as it's logically impossible for both of them to be right. But I'm choosing between a Bishop and a Bishop. No problem there.

    But opposing countless intelligent bishops who have experience and years of sacrifice and dedication to the cause -- with my own weak opinion? That is pride, pure and simple.

    A little bell should go off when you are willing to believe that YOU ALONE have the truth, and all the theologians ON YOUR OWN SIDE -- including professors at the Seminary that formed you -- disagree with you. "Um... they all compromised! Yeah, that's it!"

    ...Sure they did.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32549
    • Reputation: +28766/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #3 on: September 04, 2019, 06:11:56 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • If one is allowed to attend the novus ordo, for certain reasons, then one should be searching all over the country/world for such a priest/mass so that they would be "under rome".  The Trads of the 70s, who left their dioceses in order to stay orthodox, COMPLETELY rejected the novus ordo, as both a theological and a moral evil.  Now you're saying they were wrong?  It's quite contradictory to say that one can attend a novus ordo mass but then attend a resistance mass, which philosophically speaking, blames the novus ordo's evils as the reason why the resistance mass exists in the first place.
    .
    I'm with Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko on this point.  If Trads shouldn't condemn the new mass 100%, then we should be "under rome" with the FSSP (and soon with the new-sspx).  The FSSP, the new-sspx and all other similar mindsets are hypocrisy.  The new mass is why the Church is in the mess it's in.
    I'm sure Sean can explain better, but just for starters, it's not about condemning the New Mass 100% or not. It's also not about "Is it OK to leave the Novus Ordo even if you don't have a replacement?"

    I am 100% against the Novus Ordo and I would never attend a Novus Ordo Mass even if I couldn't get to a Tridentine Mass even once a year. I would stay home for years on end, because no Mass is better than the dangerous Novus Ordo Mass.

    But I'm an enlightened Trad. I think that's part of the answer.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #4 on: September 04, 2019, 06:16:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • If one is allowed to attend the novus ordo, for certain reasons, then one should be searching all over the country/world for such a priest/mass so that they would be "under rome".

    That's what you call a non-sequitur (i.e., the conclusion does not follow from the premise).

    As regards the claim that "the trads of the 1970's COMPLETELY rejected the novus ordo" goes, not even Archbishop Lefebvre "completely" rejected it.  In fact, there are articles online in which he acknowledges it may be necessary in dire circuмstances to receive communion at a new Mass in order to survive until the old Mass becomes available, with him using the analogy of cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ prisoners eating bad meat in order to survive until they are liberated.

    So no, I am not saying THEY are wrong.  I am saying YOU are wrong (i.e., in your historical memory, which does not jibe with the facts).

    But then in your simplemindedness, you make another error, pretending I am endorsing the new Mass and being inconsistent as a Resistant in doing so: I am doing no such thing.  

    Then you conclude with yet another non-sequitur: "If Trads shouldn't condemn the new mass 100%, then we should be "under rome" with the FSSP (and soon with the new-sspx)."  What a nonsensical, illogical statement, from which it would follow that Archbishop Lefebvre should not have resisted Rome (since he did not reject the new Mass 100%).

    Even your final statement is erroneous (i.e., The new Mass is why the Church is in the state its in.): The new Mass is a symptom of the state the church is in, not the cause (Vatican II happened before the new Mass).
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11982
    • Reputation: +7527/-2267
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #5 on: September 04, 2019, 06:29:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The 70s Trads rejected the novus ordo 100% in practice.  Sure, many debated the theological issues surrounding it, but +Ottaviani, +Bacci and +ABL (as well as many priests who were trained in diocesan seminaries) all rejected the new mass and said it was dangerous to one's Faith.  And all Trad priests at the time rejected it in order to say the True Mass.  In the 70s, the dividing lines were quite clear.  There was no indult, there was no middle ground.  You were either a latin mass, pre-V2 catholic or you attended the novus ordo.  Nowadays, the indult and the idea of a "conservative" new mass have muddied the waters.  Your approach to the new mass is also muddied.
    .
    The new mass is wrong, morally speaking, whether it is intrinsically evil or not.  The idea of apologizing or minimizing the new mass' evil is the logical fallacy that is leading the new-sspx to a deal with new-rome.  If they accept the false notion that V2 and the new mass can be orthodox under "certain circuмstances" or a "certain point of view" (i.e. +Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity"), then they should logically go with rome.  
    .
    The new mass is the cause of the Church crisis in PRACTICAL terms, while V2 is the cause in THEORETICAL terms.  If you disagree, then what is the cause?  

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #6 on: September 04, 2019, 06:44:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The 70s Trads rejected the novus ordo 100% in practice.  Sure, many debated the theological issues surrounding it, but +Ottaviani, +Bacci and +ABL (as well as many priests who were trained in diocesan seminaries) all rejected the new mass and said it was dangerous to one's Faith.  And all Trad priests at the time rejected it in order to say the True Mass.  In the 70s, the dividing lines were quite clear.  There was no indult, there was no middle ground.  You were either a latin mass, pre-V2 catholic or you attended the novus ordo.  Nowadays, the indult and the idea of a "conservative" new mass have muddied the waters.  Your approach to the new mass is also muddied.
    .
    The new mass is wrong, morally speaking, whether it is intrinsically evil or not.  The idea of apologizing or minimizing the new mass' evil is the logical fallacy that is leading the new-sspx to a deal with new-rome.  If they accept the false notion that V2 and the new mass can be orthodox under "certain circuмstances" or a "certain point of view" (i.e. +Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity"), then they should logically go with rome.  
    .
    The new mass is the cause of the Church crisis in PRACTICAL terms, while V2 is the cause in THEORETICAL terms.  If you disagree, then what is the cause?  

    Are you a newbie, or just not well-read?

    1) Even the LaRosans/Hewkonians/Pfeifferians acknowledge that Archbishop Lefebvre -generally, but not completely- did not "ban" novus ordo Mass attendance until 1977 (per +Tissier's Biography).  But even then, he only "almost" completely banned it, not completely banned it.  You are spreading disinformation in pretending otherwise.

    2) Your 2nd sentence seems to reveal the cause of your confusion, in which you equate "rejecting the new Mass" with "100% rejection."  I reject the new Mass, but like Lefebvre and every other traditionalist, I acknowledge in certain circuмstances it can be permissible because -and you have lost sight of this- it is not intrinsically evil in the moral sense.  And if not, then what can be the cause of a no-exceptions ban??  Answer: Nothing.

    3) The only people who ban novus ordo attendance 100% of the time are sedevacantists because, logically, they (erroneously) believe it to be 100% invalid.  But if Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledges certain exceptions can make attendance permissible, why is a twit like you disagreeing?

    4) Your whole 2nd paragraph is slop: What does it mean for the new Mass to be wrong?  What did the new mass say about something that it was wrong?  Then you move on to discussing minimizing the evil of the new mass, because in your blunt mind, acknowledging necessity as a cause justifying attendance makes the new Mass good.  Are you an idiot?  You must be, because then you go on to discuss the new mass "being orthodox under certain circuмstances."  What the hell does that gibberish mean?  I certainly never said or implied that.  That is a hallucination of your B&W, either/or Feeneyite mind, not a healthy mind which understands the various doctrines in play here.  Then you hop from that invention to the hermeneutic of continuity.  LMAO.  Are you even reading the incoherent gibberish you are writing??

    5) The cause is modernism, of which the new Mass is a symptom.  If you can't even get that much right, how can you hope to intelligently discuss the topics you are breaching above??
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #7 on: September 04, 2019, 06:52:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Archbishop Lefebvre permitting the new Mass in extreme necessity (which he could not have done, were it intrinsically evil in the moral, rather than the philosophical, sense) in an Econe spiritual conference (and by the way, also admitting grace flows to well-disposed Novus Ordo communicants at the new Mass):

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/lefebvre-on-spiritual-nourishment-(grace)-at-the-novus-ordo-mass/


    "But if, on the other hand, as happens for example, they mentioned a case to me of.. some of you gave me the case of a priest who always says the old offertory, who always says the old canon, but he says the mass, he uses the new mass, he says the mass facing the people but he does not give communion in the hand. Well, if there are any seminarians that don’t have any other mass, can they attend a mass like that ? I think yes, what do you expect ! The priest who makes such an effort would be a little discouraged, hurt to see the seminarians close to him, whom he loves very much, to see that they don’t come and attend his mass under the pretext that he does not say [the old mass] absolutely from beginning to end.. I believe there are some circuмstances we have to consider !

    The father of Mr Pazat who is here told me yesterday that right now, there is not a single mass of St Pius V in Madrid. If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions, as I will mention, quite a few circuмstances in which we cannot attend these masses.

    But there are still priests who believe, there are still priests.. the mass is not always invalid, certainly not ! If it was always an invalid mass, of course we cannot go there, if it was always a sacrilegious mass, a mass regularly sacrilegious, evidently, a mass that has a net protestant tendency, it would be evident. But I think there are at the same time circuмstances in which.. we do not know, because there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !

    If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]"
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11982
    • Reputation: +7527/-2267
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #8 on: September 04, 2019, 07:10:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    1) Even the LaRosans/Hewkonians/Pfeifferians acknowledge that Archbishop Lefebvre -generally, but not completely- did not "ban" novus ordo Mass attendance until 1977 (per +Tissier's Biography).  But even then, he only "almost" completely banned it, not completely banned it.  You are spreading disinformation in pretending otherwise.
    Who cares?  +ABL went back and forth on many topics, including the new mass.  In the 70s, when Traditionalism began, there were plenty of independent priests who disagreed with +ABL on this.
    .

    Quote
    2) Your 2nd sentence seems to reveal the cause of your confusion, in which you equate "rejecting the new Mass" with "100% rejection."  I reject the new Mass, but like Lefebvre and every other traditionalist, I acknowledge in certain circuмstances it can be permissible because -and you have lost sight of this- it is not intrinsically evil in the moral sense.  And if not, then what can be the cause of a no-exceptions ban??  Answer: Nothing.
    Only the Church can decide definitively whether the new mass is intrinsically evil.  Anyone arguing this point is wasting their time.  Not every Trad in the 70s made exceptions for attending the new mass.  There are plenty of other reasons which can make the new mass immoral besides the intrinsic nature of it.
    .

    Quote
    3) The only people who ban novus ordo attendance 100% of the time are sedevacantists because, logically, they (erroneously) believe it to be 100% invalid.  But if Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledges certain exceptions can make attendance permissible, why is a twit like you disagreeing?
    Fr Wathen was not a sedevacantist and he said that the new mass is immoral 100% of the time.  There were plenty of Trad priests who agreed with him.
    .

    Quote
    4) Your whole 2nd paragraph is slop: What does it mean for the new Mass to be wrong?  What did the new mass say about something that it was wrong?  Then you move on to discussing minimizing the evil of the new mass, because in your blunt mind, acknowledging necessity as a cause justifying attendance makes the new Mass good.  Are you an idiot?  You must be, because then you go on to discuss the new mass "being orthodox under certain circuмstances."  What the hell does that gibberish mean?  I certainly never said or implied that.  That is a hallucination of your B&W, either/or Feeneyite mind, not a healthy mind which understands the various doctrines in play here.  Then you hop from that invention to the hermeneutic of continuity.  LMAO.  Are you even reading the incoherent gibberish you are writing??
    The end does not justify the means.  If the new mass is wrong, one cannot attend it to "receive graces".  If the new mass is ok, then we must accept it and be under rome.  If the new mass is questionable, we must avoid it because canon law disallows attendance at dubious masses/sacraments.  
    .

    Quote
    5) The cause is modernism, of which the new Mass is a symptom. 
    The practical cause of the loss of faith today is the new mass, which puts into practice modernist ideals.  The mental cause of the Church crisis is V2, which is a manifesto of modernism.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11982
    • Reputation: +7527/-2267
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #9 on: September 04, 2019, 07:19:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !
    I understand +ABL's concerns here, being he was a good shepherd of souls and he wanted the best for all of his priests and flocks.  But, the japanese kept the Faith for centuries without the mass, so the idea that avoidance of the new mass and having no sacraments would endanger souls is not a full-proof principle.  

    Offline Praeter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +122/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #10 on: September 04, 2019, 07:59:02 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • The second sophistry is derived from his confusion surrounding the term "intrinsic evil," which is actually an ambiguous phrase: Something may be intrinsically evil in the realm of human acts, or it may be intrinsically evil in the realm of scholastic philosophy.

    Intrinsic evil as this term has been used in reference to the New Mass has pertained to its nature, not to the quality of the moral act of attendance.

    Evil as a term in scholastic philosophy means "The privation or lack of a good which naturally belongs to a nature; the absence of a good which is naturally due to a being." (Fr. Wuellner.  Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy.  See "evil.").  

    You made some really good points.  I would add a further distinction which may provide additional clarity - namely, the distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the Novus Ordo Mass.  The intrinsic value of any Mass - that is, the efficacious power of itself (in actu primo) is infinite - since Christ himself is the priest and victim being offered.    

    The extrinsic value of the Mass, in relation to man - that is, the fruits that we derive from the Mass - is finite, and it is limited by many things.  Not just our disposition, but many other factors as well.  One thing that limits the extrinsic value of a Mass is the liturgy and the externals (the smells and bells).  The more glory the liturgy gives to God, the greater will be the extrinsic value of the Mass; the less glory it gives to God, the less extrinsic value, and hence the fewer fruits that are derived from it.  This is where the problem with the Novus Ordo comes in.

    The extrinsic value of a Novus Ordo Mass is greatly diminished by the watered down liturgy, ambiguous prayers, bad translations, etc., so, it can be said to be evil (lacking in a due good) for those reasons - which relate to its extrinsic value.   But it will never be evil (lacking in a due good) intrinsically, or with respect to its intrinsic value.  

    It is also clearly going too far to say no one can receives grace from a Novus Ordo.  The grace is diminished, but as long as the Mass is valid it still flow, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it's celebrated.  And what about those who receive communion at the Novus Ordo?   That is a separate source of grace, and there's no doubt that anyone who receives communion well disposed, receives grace from It.


    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1024
    • Reputation: +794/-158
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #11 on: September 04, 2019, 08:16:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is also clearly going too far to say no one can receives grace from a Novus Ordo.  The grace is diminished, but as long as the Mass is valid it still flow, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it's celebrated.  And what about those who receive communion at the Novus Ordo?   That is a separate source of grace, and there's no doubt that anyone who receives communion well disposed, receives grace from It.

    I think you've hit the nail on the head... I've been trying to articulate this point to both Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko for years now. Well said. 

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #12 on: September 04, 2019, 08:53:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Who cares?  +ABL went back and forth on many topics, including the new mass.  In the 70s, when Traditionalism began, there were plenty of independent priests who disagreed with +ABL on this.
    .
    Only the Church can decide definitively whether the new mass is intrinsically evil.  Anyone arguing this point is wasting their time.  Not every Trad in the 70s made exceptions for attending the new mass.  There are plenty of other reasons which can make the new mass immoral besides the intrinsic nature of it.
    .
    Fr Wathen was not a sedevacantist and he said that the new mass is immoral 100% of the time.  There were plenty of Trad priests who agreed with him.
    .
    The end does not justify the means.  If the new mass is wrong, one cannot attend it to "receive graces".  If the new mass is ok, then we must accept it and be under rome.  If the new mass is questionable, we must avoid it because canon law disallows attendance at dubious masses/sacraments.  
    .
    The practical cause of the loss of faith today is the new mass, which puts into practice modernist ideals.  The mental cause of the Church crisis is V2, which is a manifesto of modernism.

    By paragraph:

    1) Your disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre is noted;

    2) Your incomprehension here is amazing: The idea that the Church must decide whether the new Mass is intrinsically evil supposes you yourself are unsure, and/or that the matter is not discernable with certitude by the use of natural philosophy (which all traditionalists have not hesitated to declare), whereas it is clear that it is intrinsically evil.  Your confusion -which the OP was designed to dispell, but instead seems to have activated your CRIMETHINK- eminates from incomprehension regarding which species of intrinsic we are speaking of (i.e., moral or philosophical/scholastic);

    3) Fr. Wathan was a Feeneyite, and therefore untrustworthy in doctrine.  Moreover, when choosing between him and Lefebvre, I will go with the latter 100% of the time;

    4) "The ends justifying the means" is yet another irrelevant concept introduced into the discussion by you.  All that follows, yet again, presupposes the new Mass is evil in the moral, rather than the philosophical, sense.  In which case, Archbishop Lefebvre committed thousands of mortal sins for allowing people to attend it.  Or, could it just be, that what I have tried to explain to you regarding the distinction between moral and philosophical intrinsic evil reconciles that whole problem, and indicates it is the truth?  But I will turn your sophism back around on you and say this:
    If one can receive grace at the new Mass (which I have demonstrated Archbishop Lefebvre believed and never recanted), how can it be intrinsically evil in the moral sense to attend it??

    PS: Can you please quote me where I say "the new Mass is OK?"  If you need to resort to lies to maintain your slogans, it indicates the justifications for your imaginary position (outside the Compound, anyway) are lacking.

    PPS: Your comment about avoiding questionable sacraments is likewise irrelavent: Should a man dying in a car accident refuse absolution from a conciliar priest because his orders are questionable?  We would call such a man an idiot, yet this is what you are advocating?

    5) I see you are repeating yourself here, and sticking to the script (like Deb from Napoleon Dynamite: "Cuz for a limited time only,...").
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11982
    • Reputation: +7527/-2267
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #13 on: September 04, 2019, 08:54:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The intrinsic value of any Mass - that is, the efficacious power of itself (in actu primo) is infinite - since Christ himself is the priest and victim being offered.    
    This intrinsic value being perfect and good only applies to the True liturgy because only this liturgy is of 100% Divine origin (essentially).  The new mass is a defective liturgy, in its essence, because it's partially man made.  I'm not arguing it's intrinsically evil, but it is intrinsically defective.  Assuming the novus ordo priest is valid (which is a big assumption), then Christ would be the priest and the victim but, the PRAYER/OFFERING of the mass (i.e. the intention) is what is defective.  The True Mass is offered for the 4 purposes of prayer - ACTS - Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving, and Satisfaction for sin. The new mass' intentions do not include all of these, therefore this prayer is imperfect, just as Cain's offering was not pleasing to God.
    .

    Quote
    The extrinsic value of the Mass, in relation to man - that is, the fruits that we derive from the Mass - is finite, and it is limited by many things.  Not just our disposition, but many other factors as well.  One thing that limits the extrinsic value of a Mass is the liturgy and the externals (the smells and bells).  The more glory the liturgy gives to God, the greater will be the extrinsic value of the Mass; the less glory it gives to God, the less extrinsic value, and hence the fewer fruits that are derived from it.  This is where the problem with the Novus Ordo comes in.
    The novus ordo is defective intrinsically and extrinsically.  Its liturgy is a break with Tradition and violates Quo Primum, so it's sinful.  The lack of reverence, lack of silence, immodesty, and other liturgical abominations (i.e. communion in the hand) not only offend God but are a sacrilege because they treat the Mass, the most Holy prayer of the Church, with the utmost casualness.  


    Quote
    The extrinsic value of a Novus Ordo Mass is greatly diminished by the watered down liturgy, ambiguous prayers, bad translations, etc., so, it can be said to be evil (lacking in a due good) for those reasons - which relate to its extrinsic value.   But it will never be evil (lacking in a due good) intrinsically, or with respect to its intrinsic value.
    Some new masses are lacking in good and some are outright evil, both intrinsically and extrinsically.  Not all novus ordo liturgies are the same.  Not all new masses have intrinsic value.  
    .

    Quote
    It is also clearly going too far to say no one can receives grace from a Novus Ordo.  

    Protestants can receive graces at their services too - it's called actual grace.  The novus ordo is not a catholic mass; it is a defective, pretend-mass, said by (many) pretend-priests.  People may receive graces at a novus ordo but only in spite of it, not because of it.  


    Quote
    The grace is diminished, but as long as the Mass is valid it still flow, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it's celebrated.  

    Validity is not the main question in regards to grace.  In order for a mass to be pleasing to God it must be valid, legal and morally good.  The novus ordo may be valid, but it's highly debatable.  The church will have to decide in the future.  The novus ordo is certainly 100% illegal.  And it is 99% of the time immoral, due to a variety of factors (irreligious atmosphere, defective liturgy, communion in the hand, doubtful priests, etc).

    Quote
    And what about those who receive communion at the Novus Ordo?   That is a separate source of grace, and there's no doubt that anyone who receives communion well disposed, receives grace from It.
    This assumes the consecration was valid and the priest is a priest.  Does a "well disposed" catholic receive grace when they receive Our Lord in their hands?  How is this possible?  Can a "well disposed" catholic receive grace when he receives Our Lord at an abominable liturgy?  Does this mean I can receive Holy Communion at a black mass, if I know the priest is valid (they say the correct words of consecration, unlike the novus ordo)?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Hewko Still A Pfeifferite
    « Reply #14 on: September 04, 2019, 08:57:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I understand +ABL's concerns here, being he was a good shepherd of souls and he wanted the best for all of his priests and flocks.  But, the japanese kept the Faith for centuries without the mass, so the idea that avoidance of the new mass and having no sacraments would endanger souls is not a full-proof principle.  

    Oh no:

    To be consistent, you must maintain that he was a terrible modernist, who induced people to commit intrinsically evil acts in attending the new Mass (e.g., In the quote from his spiritual conference I provided, but also in his 1980 acknowledgement that those attending the NOM fulfill their Sunday obligation (which could not be the case if they were committing intrinsically evil moral acts).

    PS: If the Japanese kept the faith, did they also keep the state of grace?  All Catholic theologians would consider that morally impossible without the sacraments (and any belief to the contrary is pious wishful thinking).
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."