CathInfo.com

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.

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.

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).