Author Topic: Fr. MacDonalds response to Sean Govan (Read 1563 times)

SeanGovan · « **on:** February 17, 2017, 08:17:30 PM »

Father MacDonald replied to the open letter which I wrote about my conversations with him, and requested that I publish his reply in all the places where I published my letter. The original letter is here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Open-letter-to-the-Recusant-on-Fr-MacDonalds-strange-new-theology

17 Feb. 17

Dear Mr. Govan,

I am just know getting around to reading your remembrances of our conversations of January. It looked long and was not in a format for convenient downloading to be read offline.

Please publish this wherever you have published your remembrances.

I would like to make some corrections and follow with some catechetical explanations.

1. I was never perplexed; your perceptions were erroneous.
2. I don’t recall using the term “invincible ignorance”; if that term were used its meaning would have to be explained.

The sacraments of the new law necessarily contain grace and confer it upon those who worthily receive them.

There are seven such sacraments. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not one of the seven.

We were speculating about a case where the Novus Ordo Mass was valid. To be valid the Mass must have 1) a proper offertory, 2) a valid consecration and 3) a reception of Communion by the priest. Now in this speculative case what was once bread is now the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ [I am certain that I used the words Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in January, it is odd that you did not remember.] I then said that if a young child received Holy Communion at this Mass he would receive the grace of the sacrament. Instead of young child I should have said one receiving Communion worthily. I said young child presuming that it was understood that a young child is generally worthy to receive Communion. I was not implying that he was ignorant about the sacrament of Holy Communion.

I believe that this is the consistent teaching of the Church.

It is undeniable that wherever Fr. Pfeiffer speaks faithful stop coming to the Resistance Masses. Probably he does not directly say they should stop coming but he convinces them to stop coming. You Sean Govan are an example. You have listened to Fr. Pfeiffer and decided to stop supporting the Resistance.

You are confused about some of the issues you added later.

The catechism teaches that the priest is the ordinary minister of baptism, but that anyone can baptise. Since anyone can baptise, an Orthodox Priest, being someone, can baptise. If he baptises a baby, the baby is baptised, Original Sin is washed from his soul by the reception of Sanctifying Grace and he receives the character of Baptism. In fact, he is a Catholic until he grows up and embraces Orthodoxy.

In your particular case, if your first Confirmation in the N.O. was valid, and you were personally worthy to receive the sacrament, then you received the graces and the character of Confirmation at that time. If you were not worthy then you received the character of Confirmation but not the graces until you made a good confession and became worthy. If it was not valid then, again presuming you were worthy to receive the sacrament, you received the graces of Confirmation when Bishop Tissier conditionally confirmed you. That is why Bishop Tissier did it conditionally saying, “If you are not Confirmed… He did not know if your first Confirmation was valid or not. Confirmation, because it places an indelible character on the soul cannot be repeated. If your first confirmation was valid Bishop Tissier did nothing for you at all.

Matrimony is a contract. If two make a valid matrimonial contract then they are married. One does not need to be Catholic or even baptised to get married. The matrimonial contract goes back to the garden of Paradise. If both persons making a matrimonial contract are baptised then they also receive the Sacrament of matrimony. They have a sacramental marriage.

One of the commandments of the Church is: Obey the laws of the Church regarding matrimony. The Church law obliges only Catholics and states that they must be married before a priest and two witnesses. The priest is the official witness of the Church. Before witnessing a marriage he is obliged to investigate and determine that the marriage contract will be valid; especially he must determine that both the man and the woman are eligible to marry and that they are eligible to marry each other. He must also explain to them the duties and responsibilities of matrimony.

Yours faithfully,

Fr. Edward F. MacDonald

Incredulous · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2017, 10:18:11 PM »

You outlined the problem yourself Father:

"We were speculating about a case where the Novus Ordo Mass was valid. To be valid the Mass must have 1) a proper offertory, 2) a valid consecration and 3) a reception of Communion by the priest"

With help from the Blessed Virgin Mary, a few traditional Roman Catholics will stand and fight against the false liturgy:

The bastard-demon rite, that ignores Mother Mary the "Dispenser of All Graces".

And we have impeccable arguments to defend our case:

LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE

Cardinal Ottaviani
Rome, September 25th, 1969
Most Holy Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounder duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, 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 XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V. so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

Brief Summary

I: History of the Change.

The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

II: Definition of the Mass.

By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

III: Presentation of the Ends.

The three ends of the Mass are altered-: no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

IV:—and of the essence.

The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.

V:—and of the four elements of the sacrifice

The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.

VI: The destruction of unity.

The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.

VII: The alienation of the Orthodox.

While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.

VIII: The abandonment of defenses.

The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith.

Even EWTN knows the novus ordo missae is a sham LINK

SeanGovan · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2017, 05:49:14 PM »

Sent Father this reply today.

Dear Father MacDonald,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have published your response as you requested and am now forwarding it to the Bcc addresses you couldn't see.

Are you aware that your position on the New Mass is different from that of Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Carl Pulvermacher?

I am ignorant of many things in theology. But I know that the New Mass gives no grace, because that is what Archbishop Lefebvre said.

The group that you currently choose to be with is clearly not resisting Vatican II and the New Mass. Therefore, it is not the Resistance, and I refuse to be a part of it. That is my own decision, which I would have made months ago had it not been for Father Pfeiffer.

I will come back to your Mass when you come back to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, which I beg you to do quickly.

Thank you for your honesty. Now the world has your own opinion from your own lips, rather than mine. It is a false opinion, but it is only right that people should know who holds it.

Should you ever wish to stop by for a chat and a beer while in town, my door is always open.

Long live Jesus and Mary! Down with Vatican II and the New Mass!

Sincerely,

Sean Govan

Archbishop Lefebvre quotes:

"It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it." -Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. III pg. 19. Found online at http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-3.htm
If you take the time to read the whole chapter, you will notice that Archbishop Lefebvre is lamenting the disrespect shown to our Lord's Real Presence. He is therefore obviously speaking of valid Masses.

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” Archbishop Lefebvre said this in August 1972 on a priests' retreat. I found it online in French in the book A Bishop Speaks. If you read French, you will find it on page 71.
http://laportelatine.org/bibliotheque/oeuvres_mgr_lefebvre/1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle/1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle.pdf

Father Carl Pulvermacher quotes:

The Angelus March 1984
answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. We started going to our parish church (Novus Ordo, of course) on the Sundays there was no traditional Mass here. My question is this. Is it wrong to go to our parish church when the traditional Mass is only available so infrequently? Is it wrong to receive Communion or any other Sacrament in the Novus Ordo church? Is the bread and wine really transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Novus Ordo Mass? S. P., Kasson, Minn.

A. Here we get down to the bare facts. In all questions like this I always advise people to avoid attending the New Mass, as well as the altered Sacraments. I do not say they are always invalid. However, this alone doesn't make them good. The New Mass is not grace-giving. It is not our Catholic Mass. The only reason it was created was to destroy our true Mass. This excuse of people not being able to understand the Latin language is silly. We were always instructed to follow with our English (or other) missals. Latin is still the official language of the Church. Anybody telling me the New Mass in Latin is easier to understand than the Tridentine Mass is surely joking. The real thing is better than the substitute.

The Angelus April 1984

answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. Several people objected to my saying, in last month's column, that the New Mass was not grace-giving. "It is heresy to hold a valid Mass is not grace giving."

A. First of all, there is a difference between validity and grace-giving. I believe the one may be present without the other. Surely, I do not claim that in every case the New Mass is invalid. I hate to make comparisons but I know you would agree that a valid Satanic mass (Black Mass) would not be grace giving. I certainly do not hold the New Mass is the same as a Black Mass. I merely look at the fruits. So far I have not seen a Catholic who has advanced in holiness because of the graces of the New Mass. No Novus Ordo priest or lay person that I know of has even come close to being lifted to the honors of the Altar—sainthood. Of course, you might say that 15 or 20 years is not enough time to tell. However, we can look at the miserable condition of the papacy, the episcopacy, the priesthood, the brotherhood and sisterhood, and the laity—single and married—and we find it easier to say "no grace giving," than "grace giving." We have material eyes and cannot see the state of grace, so we cannot prove it one way or the other. All we can do is to look at the results of the New Mass. Has anyone ever dreamed that in most of our churches such sacrilegious things could take place as clown liturgies, dancing girls, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ masses, Jєωιѕн and Protestant liturgies? Our Lord said, "Let no one lead you astray." "By their fruits you shall know them." "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." I have yet to see a single Catholic who has truly benefitted from the New Mass. Never have I seen a novus ordo convent or a monastery where religious life was not in a state of decline. When we had the true Mass, normal progress was seen. When we adopted the Novus Ordo, we have seen normal decline. I dare any person—cleric or lay—to prove the grace-givingness of the New Ordo liturgy!

The Angelus May 1984

answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. If I were to take your advice I would not attend a Mass from one year end to another. If we lived in happier times and the Tridentine Mass was as available as the other, then I would go all the way with you. But, sad to say, this is not the case ... I am afraid if people took your advice they would eventually drift away from the Church and lose their faith ... I am sorry to say that I believe your advice to be totally wrong and immeasurably harmful. F. G., Hants, England.

A. My advice was, and still is, the same. It seems to be insane to say: "Don't go to the Novus Ordo Mass even under the best of circuмstances!" I do not deny that in some cases it could be valid. It might be said with some dignity by a validly ordained, sad, old priest. You might cry with him over the memory of the Holy Mass of all times, which he misses. Christ could be present by transubstantiation. In spite of everything, it is not good and should be avoided. It is an invention of enemies of the Church. It is Protestant and leads to Protestantism. The only reason why it was invented and brought into the Church was for the purpose of destroying our true Mass. The devil hates our Holy Mass and he will do anything to stop it or slow it down. He can even make us feel sorry for the New Mass and for the good priests who obediently say it with sorrow. I am sure there are many good Catholics who go to it with sorrow because they want to be obedient children of Holy Mother Church. I will not judge them, or you—God knows all things. However, because of what I know of the New Mass, I shall never advise anyone to go to it, even if it is sometimes valid. I do not want to give advice that is wrong or harmful.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2017, 05:20:02 AM »

Mr. Govan is deliberately not making the necessary distinctions, and he is doing this so he can have an excuse to not go to Mass anymore and take it easy. The resistance requires sacrifice and most do not like that.

This is why we have two extremes;

1. We have those, who deep down know they should red light the SSPX (most of the sheep here on Cath info), but won't. Because they have a sentimental attachement to the sacraments, even if they are not pleasing to God

2. And then we have the Pfeifferites who want to boycott even resistance Masses.

Both are looking for an easy way out, and to avoid making sacrifices.

But the truth is neither.

So to address Mr. Govans lack of distinctions. Father MacDonald is speaking of a specific case, in specific conditions, and which practically speaking applies to a very very, (if even existant) minority of people in the NO. Archbishop Lefebvre himself said that 90% of the NOs are invalid.

The quotes that Mr. Govan gives are speaking generally and do stand. It is in this way in theology, that two seemingly contradictory things are not so.

What Father MacDonald was NOT saying, and you know this full well, was that the NO gives grace (as B. Williamson says), NOR was he saying that people can go to it (if it nourishes their faith - as the Bishop also said). I know these remarks will upset those who think that the Bishop is infallible, and who squeel like piglets at the slightest criticism of him, but frankly, that's too bad for them.

You yourself admitted that you know not much about theology? False humility, because you are speaking on a theological matter! So off you go then to your bishop-less sect with Father Pfeiffer and Greg Taylor. Sad, because you are putting your soul in grave danger, but nonetheless a purification which is the will of God.

“I salute you, I adore you, I embrace you, O adorable Cross of my Saviour.
Protect us, guard us, save us. Jesus loved you so much, following His example, I love you. By your holy image calm our fears, may we feel only peace and confidence.” Prayer given to Marie-Julie Jahenny, stigmatist