Thanks! I was hoping you would comment. Please do get back to me, when you have time...with more syllogisms!
Am I wrong to say that you must already have some more that you were not
willing to post for fear of reprisals here by members who don't like syllogisms?
Am I wrong to say that you must have more of these that support your minor
proposition that, "To promote the Newmass in any way whatsoever leads
to the damnation of souls"(?)
(BTW, the pseudonym you chose is a stroke of genius. Been wanting to say that for a while!)
In amore Veritatis,
Thanks, Sean, but this is not about me. God will be my judge. If times were
more sane or normal, I wouldn't have to stoop to such deviance, e.g.,
Internet had existed in 1954, I would never have chosen such a handle then,
and of that I can assure you with 100% accuracy, i.e.,
objectionable contained therein." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I commend you, SeanGovan, for having the fortitude to endeavor this effort
with your family member and also to post here your summary of the effects.
When you are talking to an experienced swimmer who has never felt the
power of rushing water, for example, how can you explain to him that it is
an act approaching suicide to set foot into a rapidly moving river? He is
going to think that his experience of bodily immersion in calm water makes
him an expert in water, and who are you to tell him otherwise?
I would immediately expect that your family friend does not accept some
of the premises because you have not sufficiently supported them. How
can you expect someone to agree to your unexemplified (here, anyway)
assertion that the Newmass leads souls to damnation, for example? That
proposition is, as it were, a link in your chain, but it is weak inasmuch as
it is not supported, and the whole chain is only as strong as its weakest
There are some helpful clues in the following Pentecost sermon of Fr.
Hewko. These are not presented as syllogisms, but they touch on the
same propositions of which syllogisms are made.
As you know, constructing syllogisms takes work. You have to apply your
mind and will with deliberate effort, and at times it can be quite trying. It
is never effortless, but for some, it is easier and for others it is more
difficult. For most, it is repulsive, and for a very few it is actually fun.
It seems to me that you may be among these few, SeanGovan, and if
you are, it's something you should be proud of, and do not listen to the
spirit of the world which would discourage you. At the same time, do
not 'let it go to your head' such that it becomes a passion that consumes
your zeal, and you become an in-your-face aggressor. Not that such a
thing is sinful or bad or deformed, but it will get to be a problem dealing
with people. It seems to me that it's better to control yourself, and to
only apply those skills which are appropriate for the given situation.
I offer this material below, so that someone can then use it to build the
syllogisms you want. Maybe I can help you, but like I said, this takes
work. And right now it's going to have to wait, again. But I wanted to
put this up where you can see it right away.
I've bolded a few spots that look promising.............
From Fr. Hewko's Pentecost sermon
And now, this whole, horrible spirit of dialogue, which makes Catholics
lose their faith,
and puts all religions on an equal level, this is the goal
of the Freemasons, which is to mock God by putting all religions on an equal
footing, which actually leads to atheism. Indifferentism leads to
atheism, as Pope Leo XIII said.
At Vatican II, it was easy for most bishops, most priests, most faithful
to go along with the Newmass, go along with the conciliar church; it waseasier!
No more, much penance, no more contraception, I mean, no more
denial of contraception, of taking the children God sends, but the easier
route: contraception! The whole spirit of the world penetrating into the
Church, because the Church at Vatican II embraced the world, and
became worldly, committing adultery with the revolution.
So it was
easier, for many priests, it was easier -- to go along with the Newmass:
Oh, I've gotta be "obedient"
-- to be obedient to my bishop!
So they went along with the Newmass. And they didn't want to lose their
pension, like the two old priests that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Tim grew up with,
these old priests, many other priests would come and visit them.
I'm sure Fr. Pfeiffer told you this story, but many times they would say, and
Fr. Hannifin would tell them, "You've got to say the Latin Mass! That's what
you're ordained to do! Don't go with this new Protestant thing
!" And they
would say, these old priests, "Well, if I do, the bishop will kick me out -- I'll
lose my pension
, I'll lose my health insurance
." Fr. Hannifin would say, "Well,
of course! That's what we're about!" They would say, "I don't have yourcourage
." Many, many priests, most!
Very few had the clarity of faith, the simplicity
to just suffer for Our Lord.
It's also this document that admits to the legitimacy
of the Newmass! Since when does any SSPX bishop or priest say the Newmass is
-Which means 'healthy' for the whole Body of Christ.
-And the New Code of Canon Law
, which is also
imbued with poison!
So you need fortitude
in this day, to NOT GO ALONG with the revolution
now, within Tradition! -Cannot go along with that! If you want to save
your faith, and your soul,
you cannot go along with it.
And the proof is, look at the fruits.
So, let's turn to the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; she's an enemy of
She's an enemy of Communism!
She's an enemy to the
Modernism in the errors of Vat.II and the Newmass.
She is not a friend
of the Newmass
, the Mother of God. How could she be a friend a "mass"
her Son? -that uncrowns
Him? -that desecrates
So, she is the Mother of Tradition. She is the Mother of Catholic
Tradition. You gotta stay close to her.
And I remind you of Archbishop Lefebvre, he says, at the time of the council
they, the bishops and the cardinals, they came to the Freemasons. In fact,
Cardinal Bea flew to New York city, and met with B'nai B'rith Freemasons, and
he said, "What do you want from the Church, from the Council?" They said,
"Give us religious liberty. Make all the religions equal
." And it happened.
Dignitatis Humanae - they uncrowned Jesus Christ
. It makes a mockery of
Jesus Christ, the King.
They went to the Protestants and said, "What do you want? How can we
pray together?" They said, "Well, give us a 'mass' we can pray, as
with it." So they made the Newmass
with the help of 6
Protestant ministers, taking out everything specifically Catholic
, and nowProtestants can pray the Newmass!
But we Catholics want nothing to do
with that Newmass -- it'll kill your faith!
-Make you lose your faith!
the council, the conciliar church.
And then they came to the Communists. "What do you want?" "We want
to have the Orthodox priests at the Vatican Council!" They said, "Don't
And especially, don't do that terrible consecration
of Russia that the Virgin of Fatima asked for." And Archbishop Lefebvre
presented HIMSELF, 450 signatures of cardinals and bishops to HAVE THE
POPE CONSECRATE RUSSIA AND CONDEMN COMMUNISM at Vatican II. It
was put in a drawer. And there was a pact, an agreement made with the
Communists to say nothing against Communism at the council.
[The Pact of Metz
So, that tells you that the Council was inebriated with the smoke of satan
So, what has got into the hands of the leaders of the SSPX to start
befriending and minimizing the council?! -Saying things like, "Religious liberty
is limited," -saying things like, "Oh, well, let's not make 'super-heresies' of
the Council!" Well, they ARE super heresies! They were in fact
CONDEMNED by many previous popes, religious liberty, false
ecumenism, false freedom of conscience
, and so forth.
So, it's very serious, this battle we are in.
And this is the age
[where] God put us
. He didn't put us in the high middle ages, He put
us [here,] now.
Now, perhaps it is not obvious to you, SeanGovan, but of the say, 20 points
I bolded above, there could be constructed perhaps 100 syllogisms -- of
course, additional information would be required.
There is a process, which you seem to have touched on, so you know
what I'm talking about, whereby a logical progression can be broken down
into smaller and smaller steps. Once completed, a thoroughly detailed
syllogistic progression becomes practically inescapable. When you back up
each step of the way (or at least select ones) with references to
authoritative sources, it adds credibility to the whole.
All of the points above that refer to loss of faith could be gathered into a
The ones that mention the Newmass is an offense against God could be
in a group.
The ones that say someone who is a friend of God cannot be a friend of
the Newmass could be grouped.
Once grouped together, segments and pieces can be used to evoke other
facts not contained here, and to aid in the imagination that is required to
formulate syllogisms and to conceptualize the objectives and process of
each of them.
The heresies of Vat.II which were all, of course, precursors to the Newmass
can be likewise grouped, one of which (not mentioned here) being that the
Mass of Ages could be usurped de facto
by an imposter, a whole-cloth
fabrication 'made by human hands,' that is, by a Freemason and six
Protestant ministers. That BTW, is not to be found in Vat.II, but pay close
attention to the one sentence above: "And the proof
is, look at the fruits."
When Fr. Hewko said that he was ready to go into a lot more detail listing
the fruits and questioning their causes, but he was constrained by time,
unfortunately for us!
Now, syllogisms are all about "proof,"
therefore, we should look into how the Newmass, as a bad fruit of the unclean spirit of Vat.II,
demonstrates to us that we cannot go along with the revolution in Tradition
if we want to save our faith and save our soul, and the virtue that helps
us to do so is called "fortitude."