Dear Editor,

Here is a summary of the conversations I had with Father MacDonald when he said Mass in Emmett on the weekend of January 28, 2017. I cannot remember the exact words that Father MacDonald used when I spoke with him; but I do remember the exact ideas, and they were the following.

"A distinction must be made between the Mass and Holy Communion, in such a way as to admit that Mass said in the New Rite cannot give grace, but that Holy Communion received under species that are consecrated using the New Rite can give grace, on condition that the Mass is valid and that the communicant is invincibly ignorant that the New Rite is evil."

When Father told me that on Saturday, I was surprised, and I said, "That kind of makes sense," even though it didn't. Father told me that Sean Johnson had gotten confused in his Catechetical Refutation by not making this distinction. But after thinking about it some more and speaking with Father Pfeiffer, I talked to Father MacDonald about it again on Sunday.

I told Father MacDonald that the distinction seemed false, since the priest's Communion is part of the Mass, and since even the Communion received by the faithful necessarily comes from the Mass. Holy Communion always comes from a Mass, and a Mass always produces Holy Communion. I asked him, what about when the celebrant of a Novus Ordo Mass receives the Host and the Chalice? The celebrant's act of receiving Communion is part of the Mass and at the same time is also Holy Communion. Does he get grace from the Holy Communion? In that case, he is also getting grace from the New Mass. Father said he didn't know if the priest gets grace or not.

The true doctrine is that "the Mass is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice." The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not just Holy Communion. The Mass itself is part of the Sacrament, according to the familiar phrase that I just quoted. And I am certain that I remember reading in the Summa of Saint Thomas that the other six Sacraments are received in the instant that they are confected, but that the Holy Eucharist is confected before It is received. Father MacDonald's new idea on Novus Ordo Holy Communion permits him to say that he is opposing Bishop Williamson's errors, while in fact he is leading people to accept them (consciously or not).

Saint Thomas also says that the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of the unity of the Church, because instead of being assimilated to the person who eats It (like normal food), it causes them to be assimilated to Christ, and the Church is Christ's Mystical Body. When the faithful receive Holy Communion, they express their union with the Mass at which it was consecrated, and with the doctrine of the priest who said the Mass.

I told Father MacDonald that if you get grace from a valid Novus Ordo Holy Communion, then you get grace from a valid Novus Ordo Mass. So I asked him why I shouldn't go to the New Mass. He still says to stay away from the New Mass, but he told me that the reason you can't go is that we are not sure that it is valid. (I think that he didn't really mean that, though, because he appeared rather flustered. If I asked him again, I believe and hope he would give the same reason as the Archbishop: it is a Protestant Mass and it will make you lose the Faith.) In any case, it is important to understand why we can't go to the Novus Ordo Mass: if there is no reason not to go to our parish church, then we are supposed to go to our parish church! And if you can get grace from the Mass that is said there, then that Mass is Catholic, and there is no reason not to go!

I asked Father MacDonald, what about about an Orthodox Mass. He said that a little child in invincible ignorance could get grace from the Holy Communion, because it is valid. He said that since a valid Holy Communion contains our Lord's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, then it must necessarily produce grace in a soul with good dispositions. (When I mentioned this argument to Father Pfeiffer, he pointed out that our Lord's divine Person is present everywhere, because God is omnipresent. I think that Father MacDonald forgot that the grace produced ex opere operato by the Blessed Sacrament comes from the fact that it is a Sacrament, and not from the fact that this particular Sacrament is Christ. Because the other six Sacraments are not Christ, yet they still produce ex opere operato the grace that they signify.)

I asked Father MacDonald, what about a valid Black Mass. If there is a little Catholic child in a state of grace and in invincible ignorance, who is dragged along to a valid Black Mass, and who doesn't understand what the Mass is about and who receives a validly consecrated Host, then does that Communion give grace to the little child? He said yes, it does, if the child is truly ignorant and well-disposed.

In other words, every Mass, even a non-Catholic Mass, causes grace ex opere operato. It doesn't matter if the Mass is said by a Catholic priest in a Catholic rite (like Father MacDonald's Mass), by a Catholic priest in a non-Catholic rite (like the Novus Ordo Mass down the street), by a non-Catholic priest in a Catholic rite (like the Masses of the Greek Orthodox, or the Tridentine-rite Masses of the validly re-ordained Anglicans in New York City), or by a non-Catholic priest in a non-Catholic rite (possibly some Satanic Masses). I think that Father MacDonald forgot that grace can only come through the Catholic Church, which means that Sacraments given outside the Church can only be valid, not fruitful.

If he had not given the examples of grace from an Orthodox Mass and from a valid Satanic Mass, I would have asked if he thought that the New Rite was Catholic, because grace can only come through the Catholic Church. But the New Rite of Mass cannot be Catholic, because it is bad, and the Catholic Church can only do what is good (although churchmen can do bad things). (As a side-note, it has been my understanding for years that the New Mass was never legally promulgated even from a "technical" standpoint, as Father Pfeiffer says, though even if it had, it still would not be legal, because it breaks the Divine Law.)

Here is another problem: if a Sacrament causes grace ex opere operato, then why should that grace be caused only in the case of invincible ignorance? In no other case is ignorance a sine qua non condition for fruitful reception of a Sacrament.

Father Pfeiffer pointed out to me later that you can get Viaticuм from any valid priest, even if he is an excommunicated heretic, but only because the Pope gave a special, specific dispensation which only applies in danger of death. It is my understanding that the dispensation was given, not only to the dying person, but to the excommunicated priest as well, so that the Church (to whose law he is subject as a baptised person) delegates him to give the Viaticuм in her name. Therefore, in the moment that he gives you the Viaticuм, he is acting inside the Catholic Church. Since the excommunicated priest is acting in the Catholic Church, grace can be caused ex opere operato, even though the Mass at which the Viaticuм was consecrated was said outside the Church. And because of the specific dispensation expressly granted by the Pope, the dying person expresses the Catholic Faith by receiving the Viaticuм, instead of the doctrinal unity with heretics that he would normally be expressing if the dispensation didn't exist.

When a non-Catholic baptises a baby at the request of Catholic parents who are in an emergency, they have the manifest intention of making the baby Catholic, and the Baptism is both valid and fruitful. Therefore the non-Catholic, in some way, is acting within the Catholic Church, for some reason. (Perhaps because the Church delegates him through the parents or through whoever is taking care of the child?) If he is not acting within the Catholic Church, then I do not understand how the Baptism can cause grace in the soul of the baby. "A Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace," and it "causes the grace which it signifies." If you twist the signification, how can it give the grace? (These are just my own reflections).

I remember something else that Father Pfeiffer mentioned along those lines some time ago, right after Bishop Williamson began his New Mass campaign. I think he said that it is a disputed question whether Protestant and Orthodox Baptisms of infants are fruitful. If I remember correctly, there are two opinions:

Opinion number one: infant Baptism given validly, but with the manifest intention of making the child enter a sect, is both valid and fruitful, because the Church supplies what the parents, godparents, and heretical minister do not: Faith. In this case, the child becomes a Catholic at the moment of its Baptism by the heretics, just like a child of Catholic parents who is baptised by a Catholic priest with the manifest intention of making the child Catholic. It becomes at that moment subject to the laws of the Church. The child receives the indelible character, along with Faith, Hope, Charity, and sanctifying grace; and the stain of original sin is removed from its soul. The child remains a Catholic until it reaches the age of reason, at which moment it typically apostatises. If it dies before the age of reason, then it goes straight to Heaven because it is Catholic. If it lives beyond the age of reason and converts back to Catholicism after its apostasy, it cannot be baptised again (though the ceremony of Baptism may be repeated under condition), and it must go to Confession. The temporal punishment of all its personal sins committed between the age of reason and its conversion is not necessarily taken away at the moment of conversion, though the sins themselves are forgiven.

Opinion number two: infant Baptism given validly, but with the manifest intention of making the child enter a sect, is only valid, not fruitful, because the Church does not supply Faith in such circuмstances. The lack of Faith constitutes an obex, or obstacle, to receiving Baptism fruitfully. In this case, the child receives the indelible character of Baptism and becomes subject to the laws of the Church, but does not become a Catholic, and does not receive Faith, Hope, Charity, or sanctifying grace; and original sin remains in the child's soul. When the child reaches the age of reason, there may be voluntary adherence the sect, but there is no apostasy. If the child dies before the age of reason, it goes to Limbo like unbaptised babies do, and remains there eternally in natural happiness, with natural knowledge of God, and with the indelible character of Baptism on its soul. It cannot go to Heaven because it is not Catholic. If it lives beyond the age of reason and converts, it cannot be baptised again (though the ceremony of Baptism may be repeated under condition). The Baptism validly received years before only causes its fruits at the moment when all the obices are removed, that is, at the moment when the individual makes his first act of perfect contrition. (Because at the moment of the child's first mortal sin upon reaching the age of reason, a second obex was added to the first. Adherence to the Catholic Faith removes the original obex, but the second obex -- that is, the state of mortal sin -- is only removed when charity enters the soul.) At the moment when the convert first has perfect contrition, the temporal punishment of all his actual sins committed between the age of reason and his conversion is taken away, along with the sins themselves. If the person makes an act of perfect contrition without going to Confession, then he receives the fruits of his long-ago Baptism without going to Confession (though the Church still requires him to go afterwards, just in case his contrition is not perfect). If the convert's contrition is imperfect, then there is still an obex to receiving the fruits of the Baptism (though not the same obex as at the moment of the Baptism), and the fruits of the Baptism are caused at the same time as the fruits of the Sacrament of Penance, at the moment of the absolution. In this case, the first time the person receives the Sacrament of Penance, the absolution removes the second obex, and in the same instant the years-old Baptism puts charity and sanctifying grace in the soul, removing original sin and all actual sins, along with all the temporal punishment due to the actual sins. (Disclaimer, this is only my understanding. I may be presenting either of the two opinions incorrectly.)

When I was a kid, I was only taught opinion number one. Up until the beginning of Bishop Williamson's New Mass crusade, I thought that opinion number one was the correct one. But now that it seems to me that my duty to stay away from the New Mass depends upon the truth of opinion number two, I cannot see how opinion number two cannot be the true one! Because I know that the New Mass objectively offends God and that I must not go to it! However, I must admit that I am confused, and I wish that Bishop Williamson, Father MacDonald, et cetera would reply to the objections given above. If their position on the New Mass is the true one, then it ought to be not only defendable but also demonstrable. The fact that they have never demonstrated its truth is a serious red flag.

Before, when I believed opinion number one, it didn't seem very important which opinion was true. Because the child being baptised in a sect cannot do anything about it. But I am an adult and I can decide where I go to Mass! I am certain, certain, certain that the New Rite is not Catholic. But if the New Mass causes grace ex opere operato, then that means that I am wrong and that it is Catholic, since grace only comes through the Catholic Church. If the New Mass is Catholic, then there is no reason why it would give grace only to those in invincible ignorance. Therefore I should go to the New Mass. And I should also encourage others to go to the New Mass, or at least tell them that they can if they feel that it nourishes them spiritually--like Bishop Williamson.

To come back to Father MacDonald, he also said that we cannot make a judgment on the New Mass because the Church hasn't spoken yet! But if that were true, then Saint Ephrem, and many other saints, were wrong to resist the propagators of error, instead of continuing to be in communion with them until the Church passed judgment. When Bishop Nestorius stood up in the pulpit and said that Mary is not the Mother of God, Saint Ephrem stood up in the pew, told the bishop to his face that he was wrong, and walked out of the church along with many other faithful. If Father MacDonald is right that we shouldn't pass judgment on the New Mass until the Church does, then Saint Ephrem was wrong to walk out on Bishop Nestorius's sermon, and Saint Paul and the Holy Ghost were wrong to tell the Galatians to reject on the spot any gospel other than the Gospel that they had first received from him. So Father MacDonald, I am staying with Saint Ephrem, Saint Paul, and the Holy Ghost, and you should also. (Didn't quite a few years go by between that first bad sermon by Nestorius and the definition of the dogma of Christ's two natures? It sure is a good thing that Saint Ephrem knew the rule "quod semper, quod ab omnibus," which we should also be applying to the New Mass.)

Father Pfeiffer also brought up a quote from Saint John the Almsgiver: "Rather to die than to receive Communion from heretics."

I told Father MacDonald that he was being inconsistent, and that he wasn't waiting for the judgment of the Church any more than I was! Because he was passing judgment on the New Mass already, by saying that Novus Ordo Holy Communion gives grace! He told me that I was acting like a sedevacantist, because the sedevacantists try to take their private opinion and make it into a dogma, and that I was doing the same.

When Father MacDonald got in the car to leave, I told him that I appreciated his good intentions, but that I wouldn't be coming back to his Mass until he changed his mind about the New Mass. (And I won't be, because the New Mass attacks Jesus Christ, just like Nestorianism.) He replied, "That's your choice."

So here is a summary of Father MacDonald's strange doctrines: (1) We should not pass judgment on error until the Church does. (2a) Any valid Sacrament causes grace ex opere operato, regardless of circuмstances, provided that the one receiving it is invincibly ignorant, or possibly (2b) Christ in the Blessed Sacrament causes grace ex opere operato in the souls of the invincibly ignorant who eat Him therein, even in circuмstances where the grace ex opere operato of the other Sacraments would be blocked, because of the fact that the other six are not Christ Himself. (3) A distinction must be made between the Mass and Holy Communion, in such a way as to admit that the New Mass itself cannot give grace, but that Holy Communion received under species that are consecrated using the New Rite can give grace, on condition that the Mass is valid and that the communicant is invincibly ignorant that the New Rite is evil.

That's it, "in a nutshell." Pardon my prolixity. I preferred to write a boring letter than an incomplete one.

Sincerely,

Sean Govan


P.S. Father MacDonald told me on Sunday that he had given a public conference on Saturday after my wife and I left, to explain the same ideas that he had told me in private on Saturday. I talked with several other faithful, and all of them affirmed to me their belief in Father MacDonald's above-mentioned errors -- if not in all of them, at least in the error that we should avoid making judgments about the New Mass until the Church makes her judgment.

Father MacDonald was apparently under the impression that Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko were telling people not to go to his Mass. He told me that he had asked Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko to tell people that they could go to his Mass, and that they had refused. I asked him if he had heard that refusal from their own lips, and he said no. He said that he had left a message for them at a home that they were to spend the night at in Ireland, and that they had not called him back. So after that, he said, he had asked a faithful what the Fathers had said about attending his Mass, and the faithful said that the Fathers had said not to. So I gave him the Padres' phone numbers, and he gave me to understand that he would call Father Pfeiffer. I told him that I wouldn't be at his Mass if they hadn't both told me two or three times that I could go, because he was working with Bishop Williamson and Father Zendejas. Fortunately, I had just asked Father Hewko once again, the previous day, for his opinion on attending Father MacDonald's Mass, and was able to show Father MacDonald the text message that he sent in reply as proof that he was telling people that they could go to his Mass: "His doctrine is good, so far, especially since he opposed openly the BP.'s errors. We are aware of his speaking individually with people against Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Is he a double agent? God knows. Maybe your pressing him will clarify some ambiguities." (It certainly did clarify some ambiguities). I was hoping that Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko would red-light Father MacDonald, and Bishop Williamson, after this doctrine of the grace-giving Novus Ordo Holy Communion, but for the moment Father Pfeiffer still does not seem to think that it is necessary.

As for my family, we went to Mass on Saturday, and to only half the Mass on Sunday. Father MacDonald "advertised" Bishop Williamson and Father Zendejas during the sermon, so we walked out and waited in the potluck room until Mass was over, so that we could speak with Father. After Mass on both days, the chapel coordinator came up to me and harassed me in a rather mean-spirited way for several minutes for no apparent reason other than to make someone feel his power. Fortunately, no one bullied my wife.

At least Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko preach against Bishop Williamson's errors, and mention him by name, even though they do not tell people to avoid going to his Mass. I wish that the Dominican Fathers were doing as much, instead of promoting these priests who are leading us astray, thus destroying with one hand what they seem to build with the other. Let us pray very much for all our priests, for Bishop Williamson, and for the Pope and diocesan bishops, that they all may unite in the Traditional doctrine of the past 2000 years, and may enlighten us poor confused sheep.

What is the point of being so hardline on such a thorny question?

I like this bible passage when it comes to the faith:

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

I got a headache reading that. It is very confusing and I wonder why a person with true intentions to follow God has to come up against so much SERIOUS  conflict..Is it what God wants? it is our souls we are talking about and the road seems filled with landmines for the sincere Catholic! . If it wasn't so important I would choose to ignore it  out of sloth and laziness in  to avoid discernment of the the almost impossible- but of course I can't ignore it. This is tough.
But there comes a point  that the road is so foggy that I do need the authority of the Bishop to navigate what is being said- although  faith has taken me thusfar, it is obvious that shepherding is absolutely needed in the confusion. So I will hang on to our Holy Bishops Williamson, Faure and Aquinas . I don't see any other way.
OK- have at it.

"A distinction must be made between the Mass and Holy Communion, in such a way as to admit that Mass said in the New Rite cannot give grace, but that Holy Communion received under species that are consecrated using the New Rite can give grace, on condition that the Mass consecration is valid and that the communicant is invincibly ignorant that the New Rite is evil."

I agree, in theory, with the distinction being made above by Fr M.  The consecration can be valid while the mass can be invalid.  This is because the Mass is composed of 3 parts, with the consecration only being 1 part.  

Secondly, Fr is arguing based on 'theory'.  Based on what you wrote, he said that a communion "can" give grace, based on the situation.  I agree, it could.  It also could not.  It's a theoretical discussion which has dangerous practical applications.

I told Father MacDonald that if you get grace from a valid Novus Ordo Holy Communion, then you get grace from a valid Novus Ordo Mass

.
Not necessarily.  The mass is a sacrifice which contains a sacrament.  The sacrifice can be illicit, invalid, deficient, or blasphemous but if the consecration is said correctly, then Our Lord is present on the altar.

The question is:  does an "ignorant" person receive grace in such circuмstances?  Maybe.  Would God prefer that they continue to receive Him in this way forever?  No.  He would prefer that they become educated, and go to a True mass where they would receive the benefits of Calvary and not just the benefits of Holy Thursday.  The point is, such an "ignorant" person needs to be converted to the True Faith!  This is the bottom line.

In any case, it is important to understand why we can't go to the Novus Ordo Mass: if there is no reason not to go to our parish church, then we are supposed to go to our parish church! And if you can get grace from the Mass that is said there, then that Mass is Catholic, and there is no reason not to go!

I absolutely agree with what you're saying but we have to distinguish.  We have to talk about actual vs sanctifying grace and also talk about the 'mystery' of all this, since we cannot fully understand the mass or sacraments, in human terms.  

The reason why we cannot go to the novus ordo is because it is not a mass.  It does not fulifl one's sunday obligation, it is not a sacrifice in the sense used by Trent, and it is not a perfect offering to God.  It also violates Quo Primum's laws on the liturgy.  Hence, for all these reasons, it is sinful, immoral, and illicit.  

But...if the consecration is valid, it is possible for communion to be valid and for the faithful to receive grace from the SACRAMENT, but not from the MASS.  Now, this all presumes that the faithful have no idea that the mass is wrong and it presumes that the faithful has a good intention, etc.  None of us can measure ANY of this, because it has to do with the heart and only God knows.  Yet, the possibility still exists.  Does this mean that God is pleased with the status of the novus ordo as a sacrilegous/deficient mass?  Not at all.

The above in no way condones the novus ordo; it just explains why there COULD be eucharistic miracles, and why there COULD be catholics who 'keep the faith' (at least partially) in the novus ordo.  This type of discussion is normally reserved for theologians but since we trads have to 'figure things out' sometimes, we have to unfortunately wade into deep theological waters.  

I don't think, in any way, that such arguments are conclusive.  I think they are interesting theological speculations.  If one were to look at it simply, you can say that it's always wrong to receive doubtful sacraments!  Especially when such sacraments are related to Our Lord, which is the ulitmate sacrament and especially when one would have to edure the blasphemous and irreverent new 'mass' to receive Him.  The end (receiving Our Lord) does not justify the means (attending a false, sinful and illegal mass).

it has been my understanding for years that the New Mass was never legally promulgated even from a "technical" standpoint,

I agree.

I'll side with Ruthy.

 Arguing about graces coming to invincibly ignorant Novus ordo missae communicants is ludicrous.

 You can turn that argument on it's head, by the fact that "graces" not necessarily "The Body & Blood of Christ" come to ignorant Catholics in spite of the Novus ordo missae,

 Only IF these nominal Catholics are seeking the true Faith inscribed in their hearts, will Our Lady will lead them to the Truth.

 To argue the conditional validity of a Novus ordo consecration only emboldens the modernist.

 Good fruit doesn't come from the "bastard rite"... as a French Bishop once said.

I agree.  I think too much theorizing can get you in trouble.  If we had a truly catholic, functioning hierarchy, then the local Bishop would say "you can't go to the Novus Ordo, no ifs, ands or buts."  And the laity would say "ok".  And if there were studious laity that wanted to learn why, then they could read studies by expert theologians from Rome, on which the Bishop made his decision.  In other words, theologians would speculate, Rome/bishops would decide and level a decsion in the practical realm, the priests would instruct, and the laity would follow.

Because we have no functioning hierarchy, the few bishops and priests we have are thrust into the role of theologian, bishop and practical decision-makers.  Few men there are (St Thomas Aquinas is a singular exception) who can both theorize AND decide practically.  And, since none of our bishops work together, we are left with men/groups who try to do the work of the Church.  It's not working out that well, especially in matters which are so theologically deep (i.e. The Eucharist and the Mass) that it would take years of study and learning to understand the nuances and distinctions that are necessary to properly explain and understand the 'diabolical disorientation' that we are living through.

Ergo, we oftentimes have theological speculations by our Trad Clerics which, while they might be *theoretically* possible, often cause more confusion than not, because the "practical" aspect is left unanswered or only partially answered or is too mixed in with the theory that it makes no sense to the untrained laity.  Anyone can theorize; anyone can learn the doctrinal/sacramental principles.  Very few are properly trained and have the the wisdom to APPLY the principles into "real world" answers.  These answers require the Church, with many trained men, working in tandem.

Certainly God knows this confusion and the limitations of our situation, which is why we traditionalists should enter the "narrow gate".  For in cases of doubt, we must be humble, stick with tradition, and not get swept away with theological 'what ifs?' which try to rationalize the salvation of those in error.  God loves those in error just as much as He loves us.  It's our job to teach them the truth, not justify their error.

Quote

I'll side with Ruthy.

 Arguing about graces coming to invincibly ignorant Novus ordo missae communicants is ludicrous.

 You can turn that argument on it's head, by the fact that "graces" not necessarily "The Body & Blood of Christ" come to ignorant Catholics in spite of the Novus ordo missae,

 Only IF these nominal Catholics are seeking the true Faith inscribed in their hearts, will Our Lady will lead them to the Truth.

 To argue the conditional validity of a Novus ordo consecration only emboldens the modernist.

 Good fruit doesn't come from the "bastard rite"... as a French Bishop once said.

I agree.  I think too much theorizing can get you in trouble.  If we had a truly catholic, functioning hierarchy, then the local Bishop would say "you can't go to the Novus Ordo, no ifs, ands or buts."  And the laity would say "ok".  And if there were studious laity that wanted to learn why, then they could read studies by expert theologians from Rome, on which the Bishop made his decision.  In other words, theologians would speculate, Rome/bishops would decide and level a decsion in the practical realm, the priests would instruct, and the laity would follow.

Because we have no functioning hierarchy, the few bishops and priests we have are thrust into the role of theologian, bishop and practical decision-makers.  Few men there are (St Thomas Aquinas is a singular exception) who can both theorize AND decide practically.  And, since none of our bishops work together, we are left with men/groups who try to do the work of the Church.  It's not working out that well, especially in matters which are so theologically deep (i.e. The Eucharist and the Mass) that it would take years of study and learning to understand the nuances and distinctions that are necessary to properly explain and understand the 'diabolical disorientation' that we are living through.

Ergo, we oftentimes have theological speculations by our Trad Clerics which, while they might be *theoretically* possible, often cause more confusion than not, because the "practical" aspect is left unanswered or only partially answered or is too mixed in with the theory that it makes no sense to the untrained laity.  Anyone can theorize; anyone can learn the doctrinal/sacramental principles.  Very few are properly trained and have the the wisdom to APPLY the principles into "real world" answers.  These answers require the Church, with many trained men, working in tandem.

Certainly God knows this confusion and the limitations of our situation, which is why we traditionalists should enter the "narrow gate".  For in cases of doubt, we must be humble, stick with tradition, and not get swept away with theological 'what ifs?' which try to rationalize the salvation of those in error.  God loves those in error just as much as He loves us.  It's our job to teach them the truth, not justify their error.

You do have a grasp upon the reality of the situation. Well said!

I asked Father MacDonald, what about a valid Black Mass. If there is a little Catholic child in a state of grace and in invincible ignorance, who is dragged along to a valid Black Mass, and who doesn't understand what the Mass is about and who receives a validly consecrated Host, then does that Communion give grace to the little child? He said yes, it does, if the child is truly ignorant and well-disposed.

I immediately see two problems with this paragraph.

Anyone (including a child) going to a Black Mass is not going to receive any consecrated host, because that is not something that happens in a Black Mass.  They do not distribute Communion to anyone.  Rather a validly consecrated host is used by the satanic priest (who might be a validly ordained Catholic priest) for purposes of profanation, blasphemy and insult to God.

Secondly, there is no way that anyone can receive grace from their attendance at or participation with a Black Mass.  

So if this was indeed Fr. MacDonald's answer, I'm sorry, he was wrong.