[SeanJohnson]

Sean, what's the over/under on how long before the new-sspx publishes an article rebutting your book (I doubt they would write a book)?  I'd say 3 months, by end of year.  Just a guess.  I can imagine that "comrade" priests are working feverishly to find the best out-of-context +ABL quotes to chastise your book.  Should be interesting.

Hi Pax-

Until the other day, when my old buddy (Menzingen shill) made a brief appearance here, I would have guessed they would use the old Roman strategy against Lefebvre: Death by silence.  I thought most likely they would want to send the message that the book is such garbage that there is no point in even addressing it, and let the book quickly slide from consciousness in the era of short-term internet memory loss, as new daily information buried the old.

But the return of the shill from retirement tells me that the arrows have hit the mark, and perhaps a rebuttal will be felt necessary after all?

If that is the case, then I would gather the effort is underway currently.  They will not want to procrastinate and prolong the book’s Internet attention and publicity.  Create a quick resource that can be pointed to in the future as needed, and give it no more mention than that.

On the other hand, neither Fr. Rioult’s “The Impossible Reconciliation” nor Mr. Stephen Fox’s ebook “Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє” received a rebuttal from the SSPX, so...

My guess would be:

25% chance of full length book rebuttal
40% chance of article rebuttal
35% chance of death by silence response

[Mr G]

Fr. Hewko's latest newsletter mentions 101 CCC: https://conta.cc/2omDIyc

Fr. Hewko says : "Where's the exposing of the Fake Resistance promoting New Mass miracles, trad-Ecuмenism, etc.? "

Poor Fr. Hewko, something in him thinks that Bishop Williamson and the other Resistance Priests tell everyone they meet to go to the New Mass. Yet in the real world, not one Priests or Bishop has evet told us to go to the New Mass or Trad-Ecuмenical events, and we have had several Resistance priests come to our little mission. The Hewkonians and Pfifferites make it seem that every Sunday that the Resistance Bishops and Priests preach on the goodness of the New Mass.

[SeanJohnson]

Well, that was more or less as expected.

What was disappointing to me was that, as regards the matter of grace and the new Mass, Fr. Hewko’s argument was limited to a cobbling of quotes (as with his longer sermon posted on that forum yesterday from Massachusetts): 

A litany of quotes, selectively excised from context, and held out in a univocal manner to stand alone as though they were absolute principles.

If this is done in good faith (and I presume it is), then Fr. Hewko clearly does not understand what he is reading.

As I wrote to someone in private correspondence:


“Perhaps my next writing project will be ‘Regarding Certain Errors on Grace and the New Mass.’

It is frustrating to see the totality of Fr. Hewko’s argument whittled down to out of context quote-mining, but absolutely no attempt at theological support: 

Nothing evincing any understanding of ex opere operato vs ex opere operantis; nothing about quoad nos; nothing about obex gratiae; nothing about “insincerity” as an impediment; no distinction between actual and sanctifying grace; no discussion of Trent; no distinction between grace from the Mass, and grace from Communion; no distinction between intrinsic evil in moral acts vs intrinsic evil as a scholastic-philosophical concept; etc, etc.

And if Fr. Hewko has the smoking gun he thinks to have regarding Archbishop Lefebvre APPEARING to say there is no grace passing at the new Mass in his 1972 quote, why can I quote him years later in his famous “cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ” conference acknowledging that grace certainly passes, and that in necessity it is permissible to receive nourishment even from poisoned meat?”

Just some food for thought.

Sigh....

[SeanJohnson]

Archbishop Lefebvre 2 years after the quote cited by Fr. Hewko:

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

Is Lefebvre schizophrenic, or did Fr. Hewko not properly understand Lefebvre’s comment from 1972?

[SeanJohnson]

It doesn't appear that Archbishop Lefebvre was schizo at all. In fact, for one who knows and is familiar with his writings, he was consistent up until the day he died about the New Mass. He called it "poison" over and over.

How does this reconcile with Bp. Williamson telling us in 2015 the New Mass can "nourish" our faith? Which is it? Is it poison or nourishment?

Words mean something.

The only real distinction between Bp Fellay and Bp Williamson is that Bp. Fellay tells us (in word or deed) that the whole of the Conciliar Church is acceptable. Bp. Williamson tells us that just the New Mass/it's miracles are acceptable and nourishing. But what is the New Mass but the banner of the Conciliar Church? Recall Archbishop Lefebvre remarks that he was told if he would only say the New Mass all his problems with Rome would go away. The New Mass vs. the canonized Latin Mass is the pivot point of everything.

If Bp. Williamson believed as Archbishop Lefebvre did that the New Mass was poison, he has now had four years of opportunity to clarify his statements. He has not done so. We are left with no choice but to accept that Bp. Williamson too (like Bp. Fellay) has changed.

Hello Hodie-

I likewise believe Archbishop Lefebvre was remarkably consistent.

You, however, despite your affirmation of same above, are logically compelled to believe the opposite (if you are going to hold to Fr. Hewko’s interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s quotes):

-Fr. Hewko alleges in 1972 Archbishop Lefebvre says grace does not pass;

-I supply a quote from 1974 from Archbishop Lefebvre clearly showing grace does pass in certain circuмstances.

-Fr. Hewko proceeds to give several other quotes from the 1970’s (allegedly) showing tgat because the Mass is poison, it can never be attended (and as poison, well-disposed communicants allegedly receive no grace);

-I quote Archbishop Lefebvre in 1980 (with a letter signed and given to Michael Davies in 1981), showing him allowing that Catholics who feel compelled to attend the NOM can still fulfill their Sunday obligation (even if objectively they are not obliged to do so).

How to you explain these apparently contradictory positions of Archbishop Lefebvre; contradictions you are forced to acknowledge, if you believe Fr. Hewko is properly understanding the quotes he is reading?

In truth, the consistency of Archbishop Lefebvre can only be salvaged by recognizing  that the quotes I have cited are concessions of the Archbishop given to those trapped in necessity, while the quotes Fr. Hewko is (mis)using are general -but not absolute- principles.

If such were not the case, you would be obliged to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre’s position WEAKENED between 1972 - 1974, then strengthened again in 1976 (other misquotes by Fr. Hewko in the Massachusetts sermon on your forum), then WEAKENED again in 1980/1, then strengthened again in 1986, etc.