A Catechetical Refutation :
(Regarding Certain Objections Made to Bishop Williamson’s Comments on the Novus Ordo)
By
Sean Johnson
5-2-16
(Feast of St. Athanasius)
A. Introduction:
On June 28, 2015, Bishop Williamson gave a conference after a confirmation Mass in
New York, in which he was asked by a lay faithful attendee whether or not it was
permissible for her to attend the Novus Ordo Missae. 1
A strange question, you might think, coming from an attendee of a Resistance
confirmation/Mass/conference, until you recognize that this occasion being a
confirmation, she was not a regular attendee, but rather a guest or relative of one of the
confirmands.
This woman went on to provide some additional details: That she attended the traditional
Latin Mass on Sunday, but also attended the Novus Ordo Missae during the week; that
the Mass was celebrated by a priest who certainly had a true faith in the Mass; that it is
celebrated with unusual “reverence,” etc.
Less well known, however, is the fact that the traditional Latin Mass this woman attends
on Sunday is also celebrated by the same (bi-ritual) priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo
Missae during the week. 2
These additional details are important for context, insofar as they plainly evince an
ignorance on the part of this woman regarding the doctrinal deficiencies and evils of the
Novus Ordo Missae. I say plainly evince, because it is scarcely conceivable that she has
been taught these things by her bi-ritual priest (i.e., Is it imaginable that he would be
condemning from the pulpit at the traditional Latin Mass on Sunday the evils of the
Novus Ordo Missae he was going to be celebrating on Monday?). Is it not much more
likely that he has been explaining to his faithful non-doctrinal reasons for praying the
Tridentine Mass (e.g., artistic beauty; historical continuity; a preference for Latin; etc),
especially since, as a conciliar priest, he is in no position to make doctrinal criticisms of
the Novus Ordo Missae, even if he wanted to, for fear of sanctions?In the weeks and months that have followed since June, Bishop Williamson has defended
his response by various arguments, primarily within the pages of the weekly Eleison
Comments, 3 while his adversaries have used these subsequent explanations as means to
contrive new objections.
It wasn’t until April 8, that Br. Raymund de Pennefort, T.O.P. posted a quote of the
Archbishop taken from the recording of a spiritual conference in 1979, which fully
vindicated and corroborated the pastoral approach taken by Bishop Williamson on June
28:
"I still have some considerations to make about precisely what the judgment is
that we should make regarding those who say this New Mass and those who
attend the New Mass. Is there not also a need to have a reasonable judgment
which corresponds to the pastoral care that we must have regarding the souls who
still do not realize the error that they could be committing?
"It is not just the fact of the attendance or celebration of the New Mass. It's true
that in many other cases where the fault is objectively grave and subjectively it is
not because ultimately the conditions of a grave moral culpability do not exist; it
is necessary that there is serious matter, knowledge, and full consent. We admit
that there is serious matter (materia grave) and that there is full consent. But if
there is no knowledge, no knowledge of the seriousness of the sin, then the person
is not aware of the grave matter (materia grave). They do not commit a subjective
sin.
"They commit an objective sin, but not a subjective sin. I think that people who
are accustomed to utter profanities or repeat blasphemies without realizing that it
is blasphemy do not know it. They repeat what they hear in their environment,
vulgar things to which is associated the name of God, and they are not aware of it
-well, one can point it out. They can understand it, but then they could be
committing an objectively serious offense but subjectively not be guilty.
Therefore you should not judge all people. You must know how to examine each
case. It's precisely the role of the confessor; he must examine, he must be
informed... Sometimes, in certain cases, we might even think that it is not always
very pastoral to point it out to some people ... If for example we are aware that
these people, if we point out the error that they are committing, these people will
continue to do it [attend the New Mass-translator] ... it is sometimes necessary to
proceed prudently in order to open their eyes to tell them what to do and not
always be harsh in the way we act regarding souls. Souls are delicate objects that
we cannot mistreat. When we say "you commit a grave sin", "you will go to hell",
etc., we take a chance of doing more damage to a soul by mistreating it than by
making it understand things gently. Rather than making one understand, explain it
to them, open their eyes about the error being committed. It is a pastoral question,I would say, but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these people as well and not
condemn them immediately." 4
This quotation, representing a nearly identical pastoral approach between Archbishop
Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson, ought to end the discussion, and would seemingly pre-
empt the need for such a work as this. And in fact it does.
But when one kills a vampire, he not only drives a stake through his heart, he then cuts of
his head, to be sure the monster never rises again.
And, as at present there exists such a multiplicity of sophisms and confusion (both
feigned and real), it seemed best to proceed with the article anyway, in an attempt to
address as many of these concerns/objections/sophisms as possible within the limitations
of a single article. To facilitate this objective, I decided to proceed in the form of a
“catechetical refutation” (i.e., A progressive and cuмulative question/answer format,
divided as well as possible by topic and subject matter).
Having done so, the conclusions we (and you the reader) shall be obliged to reach will be
the following:
? The advice Bishop Williamson gave to the woman on June 28 (as well as his
subsequent explanations following therefrom in the Eleison Comments) contains
no doctrinal error;
? Quite the contrary, Bishop Williamson’s advice to this woman (as well as his
subsequent statements and explanations on the subject) is in perfect harmony with
the perennial doctrine of the Church;
? Neither is there any rupture between the comments of Bishop Williamson and the
traditional teachings of the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre on these topics;
? Most of the confusion on these topics has been politically motivated and
proliferated, while on the other hand, the elevated nature of the doctrine touching
upon moral theology, sacramental theology, scholastic philosophical definitions,
and pastoral prudence go well beyond the education of the average layman (and
even some priests), representing a potential source of confusion even for those of
goodwill.
? That Bishop Williamson opposes the Novus Ordo Missae every bit as much in
2016 as he (or Archbishop Lefebvre) did in 1988.
? That at worst, Bishop Williamson could be charged with a minor imprudence in
choosing to tackle a complex issue publicly, which was sure to be capitalized
upon (and distorted) by his adversaries, and misunderstood or confused by the
simple faithful. 5Let us now move to an evaluation of these various objections.
B. The Objections and their Refutations:
1. “Bishop Williamson should not have withheld the truth from the woman regarding
the evils and dangers of the new Mass.”
Response:
Were we watching the same conference? I count 12 distinct warnings in response to the
woman’s question about new Mass attendance, repeated in a span of only 11.5 minutes: 6
1:02:17 - "There's the principle and there's the practice. In practice the new Mass is a key
part of the new religion, which is a major part of the worldwide apostasy of today."
Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:02:34 - "Archbishop Lefebvre, in public, would say stay away. Keep away from the
new Mass." Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:03:10 - "In certain circuмstances, like those you mentioned, exceptionally, if you're not
going to scandalize anybody..." Conclusion: The new Mass is dangerous.
1:03:29 - "The conclusion many of them are going to come to [i.e., people who see you
go to the new Mass] is that the new Mass is OK." Conclusion: The new Mass is not OK
to go to.
1:04:35 - "The principles are clear, and the wrongness of the Novus Ordo Mass is clear."
Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:05:00 - "The Archbishop said if you want to look after your faith, stay away from the
new Mass." Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:08:40 - "The new religion is false, and it strangles grace." Conclusion: The new Mass is
bad.
1:10:30 - "But I hope its clear that I don't therefore say that the NOM or Novus Ordo
religion are good; that's obviously not the case." Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:10:40 - "Generally, it’s a tremendous danger because the new religion is very
seductive...and it’s very easy to go with it and lose the faith." Conclusion: The new Mass
is bad.1:12:24 - "Stay away from the Novus Ordo, but exceptionally, if you're watching and
praying, even there you can find the grace of God." Conclusion: The NOM is dangerous;
stay away from the NOM.
1:13:24 - "But it does harm in itself, there's no doubt about it." Conclusion: The Novus
Ordo is bad.
1:13:45 - "It’s a rite designed to undermine the Catholic faith." Conclusion: The Novus
Ordo is bad.
2. “Yes, but Bishop Williamson contradicts himself, because mixed in with those
warnings and statements, he nevertheless gives the woman permission to attend the
Novus Ordo.”
Response:
There is no contradiction.
Rather, Bishop Williamson is distinguishing between the objective principle and the
subjective application of it.
The objective principle, outlined by all the examples above, is that nobody should attend
the Novus Ordo. As demonstrated above, this was emphasized repeatedly in the course
of his answer.
But subjectively, there can be exceptions to the principle because of circuмstances (e.g.,
extreme spiritual necessity, ignorance, etc.).
3. “Where do you come up with this distinction between the objective principle, and
the subjective application (especially as applied to New Mass attendance)?”
Response:
This is found in the Catholic science of “casuistry.”
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, casuistry is:
“The application of general principles of morality to definite and concrete cases
of human activity, for the purpose, primarily, of determining what one ought to
do, or ought not to do, or what one may do or leave undone as one pleases; and
for the purpose, secondarily, of deciding whether and to what extent guilt or
immunity from guilt follows on an action already posited.” 7
And again:“Since the special function of casuistry is to determine practically and in the
concrete the presence or absence of a definite moral obligation, it does not fall
within its scope to pass judgment on what would be more advisable, or on what
may be recommended as a counsel of perfection.” 8
And finally:
“The necessity of casuistry and its importance are obvious. From the nature of the
case, the general principles of any science in their concrete application give rise to
problems which trained and expert minds only can solve. This is
especially true regarding the application of moral principles
and precepts to individual conduct. For, although those principles and precepts are
in themselves generally evident, their application calls for the consideration of
many complex factors, both objective and subjective. Only those who
unite scientific knowledge of morality with practice in its application may be
trusted to solve promptly and safely problems of conscience.” 9
There can therefore be no question regarding the legitimacy of Bishop Williamson
distinguishing between the objective principles, and their subjective application to
individual cases.
4. “Fine and well, but the SSPX has always taught that there are no exceptions to the
ban on Novus Ordo Mass attendance, so I don’t see where this distinction between
the objective principle, and its subjective application, gets you.”
Response:
Not so fast.
If you reflect, for a moment, you will recognize that the writings of the SSPX and other
traditionalist groups regarding new Mass attendance are always directed to
traditionalists, and that, therefore, the question of exceptions for ignorance cannot arise.
But you should not conclude from this that the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, et al, would
not excuse the ignorant (or those in necessity) from attending the Novus Ordo.
In fact, quite the contrary, you will see that even in the most stalwart writings of Fr. Peter
Scott (SSPX), the Avrille Dominicans, Fr. Chazal, etc., that they leave intact from their
prohibitions on new Mass attendance the excusing justification of ignorance.
For example, Fr. Peter Scott (while still Rector of the Holy Cross Seminary in Australia)
made this very strong condemnation of new Mass attendance:
“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a
sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to
knowing and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only
venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although itis a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is
never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a
person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a
venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional
Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior,
to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger scandal to others or
of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and
even if it is the only Mass available.” 10
But notice even within this blistering prohibition on new Mass attendance, Fr. Scott still
consistently excepts the ignorant (i.e., In the bolded/underlined portions above).
One can find the same careful exception in the article by the Avrille Dominicans,
published shortly after the June 28 conference in an attempt to clarify or reiterate the ban
on Novus Ordo Mass attendance (which even contains a section called “Can one assist at
the New Mass in Certain Circuмstances?”):
“Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God in so far as it is ecuмenical and
protestant. Besides that, it represents a danger for the faith in the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass. It must therefore be rejected. Whoever understands the problem of
the New Mass must no longer assist at it, because he puts voluntarily his faith in
danger, and, at the same time, encourages others to do the same in appearing to
give his assent to the reforms.” 11
The most committed Resistance priests also maintain this exception. For example, in a
February/2016 letter by Fr. Chazal, we find this passage:
“As for trying to explain away what happeneth and what doth happeneth not in
Novus Ordo masses, I think it is a total minefield. Anything good we can say
about attending the New Mass would come with so many caveats, conditions and
distinctions. Basically, only ignorance is an excuse for taking part in it.” 12
And of course, there is this quote from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ “Biography”
regarding the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter of Novus Ordo Mass
attendance:
“In 1975, he still admitted that one could ‘assist occasionally’ at the new Mass
when one feared going without Communion for a long time. However, in 1977 he
was more or less absolute: ‘To avoid conforming to the evolution slowly taking
place in the minds of priests, we must avoid -I could almost say completely-
assisting at the new Mass.’” 13
Notice the same careful qualifications: Bishop Tissier says he was only “more or less”
absolute; Archbishop Lefebvre himself says “I could almost say completely.” In other
words, Archbishop Lefebvre’s position was not absolute; he did not say “completely.”
What is this but a recognition that the archbishop’s position did not intend to bind
completely (e.g., the ignorant or extreme necessity)?The proof of this interpretation comes another two years later, while giving a spiritual
conference (in French) in 1979 –two years after his “almost complete” and “more or less”
absolute position was already elucidated:
“ I still have some considerations to make about precisely what the judgment is
that we should make regarding those who say this New Mass and those who
attend the New Mass. Is there not also a need to have a reasonable
judgment which corresponds to the pastoral care that we must have
regarding the souls who still do not realize the error that they could
be committing?
"It is not just the fact of the attendance or celebration of the New Mass. It's true
that in many other cases where the fault is objectively grave and subjectively it is
not because ultimately the conditions of a grave moral culpability do not exist; it
is necessary that there is serious matter, knowledge, and full consent. We admit
that there is serious matter (materia grave) and that there is full consent. But if
there is no knowledge, no knowledge of the seriousness of the sin, then the
person is not aware of the grave matter (materia grave). They do not commit a
subjective sin.
"They commit an objective sin, but not a subjective sin. I think that people who
are accustomed to utter profanities or repeat blasphemies without realizing that
it is blasphemy do not know it. They repeat what they hear in their environment,
vulgar things to which is associated the name of God, and they are not aware of it
-well, one can point it out. They can understand it, but then they could be
committing an objectively serious offense but subjectively not be guilty.
“Therefore you should not judge all people. You must know how to
examine each case. It's precisely the role of the confessor; he must
examine, he must be informed... Sometimes, in certain cases, we
might even think that it is not always very pastoral to point it out to
some people ... If for example we are aware that these people, if we
point out the error that they are committing, these people will
continue to do it [attend the New Mass-translator] ... it is sometimes
necessary to proceed prudently in order to open their eyes to tell
them what to do and not always be harsh in the way we act regarding
souls. Souls are delicate objects that we cannot mistreat. When we say "you
commit a grave sin", "you will go to hell", etc., we take a chance of doing
more damage to a soul by mistreating it than by making it understand
things gently. Rather than making one understand, explain it them, open their
eyes about the error being committed. It is a pastoral question, I would say,
but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these people as well and not
condemn them immediately." 14
There can be no doubt, therefore, that neither the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, Avrille,
Fr. Chazal, Fr. Peter Scott, etc. ever intended to bind the ignorant (or those in necessity).Consequently, one cannot justly charge Bishop Williamson with having departed from
this teaching.
5. “But none of this applies to the woman who asked Bishop Williamson the question:
She attends the Traditional Latin Mass on the weekends! How could she be in
ignorance or extreme necessity?”
Response:
It is clear that the woman in question was ignorant of the evils of the Novus Ordo,
otherwise she would not have asked the question (unless you would contend that her
desire was to extract from Bishop Williamson permission to do something she already
knew was evil. And any answer to that question would pertain to the internal forum).
That aside, the reflexive impression of many was that this woman could not possibly be
ignorant of the evils of the new Mass, because she was attending the traditional Latin
Mass on a weekly basis (presumably at either an SSPX or Resistance Mass venue), and
was even attending Bishop Williamson conferences in Resistance venues!
However, this presumption is factually wrong: The woman is not an SSPXer or
Resistance faithful, but instead attends both the traditional Latin Mass and the Novus
Ordo celebrated by a bi-ritual priest. 15
That being the case, what do you think she has been taught regarding the differences
between the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses? Or, more to the point, about any evils
inherent in the new Rite?
Nothing.
In the conciliar world, the differences between the two, or the reasons for saying the
Tridentine Mass instead of the Novus Ordo, are all explained as matters of personal
preference: The Tridentine Mass is more reverent; it precludes abuses; features Latin;
there is no Communion in the hand; etc.
But the Novus Ordo itself being evil? Forget about it. How can a bi-ritual priest
condemn at the Tridentine Mass on Sunday the evils of the Novus Ordo Mass he is going
to say on Monday? He would as much as announce himself a hypocrite.
All of this adds up to a pretty obvious conclusion: The woman was most certainly in a
state of ignorance (or at least imperfect understanding) of the evils of the new Mass.
6. “Now I have you! Earlier, you said Bishop Williamson taught this woman the truth.
But now you are saying that since she remained in ignorance, she can continue to
attend the Novus Ordo! Either she was taught the truth, or she remained in
ignorance. You can’t have it both ways!”Response:
To be told the truth is one thing. Recognizing it as the truth is quite another.
If ever there was a man who understood the theological problems inherent in the new
Mass, it was Archbishop Lefebvre. It was principally under his guidance that in 1969 the
“Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass” (otherwise known as “The Ottaviani
Intervention”) was drafted. 16 Yet despite that, Archbishop Lefebvre did not rule out
attendance at the Novus Ordo until 1977.
Why not? Had not this man perhaps the greatest comprehension of the inherent evils in
the new Rite of anyone in the Church in 1969? What then explains the delay?
The answer is simple:
The soil must be prepared for the reception of truth. Our Lord told the Apostles, “I have
yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” 17
In matters of major importance, one needs psychologically to be sure the decision one is
about to make is correct. And this certitude is the fruit of study, prayer, and consultation.
In short, the virtue of prudence.
All of this takes time.
But if it took the great Archbishop Lefebvre, with all his intimate knowledge of the
problems, false doctrines, and evils of the new Mass eight years to leave it behind (and
obligate others to do the same), is it really reasonable to expect this woman who was just
taught the truth by Bishop Williamson (probably for the first time) to have
simultaneously recognized, internalized, and accepted it as truth?
Those who would answer affirmatively would seem to hold her to a much higher standard
than even the Archbishop was held.
7. “Even if I conceded these points, don’t you at least agree that Bishop Williamson
erred doctrinally when he said that one could find “spiritual nourishment” in the
Novus Ordo?”
Response:
Presuming we are talking about a valid Novus Ordo Mass, the only way one could deny
Bishop Williamson’s comment is to either dispute the validity of the Novus Ordo rite per
se (which was not a position held by Archbishop Lefebvre), or, to deny that the
transmission of sacramental grace is “spiritual nourishment” (which would be absurd).
This is because the Council of Trent (Session 7: On the Sacraments in General) enjoined
the following propositions to be held by all Catholics as a matter of faith (i.e., de fide):“CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not
contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on
those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely
outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the
Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from
unbelievers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is
not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though
they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him
be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law
grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the
divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.” 18
Moreover, the manuals have faithfully transmitted and applied these articles of faith ever
since. For example, in one of the most popular pre-conciliar manuals of moral and
pastoral theology, we find this quote:
“"The grace of the sacraments is infallibly produced in those who are capable
and fit recipients, by reason of the sacred rite itself (ex opere operato),
independently of the worth or merits of minister or recipient...The grace which is
here spoken of as given by the Sacraments is sanctifying grace." 19
Therefore, since it is infallibly certain that those who attend a valid Novus Ordo, and
receive Communion in the state of grace, have received an increase of sanctifying grace
(which is the “spiritual nourishment” par excellence), there can be no question as to the
doctrinal correctness of Bishop Williamson’s comment.
Rather, the concern is with those who would fall into at least material heresy by denying
this dogma of faith.
8. “Yes, but the quotes you provide above from the Council of Trent were talking
about the Traditional Latin Mass, not the Novus Ordo!”
Response:
Actually, that it not correct.The Canons of the Council of Trent from Session VII quoted above dealt with all the
sacraments in general, and definitively declared how grace works through them (i.e., The
Council was not here considering the sacrament of Holy Communion specifically, much
less any particular Rite of Mass); this latter discussion was reserved to Session XXIII.
However, even if you had been correct, your argument essentially boils down to a charge
that, “Trent could never have foreseen the advent of a Rite of Mass so estranged from
Catholic theology, and would certainly not have intended its Canons and Decrees to
apply to the Novus Ordo.”
Yet in arguing along those lines, you would be unwittingly proposing the modernist
thesis of “dogmatic relativism,” (i.e., the idea that the dogmatic teachings of the Church
are not immutable, as they are conditioned by their particular times and circuмstances,
and therefore only applicable to them). 20
And having therefore undermined the permanence and stability of dogma, it is but a short
step to the very same dogmatic evolution condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi. 21
I understand that you would recoil from embracing any such position. Yet it is the
unavoidable consequence of declaring Trent does not apply to the Novus Ordo, because it
could not have foreseen its advent.
9. “Yes, but didn’t Bishop Williamson admit the unorthodoxy of his own comments
when he acknowledged that what he was saying was “practically heresy within
Tradition?”
Response:
No.
To interpret his words in such a manner is to imbue them with a false understanding,
made plain by the context: His Lordship was simply acknowledging the incomprehension
with which many traditionalists would greet the distinction he was making between the
objective principle, and the subjective application (which can dispense from the dictates
of the objective principle in certain extenuating circuмstances, such as ignorance or
extreme necessity).
Evidence that this is the proper sense in which we are to understand Bishop Williamson’s
comment is found in the affinity of Bishop Williamson’s pastoral approach on this
subject, with that of Archbishop Lefebvre’s (e.g., The quote from Archbishop Lefebvre
contained in the Introduction to this article). If it is “practically heresy” for Bishop
Williamson, then it is “practically heresy” for Archbishop Lefebvre, who makes the same
distinction, and tempers his pastoral approach on the basis of this same distinction.10. “You are trying to whitewash this whole thing, but if Bishop Fellay would have said
what Bishop Williamson said, you would have been all over him!”
Response:
A couple thoughts on that:
Firstly, at the doctrinal level, had Bishop Fellay said the same things Bishop Williamson
said, he would have been perfectly justified according to the Council of Trent, and at the
pastoral level, perfectly in line with the teaching and example of Archbishop Lefebvre (as
has been shown above).
Secondly, at this pastoral level, though such comments would have been every bit as
much in line with the approach of Archbishop Lefebvre when uttered by Bishop Fellay as
they are when uttered by Bishop Williamson, the larger context within which such
comments would occur are completely opposite for each:
In the case of Bishop Fellay, these hypothetical comments would be made within the
context of an accelerating rapprochement with Rome and Vatican II (allegations which I
have demonstrated elsewhere), 22 and one might be excused in that case for wondering
whether His Excellency intended to “expand” or “broaden” Archbishop Lefebvre’s
pastoral approach (which, by the way, is not an accusation I am making).
On the other hand, Bishop Williamson had just consecrated a Bishop to ensure the work
of Archbishop Lefebvre would survive independent of Rome a mere seven months prior
to his comments (and another bishop only five months later). On what reasonable basis,
then, would one accuse His Excellency of going soft on the new Mass, or leading us back
into conciliarism?
11. “I’m not buying it: The whole Resistance movement is in an uproar because of these
comments!”
Response:
Actually, for the most part, this whole “tempest in a teacup” is only an issue for that
small segment of the Resistance under the poisoned influence of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr.
Hewko (or those having some loose affiliation with him, such as the sedevacantist Fr.
Cardozo).
The proof of this becomes evident upon a reconnaissance of the world’s various
Resistance blogs, and even more evident in the opinions of the Resistance clergy
themselves.
Regarding the blogs, it is conspicuous that only those in English-speaking countries (i.e.,
Mission territory for Fr. Pfeiffer/Fr. Hewko) are straining to keep the matter alive,
obviously for reasons more political than doctrinal (despite their claims to the contrary).But if one tunes in to the French, German, or most Spanish-speaking blogs, this matter
has NEVER been an issue, despite all the publicity the English-speaking blogs have
generated. Note also that most of these blogs contain links to other blogs, so it will not
suffice to claim that the matter is unknown in the non-English-speaking Resistance
world.
In regard to the few Spanish-speaking blogs who are wrongfully taking Bishop
Williamson to task for his (perfectly justified) comments, most of these are not
Resistance blogs properly speaking, but are instead affiliated with sedevacantists like Fr.
Ceriani (an enemy of Bishop Williamson for several years) or Fr. Cardozo (who despite
calling himself Resistance, omits the pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass, etc.).
12. “But a bad tree can’t bear good fruit! Bishop Williamson is saying it can!”
Response:
When, in the third part of Our Lord’s “Sermon on the Mount,” He speaks of good and
bad trees and fruits, 23 He is not imparting a philosophical maxim, but a moral lesson. He
is warning his disciples against the works of false prophets, and alerting His followers
how they may distinguish good men from bad (i.e., Judge their fruits; good men produce
good fruits; bad men produce bad fruits, etc.).
The moral lesson applies to the human acts of men, not to things and objects (which are
not capable of committing human acts). If you read the commentaries of the Fathers on
these passages (e.g., In St. Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea 24 ) you will find unanimity
on this subject.
It is false (and contrary to all human experience), therefore, to transform this moral lesson
into a philosophical maxim. And the proof of this is easy to discern: Does not every
good tree also produce some bad fruit? Do not many bad trees also produce some good
fruit? And even within the same apple: Do not many bad apples still contain some good
flesh? And does not many a good apple contain some blemish?
Transforming this moral lesson into a philosophical maxim would attribute a factual error
to Scripture, and is fatal, therefore, to the inerrancy of sacred Scripture (which is a dogma
of the faith 25 ), and therefore heretical.
In other words, it is not appropriate to attempt to apply to a Rite of Mass (rather than a
man) the comparison of a “good or bad tree” (or as good or bad fruits, the loss of faith it
engenders in the faithful who attend it).
13. “OK, then I will rephrase my question: If the new Mass is evil, how can Bishop
Williamson claim that good can come from it?”
Response:Leaving aside the fact that this claim has already been shown (in #7 above) to be
infallibly correct according to the Council of Trent, perhaps a bit of philosophy would be
in order to help you understand how this can be.
It was just shown that every good tree also produces some bad fruit, and that bad trees are
capable of producing good fruit, and that even within the same piece of fruit, one can
usually find good and bad flesh. Even if the whole apple be corrupted, it still retains a
relative goodness (e.g., For the soil which it will fertilize; for the insects or birds it will
feed; etc.).
These observations from the natural world reveal a philosophical conclusion:
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in the Summa Theologiae that, “Evil cannot wholly consume
good.” 26
Therefore, it matters not what species of evil we attribute to the Novus Ordo (e.g.,
Intrinsic, moral, physical, etc.). Some good survives within it, or as a consequence from
it.
If, therefore, the evil of the Novus Ordo is not absolute, and wholly consuming of the
good (and St. Thomas opines that such an evil is impossible 27 ), then the good which can
come from the Novus Ordo (e.g., sanctifying grace), is that element which produces the
spiritual benefit.
Which is all another way of saying that good is not really coming from evil at all, but
rather from the good still contained in the evil Rite of Mass.
14. “But if you are right about that, then you would seem to be at odds with the claim,
always made within Tradition, that ‘those people still trapped in the Novus Ordo
benefit not from the Mass, but despite the Mass.’”
Response:
As always, we need to make distinctions:
In this case, the distinction is between the Rite of Mass, and the sacrament of Holy
Communion (or if you will, between the cause of the benefit –the Novus Ordo-, and the
effect or benefit itself: Sanctifying grace in Holy Communion).
It is the continuous position within Tradition that one does not benefit from the Novus
Ordo Rite of Mass.
But it has never been the position of Tradition (nor in light of Trent, could it ever be the
position of Tradition), that a soul in the state of grace could not benefit from a validly
confected sacrament:“CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not
contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on
those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely
outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the
Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from
unbelievers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is
not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though
they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him
be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law
grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the
divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.” 28
It is important, therefore, to recognize that in saying “Those trapped in the Novus Ordo
benefit not from the Mass, but despite the Mass” we are not thereby questioning the
benefit of the sacrament itself (i.e., sanctifying grace infallibly transmitted through
reception of Holy Communion), but simply observing that that benefit is transmitted
despite an evil Rite.
15. “I’m not sure about this distinction you are making. Hasn’t the SSPX (and
Archbishop Lefebvre) always said that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil?”
Response:
There is much confusion surrounding the use of this term “intrinsic,” because the word is
capable of being used in both an illegitimate (secular/common) sense, as well as multiple
legitimate (philosophical and theological) senses. 29
In the secular/common (or illegitimate sense), “intrinsic evil” is often used to convey the
degree of heinousness or magnitude of evil associated with an act. But this sense is
erroneous in the field of theology:
“Intrinsic evil refers to actions that are morally evil in such a way that
is essentially opposed to the will of God or proper human fulfillment. The key
consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions are judged to be so solely by
their object, independently of the intention that inspires them or the
circuмstances that surround them. “Intrinsic” has nothing to do with how
heinous the act is (although all heinous acts are intrinsically evil), but rather that
the act is wrong no matter what its circuмstances. A good example of an
intrinsically evil act would be deliberately willed abortion.” 30Furthermore, we need to distinguish intrinsic evil as applied to things/objects (e.g.,
Novus Ordo) and intrinsic evil as applied to human acts (attending the Novus Ordo).
Speaking firstly of the concept of intrinsic evil as applied to the Novus Ordo Missae itself
(i.e., to objects/things, rather than to human acts), the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, and
Bishop Williamson have always taught along these lines:
“At best, [the new Mass] provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The
correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass
is evil in and of itself regardless of the circuмstances. It is not evil by positive
profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the
True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.” 31
It is in this sense, therefore, that the SSPX has taught that the Rite itself is intrinsically
evil.
But does it necessarily follow, therefore, that all those who attend the Novus Ordo are
themselves committing an intrinsically evil act?
No.
There are three determinants of the moral goodness or evil of human acts (object,
intention, and circuмstances).
For an act to be intrinsically evil, the object of the act must be evil:
“The key consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions are judged to be so
solely by their object, independently of the intention that inspires them or the
circuмstances that surround them.” 32
For, as St. Alphonsus de Liguori teaches:
“The object gives the act its essential moral goodness or badness. Thus, the
moral object of the act, if bad, makes the whole act bad.” 33
Therefore, in order to determine whether or not attending the Novus Ordo is an
intrinsically evil act, we must determine the moral “object” of such an act. If this object
is evil, then such attendance will always be evil, regardless of circuмstances or intention
of the subject.
Yet, isolating the object gives rise to no small controversy, as Conte explains:
“The moral object is the most difficult font [source] of morality to understand; it
is the font most often misrepresented or misused in moral evaluations. And it is
the font most often attacked by those who wish to undermine the teaching of
the Church on morality." 34Why this is so should become evident: By mixing “circuмstances” into the identification
of the “object” of a moral act, one can either declare an evil act “intrinsically evil” (and
therefore never permissible) or declare an intrinsically evil act only relatively evil by
obscuring the true object. That is to say, that confusing the object by mixing the
circuмstances of the human act into the identification of the object can lead either to
rigorism, or to laxism.
As regards our particular question (i.e., Whether Novus Ordo Mass attendance is an
intrinsically evil act), what is the object of the act in question?
Is it simply “Mass attendance” or is it “Novus Ordo Mass attendance?”
The way in which one identifies this object as one or the other will determine whether
Novus Ordo Mass attendance is, or is not, an intrinsically evil act. Obviously, we are in
need of a definition of the term “object,” and we find an excellent one in the manual of
Fr. H. Davis, S.J.:
“The object here means that to which the will immediately and primarily directs
itself and its activity, such as walking, praying, almsgiving." 35
Note that in these examples provided by Fr. Davis, S.J. he is only describing as the basic
object the primary act willed, not including in his description of the object circuмstances
such as “walking to grandma’s house,” or “praying to God,” or “almsgiving to orphans.”
These bolded words are circuмstances added onto the basic object of “walking, praying,
or almsgiving.”
That is to say, the object is what, in the first instance, the person is setting about (i.e.,
willing) to do. But notice that the way in which I might describe what the person is
setting out to do (i.e., the object) may be different than what the subject themselves
considers themselves to be setting out to do.
So, in determining the precise object of the human act, from whose perspective must we
assess the question?
“To identify the object of an action, one has to put oneself in the shoes of the one acting,
and to describe the action from [their] perspective.” 36
Therefore, what must be our assessment and/or identification of the object of the human
act as regards Novus Ordo Mass attendance?
1. It is obvious the immediate object upon which the will has fastened upon is
simply “Mass attendance.”
2. The will of the ignorant conciliarist does not set out to “attend the Novus Ordo
Mass,” but simply to “attend Mass” (just as in Fr. Davis’s examples above, the
object of the will was not immediately set upon “walking to grandma’shouse,” or “praying to God,” or to “almsgiving to orphans,” but simply upon
walking, praying, or almsgiving).
3. Therefore, the italicized words are only the circuмstances (e.g., where one is
walking; to whom one is praying; for what purpose one gives alms), not
objects of the human act, and therefore have no bearing on the intrinsic
goodness or evil of these acts.
4. So too with the object of “Mass attendance:” It is in itself a good object, and it
is only by mistakenly mixing and conditioning the object with circuмstances
(e.g., Novus Ordo Mass attendance; Byzantine Mass attendance; etc) that one
is able to declare the act evil.
Therefore, we can say with the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, or Avrille, 37 et al, that as
regards the Novus Ordo Rite itself, it is inherently (or intrinsically) evil, but as regards
Novus Ordo Mass attendance, since the object is good (i.e., Mass attendance), attendance
cannot be intrinsically evil.
16. “I suspect you are deliberately oversimplifying the moral object of Novus Ordo
Mass attendance in order to avoid concluding that it is an intrinsically evil act.”
Response:
It is true that intrinsically evil acts (e.g., abortion, blasphemy, ѕυιcιdє, etc.) cannot simply
be reduced to their essential action, as was the case in the above examples of running,
walking, praying, etc., in which we distinguished these objects from their circuмstances.
So for example, in the case of abortion, we cannot conclude that the moral object is
simply “killing” (morally neutral), and designate the added description “of the unborn/of
the innocent” as mere circuмstances. If this were true, the act of abortion would not be
intrinsically evil (because as we have shown above, it is an evil moral object which
designates a human act as intrinsically evil), yet that the Church has declared abortion is
intrinsically evil tells us the object must include not merely “killing,” but also “of the
unborn.” This latter description of killing “the unborn” is essential to the act of abortion,
such that eliminating “the unborn” from the description of the moral object causes the
human act to be something other than “abortion.” It must therefore be included.
Why then, you will ask, do I refuse to designate the moral object of Novus Ordo Mass
attendance as “Novus Ordo Mass” attendance, and insist it is merely “Mass attendance?”
Answer:
Recalling that the moral object of a human act is “that to which the will immediately and
primarily directs itself and its activity;” 38
And recalling further that “to identify the object of an action, one has to put oneself in the
shoes of the one acting, and to describe the action from [their] perspective;” 39We are then confronted with a classic scholastic axiom which proves the point:
“Nothing is desired in the will, unless it is first apprehended in the intellect.”
Or stated differently, “Nothing is desired unless it is pre-known. The ignorant has no
desire.” 40
St. Thomas Aquinas himself intersperses his Summa Theologiae with this axiom. As one
of the learned Resistance clerics to whom this article was sent for review in private
distribution comments:
“The axiom you mention is all over the Summa. In Latin it runs either "Nulla
ignoti cupido" ("There is no desire of the unknown"), or, "Nihil volitum nisi
praecognitum" (Nothing is desired unless pre-known"). So it is certain that a
Mass-attender is attending Mass only as he knows it.” 41
The consequence of this undisputed axiom is definitive in the matter of properly
identifying the moral object in the case of an ignorant conciliarist attending the Novus
Ordo Mass:
The moral object can only be simply “Mass attendance,” since the ignorant conciliarist,
having no apprehension of “Novus Ordo” cannot set out in the will to commit it as a
human act.
It necessarily follows that “Novus Ordo” could not be part of the object.
Stated differently: If one is oblivious to the existence of such a thing as the "Novus Ordo
Mass" (i.e., Such a thing is not known in the intellect), then it cannot be desired in the
will.
And if it cannot be desired in the will, then no sound moralist would contend that it could
form part of the moral object of a human act.
To say otherwise is to suggest a philosophical and moral impossibility:
That there could exist in the will a desire for something which is not first apprehended in
the intellect.
No traditional priest (least of all Archbishop Lefebvre) would, or could, ever say such a
thing.
It is clear, therefore, that to maintain that the moral object is “Novus Ordo Mass”
attendance (rather than simply “Mass attendance”) is erroneous, and can only be
maintained at the expense of rejecting an axiom of Thomistic and scholastic philosophy
around which the Church, Tradition, and all approved theologians have expressed
unanimity since the time of St. Augustine. 42
There is no escaping this conclusion. 43It is therefore impossible to say that an ignorant conciliarist attending the Novus Ordo
commits an intrinsically evil human act (or that such attendance is intrinsically evil).
17. “Are you trying to tell me Novus Ordo Mass attendance is good?”
Response:
Not at all! I am simply stating that we have to distinguish between evil inherent in the
rite itself (intrinsically evil) and the type of evil present in the human act of Mass
attendance.
Since that which has a good object cannot be intrinsically evil, it remains for us to assign
the species of evil Novus Ordo Mass attendance falls under.
According to Fr. Bernard Wuellner’s “Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy,” there are
within the category of "moral evil" (which is defined as: "Privation of rectitude in human
acts; a sin”) 44 three sub-species of evil:
Formal evil: A bad human act, performed with knowledge that it is evil and with
consent;
Intrinsic evil: An act or intention that of its very nature, essentially or necessarily, is not
in conformity with the norm of morals and the eternal law;
Material evil: Something that is objectively a moral evil, but which is in a given instance
performed without knowledge of its evil or under duress without consent to the evil. 45
Therefore, having just eliminated the possibility of Novus Ordo Mass attendance being
intrinsically evil, we are left with material evil and formal evil, and it is the absence or
presence of our subjective knowledge of its objective evil that determines which of these
types of evil those who attend the Novus Ordo are guilty of:
In the case of conciliarists (and some indultarians), who are largely, completely, or
partially ignorant of the doctrinal problems inherent in the new Mass, they commit only a
material evil.
For SSPXers, Resistance faithful (and some indultarians), who are fully aware of the
doctrinal problems inherent in the Novus Ordo, they would commit an act formally evil
(and therefore sinful, possibly gravely).
18. “Well I want to go back to this quote of Archbishop Lefebvre from 1979 you are
making so much of: Even if that was his opinion in 1979, he got more strict over
time, and by 1981 was requiring all seminarians to sign a “Declaration of Fidelity”
which says “I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part
in such a Mass.” 46Response:
A couple observations in this regard:
We have already demonstrated above 47 that Archbishop Lefebvre’s prohibition on new
Mass attendance was never intended to apply to the ignorant (or those in extreme spiritual
necessity), else how could all of those sources quoted in the objection cited have been
made, all of them appearing after 1981?
More than this, we also demonstrated in our rebuttal to the same question, that
Archbishop Lefebvre drew his “red light” on new Mass attendance not in 1981, but in
1977 (i.e., Two years before the 1979 quote in question):
““In 1975, he still admitted that one could ‘assist occasionally’ at the new Mass
when one feared going without Communion for a long time. However, in 1977 he
was more or less absolute: ‘To avoid conforming to the evolution slowly taking
place in the minds of priests, we must avoid -I could almost say completely-
assisting at the new Mass.” 48
That being the case, it is impossible to object to the applicability of the 1979 quote on the
basis that Archbishop Lefebvre became stricter on Novus Ordo attendance between then
and 1981.
Finally, it is worth observing that, if Archbishop Lefebvre’s position regarding Novus
Ordo Mass attendance evolved over time (despite his having clearly understood its
objective evil back in 1969, when he was steering the committee of bishops and cardinals
who were to produce the Ottaviani Intervention), it evinces clearly that the matter of
Novus Ordo Mass attendance is one of prudence, and not doctrine.
To oppose this contention, we would be forced to admit that either Archbishop
Lefebvre’s position was incoherent (i.e., Allowing for many years attendance at the
Novus Ordo, despite clearly understanding its evils), or, that Archbishop Lefebvre
changed his doctrinal position (which means he was in doctrinal error from 1969 – 1977,
which the Ottaviani Intervention clearly shows was not the case).
19. “But what about the part of the SSPX’s “Declaration of Fidelity” that says, ‘I shall
never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass?’
That’s exactly what Bishop Williamson did!”
Response:
To construe Bishop Williamson’s permission for this woman to continue attending the
Novus Ordo as “advising someone in a positive manner” to attend the Novus Ordo is
surely a distorted perception of the case.
To “permit” is not the same as “to promote.”The former conveys a concession being made due to circuмstances, or a toleration being
extended; the latter conveys the idea of desiring that one attend the Novus Ordo.
No sane mind would contend Bishop Williamson was promoting new Mass attendance by
extending a concession or dispensation from the objective preclusion due to circuмstance
(in this case ignorance). If they did, they would likewise be bound to contend the same
of Archbishop Lefebvre, in light of the 1979 quote above, which would be madness.
More than this, we have the explicit testimony of Bishop Williamson himself that his
intention was to dispense this women, in light of her distress, for fear of causing more
damage to her, and the hope of her arriving fully at Tradition (see footnote 14), and this
approach is precisely that contained in the 1979 quote of Archbishop Lefebvre previously
referenced.
Essentially, one would have to contend that the 1981 Pledge repealed the 1979 pastoral
approach, but there is no evidence available anywhere to suggest this was Archbishop
Lefebvre’s intention (and the quotes provided above by Fr. Peter Scott, Avrille, Fr.
Chazal, et al explicitly militate against any such contention).
Therefore, one cannot accuse Bishop Williamson with violation of the 1981 Pledge of
Fidelity, unless he imbues the words of that Pledge with a false understanding.
20. “Well surely you believe Bishop Williamson is wrong to try and make his point by
citing “miracles” in the Novus Ordo?”
Response:
There are two questions that need to be addressed in this regard: One prudential, and one
doctrinal.
The prudential question is whether or not one could or should trust the conclusions of
conciliar churchmen, who are generally swept away by modernism, regarding approved
Eucharistic miracles. In this regard, one should possess a healthy dose of reserve and
skepticism, in much the way one would regarding Marian apparitions approved/denied by
the conciliar magisterium. Their judgment is simply not trustworthy. Far more prudent
to reserve judgment in this regard until sanity returns to the Church, and reliable
churchmen are trusted to reach reliable conclusions.
The doctrinal question asks whether it is theologically possible for God to perform a
Eucharistic miracle within the context of the Novus Ordo. Presuming we are speaking of
a valid Novus Ordo, then there is no doubt that God can and does perform a Eucharistic
miracle at each and every Novus Ordo through transubstantiation (i.e., The changing of
the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ).It makes no difference that the Eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation occurs through
the mediation of a priest, rather than directly from the hand of God, for as the old
Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:
“God's power is shown in the miracle directly through His own immediate action
or, mediately through creatures as means or instruments.
In the latter case the effects must be ascribed to God, for He works in and through
the instruments; "Ipso Deo in illis operante" (Augustine, City of God X.12).
Hence God works miracles through the instrumentality:
Of angels, e.g., the Three Children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), the deliverance
of St. Peter from prison (Acts 12);
Of men, e.g., Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7), Elias (1 Kings 17), Eliseus (2
Kings 5), the Apostles (Acts 2:43), St. Peter (Acts 3:9), St. Paul (Acts 19), the
early Christians (Galatians 3:5).
In the Bible also, as in church history, we learn that animate things are
instruments of Divine power, not because they have any excellence in themselves,
but through a special relation to God. Thus we distinguish holy relics, e.g., the
mantle of Elias (2 Kings 2), the body of Eliseus (2 Kings 13), the hem of
Christ's garment (Matthew 9), the handkerchiefs of St. Paul (Acts 19:12); holy
images, e.g., the brazen serpent (Numbers 21) holy things, e.g., the Ark of the
Covenant, the sacred vessels of the Temple (Daniel 5); holy places, e.g.,
the Temple of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 6:7), the waters of the Jordan (2 Kings 5),
the Pool of Bethsaida (John 5).
Hence the contention of some modern writers, that a miracle requires an
immediate action of Divine power, is not true. It is sufficient that the miracle be
due to the intervention of God, and its nature is revealed by the utter lack of
proportion between the effect and what are called means or instruments.” 49
There is therefore no doubt at all that, according to the mind of the Church, Eucharistic
miracles are not only possible, but present in every validly performed Novus Ordo
consecration. 50 It appears, rather, in light of the foregoing passages, that the objection to
the possibility of Eucharistic miracles within the context of the Novus Ordo emanates
(partially) from an erroneous and restrictive conception of miracles, which would confine
authenticity only to those instances resulting from the direct and immediate action of God
(to the exclusion of the mediate instrumentality of men or angels), which the final
paragraph of our excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia refutes as erroneous.
21. “Fine, but Bishop Williamson is not talking about transubstantiation. He is talking
about bleeding Hosts, etc. in the Novus Ordo being authentic miracles. To allowthat possibility is to charge God with deceiving souls into accepting the Novus
Ordo!”
Response:
Firstly, let us observe that a miracle is a miracle, whether it occurs through the mediation
of men or angels (e.g., transubstantiation), or transpires directly from the hand of God
Himself (e.g., bleeding Hosts, etc.). In other words, it gets you nowhere to distinguish
between the type or species of Eucharistic miracle, since both are the mediate or
immediate action of God. If one is possible, so is the other.
Secondly, implicit in your concern is the idea that a Eucharistic miracle within the
context of the Novus Ordo could only be used by God to promote this illegitimate and
illicit Rite.
But in fact, it is exactly the opposite which is true:
“the great primary ends of miracles are the manifestation of God's glory and
the good of men; that the particular or secondary ends, subordinate to the former,
are to confirm the truth of a mission or a doctrine of faith or morals, to attest
the sanctity of God's servants, to confer benefits and vindicate Divine justice .” 51
Certainly, you are aware that of all the doctrines undermined or contradicted in the Novus
Ordo, the belief in the Real Presence is that which is most attacked by the very right
itself, with ruinous consequences for belief in this dogma of the Faith. 52
It therefore makes all the sense in the world that, if God wants to reaffirm belief in the
Real Presence, performing such a miracle within the context of the Novus Ordo, where
this dogma is under siege, is both logical and apropos.
Jesus comes not to heal the strong and healthy, but to heal the weak:
“Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician,
but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.” 53
We can see that God works throughout history in precisely this way, creating miracles
where the faith is under attack, or sending his Blessed Mother to transmit a message to
men. In this latter case of apparitions, history shows that when the Church was strong,
there were relatively few approved Marian apparitions:
Leaving aside apparitions approved only by the local ordinary, the Church approved only
four Marian apparitions from the time of the Protestant Reformation until the mid-19 th
century, 54 which is not surprising given the vigor of the Catholic counter-reformation
during this time.
But by the time Protestant rebellion had transformed into the much more subtle and
seductive errors of full-blown liberalism in the early 19 th century, the Church authorizedten apparitions between 1830 – 1933 (i.e., More than twice as many appearances by the
Blessed Mother in only one third the time). 55
This analogy demonstrates what you would probably already recognize: That God creates
miracles (or send His Mother to send a message) in those times and places where the
Faith is most under attack.
If therefore we are cognizant of God’s “modus operandi,” it makes every bit of sense that
Our Lord would perform a miracle within the context of the Novus Ordo, where belief in
the Real Presence is most attacked (not to promote the Novus Ordo, but to defend the
dogma it implicitly denies).
C. Anticipated Objections:
1. “You mentioned in endnote #15 that Bishop Williamson didn’t even know the
background of this woman (i.e., Not an SSPXer or Resistance faithful; attends
Mass from a bi-ritual priest; etc.), so he could not claim to dispense her on the
basis of ignorance or necessity. Moreover, I doubt very much when Bishop
Williamson made his comments that he had the Council of Trent in mind. You
are creating defenses for him after the fact!”
Response:
We have already seen (in the footnote you reference) that His Excellency made his
comments based on the visible distress of the woman in question, and did so not to
promote the new Mass, but to avoid giving her a command which he judged would do
more harm than good in bringing this conciliarist towards Tradition.
As regards what doctrinal arguments Bishop Williamson may or may not have had in
mind when he made his comments, it is correct, for example, to state that His
Excellency did not have the Council of Trent in mind when he made his comment
about receiving “spiritual nourishment” from a valid Novus Ordo.
But just as an experienced pianist does not think in terms of pushing “A flat major” or
“quarter notes and half notes,” or as a fluent linguist does not transliterate in his mind
word equivalencies between languages, but simply recognizes the meaning of the
word in its own language, so too would the long experience and extensive doctrinal
formation of Bishop Williamson have steered His Excellency toward the correct
answers and doctrines, whether or not they were explicitly in his mind at the moment.
The proof of this is to note how closely his pastoral approach mirrored that of
Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e., in the 1979 quote) in this matter of Novus Ordo Massattendance (which His Excellency was also not conscious of at the time, but which
has proven his fidelity to the pastoral approach of Archbishop Lefebvre after the fact).
2. “You are just one of Bishop Williamson’s defenders, and your whole article is
motivated by human respect for a bishop who is obviously in error. You are just
towing the party line!”
Response:
If you will consider the matter, it should occur to you that my article has been, from
the first to last, based completely on doctrine.
Nowhere in 34 pages of argument will you find an appeal to arguments suggestive of
human respect (e.g., Appeals to authority; outrage at the subversion and division the
erroneous arguments of Bishop Williamson’s opponents are creating within the
Resistance; ad hominems against His Excellency’s opponents; appealing for gratitude
for all His Excellency has done in the past; etc.).
Rather, I would suggest to you the following:
Either you can defeat the doctrinal arguments which comprise the entirety of this
arti
Topic: Sean Johnson - Defending Bishop Williamson at Mahopac, NY (Read 17986 times)