Part One (by Fr Chazal) is here: http://tradcatknight.blogspot.ca/2016/02/fr-chazal-no-cross-no-victory.html
What follows is Part Two
THE NEXT BIG EMBARASSMENT…
…is the advent of “Archbishop Ambrose” Moran: a self styed successor of Cardinal Slipji, but in fact a liar, a forgerer and a schismatic intruder.
i understand the need of Fr Pfeiffer for a bishop, but it cannot be someone who cannot prove that he is even a priest. the contents of William Moran’s papers and affirmations are self refuting. That dog don’t hunt.
I did all i could to warn Kentucky privately, but i am shivering at the prospect of a misfit bishop (and his progeny) going around in such dubious ministrations. Hopefully the Resistance at large rejects the idea, except two(?) priests and a few angry bloggers.
yet after recoiling in late November, and despite the very factual and canonical study of Fr Ortiz, the bird is out the cage, again, in January. At first i believed that the sole enumeration of W.Moran’s claims would suffice, but even the facts and evidences brought by Fr Ortiz are met with rejection and the accusation of evil intent against Fr Pfeiffer, who views our attempts to expose W.Moran as public attacks.
If Kentucky cannot understand that the Resistance will reject this invalid and seriously illicit episcopal line (and all the fruits thereof), let them consider that W.Moran, even within the Orthodox schismatic Church, was always a vagus. The same pattern as with bishop Hiroji will repeat itself. W.Moran did not stay long with the sedevacantists either. Beyond the lies and forgeries, there is something that we don’t yet know about W.Moran, that makes him jump somewhere, anywhere else.
For, my biggest hope as far as Moran is concerned, is Moran himself. Fr Hewko reports that he told the seminarians they should join the Eastern Rite because it would allow them to become married priests. So Fr Hewko says Moran is History as far as he is concerned, and because he is an honest gentlepriest, I believe him. But is this the case with Fr Joe now? My guess is that he is hesitating because he cannot afford to lose Fr Hewko and no other priest of the Resistance is backing him up on this.
When one considers the difficulties Fr Cekada experiences to refute the attacks of Fr Jenkins against the validity of the Thuc line, one can imagine the uphill battle Fr Joe would face to impose the Moran line. And with Moran validity is not the only issue, because until 2015, he was still officially a member of the Orthodox Church.
Once Fr Joe realises that our grounds are serious and not hostile to him, let us try to hope he will recognize his mistake. next cross please.
(Thankfully, Fr Joe is replying also to his emails now. He denies vehemently any moranic mass happened with his permission. He is a gruntlepriest, so i believe him. Yet i as i still harry him on why he gave that stupid pro moran sermon on January 7th, i am not getting any reply. Perhaps he is stirring the pot, trying to get us all wind up, showing we are after them, creating a siege, or just wanting to tell Fr Ortiz to get lost, as Fr Hewko told me. Yet what is on Fr Ortiz menu is no small thing and really happened, and in normal time, is assorted with a whole array of canonical sanctions. Luckily there are no canonical courts to issue admonitions, declare the penalties incurred, ferendae or latae sententiae, impose them and, should Fr Joe repent, lift them). So i am very happy Fr Joe does not get away, and bashing the Old Circus Horse will not deflect the blame that successfully, even by calling him a Bishop Fellay bis, a resistance bishop Fellay.
If i call a non priest to perform sacrileges and deceptions up there in my bamboo seminary, i will need a Fr Pfeiffer to torpedoyoutube me into submission, or at least help force me to change bearing. Let us hope that Fr Joe will kindly realise that because we are in a state of necessity and exception, we are not allowed to do anything we please, nor to get away with anything bad that happen. Bishop Williamson is not getting away, so, please Father, get in line. Yours truly is next.
otherwise there is an already long line of impfellayible people, suit yourself.)
THE TRIBULATIONS OF THE CHURCH
While this tempest rages in the little glass of the Resistance, i am also drawing some flak from harboring Fr Paul Kramer. Fr Kramer is a sedealterist, sede (seat), alter (another); namely, for him, the seat is not vacant, but occupied by Annas, while i still maintain that it is Caiphas, the front man set up by Annas, who is the reigning pontiff. Fr Kramer also maintains that Ratzinger is a heretic, yet with more restraints than Bergoglio. my reply is that the malice of Ratzinger is of a different kind; Archbishop Lefebvre called him “the snake”. I am no archbish, but Pope Francis is to me “the crocodile” who openly seeks the destruction, while the operation of the other destroyer is much harder to fathom:
Benedict XVI still calls himself pope, with the bizarre, unheard of title for a pope: emeritus. he wars the white garb and stays in the vatican, and appears in public on key occasions (“blessing” of gayish devilish statue of St Michael, jubilee of Mercy, “canonization” of STJP2TG…). Worse his stepping down document does not qualify as a renunciation from office because he just gave up papal office in its exercise and the document includes a (perhaps) deliberate grammatical error that invalidates the process. The health of Benedict is no worse that that of Francis, and intellectually, Ratzinger is still a powerhouse compared to the clowninsh mind of Bergoglio. So how could he resign on the ground of poor health? That is a lie (one in many you may add).
The goal of Ratzinger, in accordance with Rahner’s proposal, is to divide the papacy: he explicitly stated in his decree of renunciation that the munus of office is both active and passive, and, on February 27th, in his final audience, he stated his “decision to renounce the active exercise of the Ministry”.
Francis is following suit and talks about resigning humbly this year perhaps. This spirit of resignation is accompanied with a constant talk of “redefining the petrine ministry”. Francis is already curtailing the power of the Roman Curia with his Politburo of eight Cardinals, his putting women in decisional positions within roman dicasteries, his open dislike for his title of Pope (Ratzinger dumped the Tiara from the Papal Coat of Arms as well). Since the decree “Lumen Gentium” of Vatican II, (that created a dual supreme authority at the top of the Church: the Pope and the assembly of bishops), there has never been any pause in this diluting of the powers of the Papacy.
I understand Fr Kramer’s cry for legality and legitimacy, but i am shedding no tears at the self demise of Benedict who was a cunning and dangerous demolisher of the Faith, something Father does not deny. So i am not going to indulge in a “my heretic is more valid than your” contest. In military terms, i am refusing the charge.
Moreover it is Ratzinger who has engineered this new diabolical disorientation, and he backs up and praises Francis constantly. i think it is exactly his intent to keep us guessing and fighting each other by bolstering Francis “authority”, while keeping an indeterminate “passive” fraction of his office in his back hand. Neither Francis, nor Benedict ought to be heeded: they are two different types of heretics for two different phases of revolution…. what we had successively in Paul VI (Robespierre-Francis) and John Paul II (Napoleon-Benedict), we face now simultaneously in Frenedict and Benecis. It is just their “animus delendi” (will to destroy). either way.
It’s Anny & Caiphy little game of power of darkness, let them play, it’s their hour, don’t enter in their game, let it be, just as Our Lord never cared a minute for their vain annocacocaiphic machinations in his times. It’s the devil’s symphony and dance of monkeys…
I also asked Fr Kramer:”When Benedict dies, who will be the Pope?” “World War III will sort out everything” was the answer. this suggest that the cunning resignation of Benedict leaves an immediate question, but a much bigger and permanent damage after he has gone to face his Maker: a Papacy gradually turning into a democratic presidential office. The intervening years of Frenedict change nothing. And here Fr Kramer agrees; it is the bigger and more radical problem. they are gutting the papacy of its substance… down the line there will be women cardinals, not just openly gay cardinals that we have today, who knows, popess Hillary Clinton?
Revolution never stops and Francis is impatient.
So, when a filipino taxi driver tells me “the Santo Padre is coming for the Eucharistic Congress in Cebu”, I don’t say nay. There is still One Church and a Whiteness in a land far far away, but its whiteness is gradually fading. Still the Pope is the lynchpin of this taxi driver and the vast majority of Catholics today. St Thomas (Suppl. Q.58 Art.7 (?)) says clearly that this is what the papacy naturally does, aside of its other duties, none of which Frenedict wants to fulfil.
So we are not being pinned to the “pars maior” because it is the majority, or for apostolic reasons, even if they have their importance (on the pastoral level it is much easier to explain that Francis is a horribly bad Pope), but, as St Thomas says, what holds Catholics together is the Pope and those who touch the Pope are schismatics IN THE SENSE that they are dividing people apart from the flock (most sedes are NOT schismatics, and i would be glad to taste some flak for this as well). better not touch Saul, and even Isboseth… they are fading by themselves lamentably anyways… they will not stand forever because they are not in good terms with the One who anoited them.
Lastly, (I don’t want to be too long), if Francis is the usurper, what kind of usurper is he, since the whole set up of the usurpation is not his but Benedict’s? That is why the prophecy of St Francis calls him an “uncanonically elected POPE”, not an uncanically elected antipope.
Yet I am very glad to taste some flak for the friendship of such a remarkable priest as Fr Kramer, and I learned a lot from him.
So, with Fr Kramer, I refuse the charge. i disagree, but it is not worth to fight over it. There are plenty of fights elsewhere, like in Korea where the lawsuit between Doctora Kim and the xspx is over; the Court splitting the asset of the priory evenly. In Bangkok our contact family has received great trials, soon after joining the Resistance. Elsewhere some misunderstandings happen at times, but perhaps we are getting a second Korean vocation (in fact he is the fifth candidate i refused this year, and Dom Thomas is not recommending the potential Brazilian carmelite postulant all that much either). I am seeing new faces in Tokyo, Seoul, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, but this is not spectacular breakthrough or increase. you may say it is holding better in East Asia.
In the Philippines our four groups in Luzon are very weak for different reasons, the most spectacular being our St Raphael’s chapel in Nueva Ecija, North of Manila. Men put their rosaries on the rear mirror of course, but that’s about how far their devotion goes. Most Catholic customs have evaporated after 50 years of Vatican II… (what do you expect Padre?). An angry old lady called a novus ordo priest over there, to reclaim the group after our passage, but our main man will not give up, and so we shall return.
The ordination of Fr John ocd, next June 29th, will carry the day i believe in Luzon. But he has a big mountain to climb; the least thing not being the Carmelite monastery he is planning to open in Laguna. One Postulant has arrived and a second from Brazil is perhaps being sent by Dom Thomas Aquinas. Let us not cook our chickens, yet, as far as the temporal sword is concerned, Brother John has a few very reliable people to confide in. He says his Laguna community is interested in Tradition.
In Leyte, Fr Picot’s work is taking some roots. He is buiding a Church in Maasin for 100 faithful, while Hindang has already twenty nested in a plywood cathedral built by a renowned facebook crusader. In Ormoc a brutal murder happened in the full view of the village. People were shocked but the tragic event reinforced the parish a lot in its cohesion.
In Cebu the locals of Pamutan valley have yet to arrive, but Cebu proper is growing.
In Mindanao, five groups now, but for of them are definitely micro groups, while Camiguin is taking off after the finishing of the concrete chapel. Our 70 to 80 strong procession on the fiesta day got the locoal novusordites flagergasted Hundreds of them were waiting the beginning of a funeral when we passed, chanting and praying, all flags, statues raised processionally.
Fr Picot got some bumps on his road in Australia, but perhaps these were to be expected. Our new chapel in New Zealand has a fairly good size, yet no priestly vocations are manifesting themselves down under, which means it will take a long time before this part of Austrasia can fly on its own, unlike India where the victory of the Cross can already be scented.
In the February 20, 2016 issue of His Excellency Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments, it is announced that Dom Thomas Aquinas, Prior of the Holy Cross Monastery in Nova Friburgo, Brazil, will be consecrated a bishop on March 19, 2016, Feast of St. Joseph, at the same monastery. Deo gratias! I believe that Dom Thomas Aquinas is a good choice as he has proven himself over many years to be a warrior of Catholic Tradition and faithful follower of the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I do hope, however, that he will publicly espouse the red light position, unlike Bishops Williamson and Faure who have more or less adopted the yellow light position. As I proposed in this post, the yellow light position has debilitated the growth of the Catholic Resistance; the red light position will bolster it.
Please keep Dom Thomas Aquinas in your prayers.
Reverend Father Edgardo Suelo has just passed away this morning at the seminary at ten, from a heart attack.
We shall bury him temporarily at the foot of the statue of Our Lady in the central courtyard of the Seminary and commence the construction of a crypt below the sanctuary of the upper future church.
Fr Suelo was a soldier.
In 2012, he immediately detected that reconciliation with the novus ordo church was from the Devil, purely and simply. He then took the risk, as his health was already beginning to breakdown, to join the Marian Corps and his help allowed us to hold missions that we would have certainly lost otherwise.
Vade in Pace, Miles Christi.
This article was taken from the May 1920 issue of the Franciscan Herald.
There will be a Holy Hour on Sunday February 21 at 11:30 am, weather permitting. Please bring a dish for a potluck.
The location is:
54 Maplegate Rd
Thanks to a French Canadian gentleman of the Resistance, here is a translated into English extract of a conference given by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on April 11, 1990 in Econe, Switzerland. This extract is from the second part of the conference, which deals with the Novus Ordo Missae.
In addition, two audio extracts are provided below, courtesy of the same French Canadian gentlemen, of the same conference (in French) given by Archbishop Lefebvre.
1. The Novus Ordo Missae
2. The Liturgical Reform
It is clear from the Archbishop’s words that he would not give permission for one to positively assist at the Novus Ordo Missae for any reason whatsoever, unlike what Bishop Richard Williamson did, as demonstrated in this post.
In the post “Question: May I Ever Assist at the Novus Ordo Missae? Answer: No!”, I wrote that there can never be any justification whatsoever for assisting at a Mass celebrated using the Novus Ordo Missae (i.e., New Mass) because the Novus Ordo Missae is instrinsically evil (i.e., in and of itself). No good end end or circumstance, therefore, can justify assisting at it. To put it simply, the Novus Ordo Missae is the product of the Conciliar Church, the man-centred religion founded upon the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. It is not the product of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church founded by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. As such, the Novus Ordo Missae cannot be pleasing to God. That the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil was the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that he founded. His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamon admitted this in his December 1, 1996 Letter of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (emphasis mine):
“Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
“A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible. When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfill their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
In Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” (Issue #445 dated January 23, 2016), he begins with the following statement (emphasis mine):
“The purpose of saying half a year ago that a priest is not obliged in every case to forbid a Catholic to attend the New Mass (NOM) was obviously not to say that the NOM is perfectly alright to attend.”
Of course, a priest is not obliged, for example, to go stand in front of a Novus Ordo church and forbid people from attending the New Mass. However, this is not the case Bishop Williamson was faced with during a conference he gave on June 28, 2015 in Mahopac, New York to which conference he alludes in the statement above. Rather, in this conference at the 1 hour, 1 minute, and 40 seconds mark, a lady tells her story that she attends the Latin Mass on Sunday and the Novus Ordo Missae during the week. She justifies her attendance by citing two objective circumstances:
1) The priest celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass in a reverent way.
2) She believes that the priest believes he is changing the bread and wine in to the Body and Blood of Our Lord. (Note: External action is how the priest’s intention to do what the Church does is manifested.)
The lady was seeking the counsel of Bishop Williamson on whether it would be morally acceptable for her to continue attending the Novus Ordo Mass under these good objective circumstances. Since Bishop Williamson knows what Archbishop Lefebvre taught regarding this matter (i.e., that the New Mass is intrinsically evil) and since he is a spiritual son of the Archbishop, here was a good opportunity for him to firmly, but gently, tell the lady that she ought not to attend the Novus Ordo Mass anymore. However, this is not what we heard from his lips. Rather, at the 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 5 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson realizes that what he is about to say is controversial and invites the audience to chop off his head nonetheless. He then proceeds to acknowledge those two circumstances the lady mentioned and then adds a third objective circumstance, that is, that it is important that she doesn’t scandalize anybody by her attendance. Shortly thereafter, he brings up attendance at neo-SSPX Masses and that one needs to watch for potentially negative changes in neo-SSPX Masses. If one starts to see such changes, then one must stay away. He then says that one must be in the same way on guard for potentially negative changes in the Novus Ordo Mass. Then at the 1 hour, 10 minutes, and 0 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson again states that one needs to watch and make decisions based on one’s own circumstances and that therefore there are cases where even the Novus Ordo mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it. Then he recognizes that this statement is almost heresy within Tradition, but nonetheless that is what he thinks.
It is clear that Bishop Williamson’s answer to the lady is not consistent with Archbishop Lefebvre’s position that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil because Bishop Williamson admits that there are good objective circumstances that morally permit one to assist at it. This is unacceptable for a bishop consecrated as such by the Archbishop’s own hands!
Unfortunately, however, the story does not end here. In addition to acknowledging objective circumstances that would morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae, Bishop Williamson seems to go even further in the same conference in that one’s subjective view or circumstances also morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae. For example, at the 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 40 seconds mark, he states, “The golden rule is this…..the absolute rule of rules seems to me to be this: do whatever you need to nourish your faith.” Then at the 1 hour, 9 minutes, and 15 seconds mark, he states, “The essential principle is do whatever you need to keep the Faith.” These statements are disturbing because they seem to be based on the perceived truth of the subject rather than on objective truth, which Bishop Williamson has always heralded. Within the context of the conference, this means that if I believe that I need to go to a Resistance Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to a neo-SSPX Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to an Ecclesia Dei Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to a Novus Ordo Mass to nourish my faith, so be it. Why then have we, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers, been fighting for the last 50 years against the Conciliar Church, its rites, and those that defend them if now we can do “whatever we need to nourish our faith”? Has objective truth given way to subjective perception? It was the goal of the Archbishop and the SSPX he founded (and now that part of the Resistance that faithfully maintains the Archbishop’s position) to lead people out of their errors and not pander to them. If Bishop Williamson wants to continue to claim that he is indeed a faithful son of the Archbishop, he must do the same by clearly acknowledging that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil. This means that his counsel must be that no good end or circumstance (objective or subjective) can ever justify assisting at it. Period.
One may naturally inquire, “Why is Bishop Williamson opening up an old wound? The question of the moral liceity of assisting at the Novus Ordo Missae has already been settled, at least among the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. What then are Bishop Williamon’s reasons for bringing this matter onto the front page Traditional Catholic news, so to speak, in the last several months?” Well, according to His Excellency’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” referenced above, there are at least two reasons:
“Firstly, to ward off what is coming to be called ‘ecclesiavacantism’, namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever.”¹
It is not a matter of the Newchurch (i.e., Conciliar Church) having nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever. The Anglican Church has Catholic elements in it as well. However, the Archbishop and his followers hold that these Catholic elements do not make the Conciliar Church any more Catholic than the Catholic elements in the Anglican Church make it any more Catholic. Rather, the Conciliar Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, is founded upon the man-centred religion of the schismatic Second Vatican Council just as the Anglican Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Anglican Church, is founded upon the man-centred religion of the English schism. The analogy is not perfect, of course, because the same man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter, and is hence the head of the Catholic Church, is also the head of the Conciliar Church, whereas this is not the case with the Anglican Church. Nevertheless, to reject the analogy outright is to deny the distinction that the Archbishop made between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, which is essential to understand if one is to come out of the Conciliar Church without adopting Sedevacantism or if one is to avoid going into the Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church. I do not believe that denying the distinction is the intention of Bishop Williamson, but in effect the distinction between the two Churches becomes somewhat blurred in his first reason.
“Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement.”
I agree with His Excellency that there are those considering themselves to be part of the Traditionalist movement who in their pride think themselves holier than those outside the movement. However, this is not a problem with those who have a proper understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre’s position and have seen or heard about the love he had for those within the Conciliar Church. His “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” is one beautiful manifestation of his love for them.
Let us pray and hope that His Excellency Bishop Williamson publicly changes his position regarding assistance at the Novus Ordo Missae to be fully in line with the one of his spiritual father.
1. This point of Bishop Williamson reminds me of Paragraph 8 of “Lumen Gentium” where it states that “these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling (Protestant sects, as such) towards catholic unity”. This statement tries to give the impression that Protestant sects, as such, take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church of Christ. However, the Protestant sects, as such, do not take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church. In a similar manner, the Conciliar Church, as such, takes no legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, itself is a sect. I do not imply here that Bishop Williamson adheres to this false idea of the Second Vatican Council and/or deliberately applies it to the Conciliar Church. I am only trying to make the point that one could, as I do, see an interlacing of the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church in His Excellency’s first reason, thereby blurring the distinction between the two.
“We must absolutely convince the faithful that this is a maneuver. That putting themselves in the hands of the Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome is a danger. It is the greatest danger that menaces them. For twenty years we have fought the conciliar errors, not to put ourselves into the hands of those who profess them.“
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fideliter, July 1989, no. 70, p.13)
Dear priests of the neo-SSPX and faithful that attend their Masses, the neo-SSPX leadership is taking you right into the arms of Modernist Rome, precisely where the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned NOT to go. So, please, wake up and resist the new direction!