I want to thank Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., for translating this post into Spanish.

 

Source of translation:  MONASTERIO BENEDICTINO SAN JOSÉ

 

Como la mayoría de ustedes saben, Su Excelencia el Obispo Richard Williamson y los Padres de Kentucky (Padre Joseph Pfeiffer y Padre David Hewko) están en desacuerdo entre ellos. Las cosas comenzaron a calentarse después de los infames comentarios de Su Excelencia sobre la asistencia activa a la Misa Novus Ordo en junio de 2015. Eventualmente llegó al punto en que los Padres de Kentucky y sus seguidores aplicaron el término “Resistencia Falsa”. hacia el Obispo Williamson y sus seguidores. El número de Gladium del invierno de 2017 publicado por el Seminario Nuestra Señora del Monte Carmelo define la Resistencia falsa como tal:

 

“The Fake Resistance fue un movimiento, que comenzó en 2013, diseñado para neutralizar la Resistencia real, y llevar a las almas en la misma dirección de compromiso, mientras que al mismo tiempo parece ser ‘conservador’”.

 

Luego continúa:

 

“¿Qué pasa con la resistencia falsa? ¿Por qué sus enseñanzas son tan poco claras? La respuesta está en los errores DOCTRINALES de la Resistencia falsa. Dirigido por Bp. Williamson, está destinado a canalizar a los católicos tradicionales a la idea novedosa de que la Nueva Misa y el Vaticano II son malos y dañinos, pero que no son más que un problema secundario. Entonces ellos insistirán en que la Nueva Religión puede ayudarte a vivir tu fe, pero no que sea realmente mortal para las almas. Insisten en que el problema del Vaticano II es que es “ambiguo”, pero no que sea erróneo y herético “.

 

Antes de la publicación de este número de Gladium, el p. Pfeiffer y el Padre Hewko dio conferencias en septiembre de 2017 sobre los errores del Obispo Williamson. P. Hewko, el 28 de agosto de 2016, predicó que deberíamos decirle al Obispo Williamson que no venga a las misiones para dar confirmaciones hasta que renuncie a sus errores. Hay un clip de este sermón del 28 de agosto de 2016:

 

P. Hewko también ha predicado en varias ocasiones que no deberíamos asistir a las Misas del Obispo Williamson. Ahora debo admitir que nunca he escuchado al padre Pfeiffer decir públicamente estas cosas. Sin embargo, recuerdo conducir al padre Pfeiffer al aeropuerto de Toronto después de la misa del 12 de marzo de 2017 y le pregunté si celebraría misa con el obispo Williamson. P. Pfeiffer respondió que no cree que lo haría. No obstante, los verdaderos (e incluso falsos) fieles de la Resistencia saben que si un obispo o sacerdote enseña públicamente errores, debemos evitar sus Misas. Aplicamos la luz roja a las misas neo-SSPX y lo mismo hacemos con las misas de la falsa resistencia.

 

Dado, entonces, lo que he escrito arriba, me molestó leer en el foro The Catacombs una publicación hecha por un miembro del foro, que se conoce con el nombre de Machabees y es un ávido defensor de los Padres de Kentucky, que el Padre Pfeiffer y el Padre Hewko escribieron en mayo de 2018 al obispo Williamson para que administrara los sacramentos en la iglesia y el seminario de Nuestra Señora del Monte Carmelo, y que lo han estado haciendo todos los años. Aquí está la cita:

 

“Los sacerdotes de SSPX-mc (Padres Pfeiffer y Hewko) escribieron otra carta (enviada por correo electrónico confirmado) el pasado mayo de 2018 al Obispo Williamson, como lo hacen todos los años, solicitando los santos oleos, confirmaciones y elevación al sacerdocio para sus seminaristas “.

 

Cuando leí esto, me dije a mí mismo: “¡Qué!”. ¿Cómo pueden el Padre Pfeiffer y el Padre Hewko predicar que el Obispo Williamson enseña errores y, en el caso del Padre Hewko, ¿predicar que no debemos ir a sus misas, y aún escribirle para que venga a administrar los sacramentos? Otro miembro del foro, Fidelis, en el siguiente post reiteró algunos de mis pensamientos sobre el asunto:

 

“¿No debería BW retractarse primero de sus herejías con respecto a la Nueva Misa y la apertura al Sedevacantismo antes de que uno reciba los Sacramentos de él o no importa teniendo en cuenta las circunstancias extremas? Si ese es el caso, ¿cuál es el problema de ir al Obispo ortodoxo o Novus Ordo para la ordenación? De la forma en que lo veo y aclaro, la Falsa resistencia debe ser tratada con precaución como el Neo Sspx hasta que vuelvan a la posición de combate por la fe “.

 

Mis amigos, por favor consideren esto. Imaginen que el Padre Pfeiffer y el Padre Hewko le escribieran al obispo Fellay para que fuera a la iglesia y seminario de Nuestra Señora del Monte Carmelo a administrar los sacramentos a pesar de que predican que el obispo Fellay enseña errores. Cual seria tu reacción? ¡Espero que sea uno de shock! Ahora bien, si el Obispo Williamson es el líder de la Resistencia falsa, ¿eso no lo coloca en la misma categoría que el Obispo Fellay? Sí; lo hace. El punto en común es que ambos enseñan errores. La diferencia entre los dos obispos, entonces, es solo una cuestión de grado y no de fondo. Entonces para el Padre. Pfeiffer y el Padre Hewko para predicar una cosa y luego hacer otra es muy preocupante. Además, la voluntad de los Padres de Kentucky de que el Obispo Williamson fuera a administrar los sacramentos es una variante del tradecumenismo, que también fue condenado por ellos. Por lo tanto, la pregunta debe hacerse si los padres Pfeiffer y Hewko son o no parte de la falsa resistencia falsa. Escribí a los Padres al menos dos veces sobre sus cartas al Obispo Williamson y ninguno de ellos me respondió.

 

Ahora algunos defensores de los Padres de Kentucky podrían argumentar que la necesidad de futuros verdaderos sacerdotes de la Resistencia tiene prioridad sobre los errores del Obispo Williamson. Si ese es el caso, entonces los defensores no deberían tener problemas con los Padres de Kentucky pidiendo a un neo SSPX, a un Sedevacantista o un obispo adherido al Vaticano II consagrado antes de 1968 que vengan y realicen ordenaciones para los seminaristas de Nuestra Señora del Monte Carmelo. Después de todo, mientras tengamos una certeza moral de validez, ¿cuál es el problema? Bueno, el problema es que la doctrina es lo primero. Nuestra lucha, ante todo, es doctrinal. Dejar de lado la doctrina no es mejor que lo que está haciendo el neo-SSPX con la Roma modernista. Dejar de lado la doctrina realmente socava la base misma de nuestra decisión de estar en la verdadera Resistencia en primer lugar. ¿Cómo, entonces, continuará la Iglesia Católica sin futuros sacerdotes? Esta no es la preocupación del Padre Pfeiffer o el Padre Hewko porque siendo simples sacerdotes no tienen el poder sacerdotal de hacer nuevos sacerdotes. Un seminario requiere un obispo porque la producción de ese seminario son sacerdotes. Un sacerdote tiene la obligación moral de dirigir un seminario solo si se lo ordena un superior legítimo, pero ese superior debe proporcionarlo. El p. Pfeiffer, un sacerdote simple, dirige el seminario de Nuestra Señora del Monte Carmelo, pero ningún superior legítimo (que de todos modos debería tener que proporcionar un obispo) no le ordena ejecutarlo, no tiene ninguna obligación moral de administrarlo. Sin embargo, él habla y actúa como si tuviera la obligación moral de hacerlo.

 

Esto lo lleva a buscar los servicios ministeriales de un obispo comprometido (o incluso uno que tenga órdenes válidamente cuestionables). Esto pone en peligro la Fe (o incluso la validez de los sacramentos) por el bien de un seminario. En esencia, eso que el Padre Pfeiffer está moralmente obligado a proporcionar (por ejemplo, la fe y los sacramentos válidos) se pone en peligro por lo que no está moralmente obligado a proporcionar (por ejemplo, un seminario).

 

En mis comunicaciones con el Padre. Rafael, O.S.B., con respecto a este asunto, afirmó que el p. Pfeiffer no debería dejar de lado la doctrina por el bien de los sacramentos y debería estar dispuesto a perder a todos y cada uno de los seminaristas en lugar de comprometerse con la falsa resistencia o los obispos cuestionablemente válidos. Debo estar de acuerdo.

 

Mantengamos a los padres de Kentucky en nuestras oraciones.

 

TONY LA ROSA

My friends, let me tell you a short story.  Before I begin, I want to make clear to you that I have nothing personal against Fr. Pancras Raja.  I am only concerned about his doctrine.

 

On July 21, 2017, I received an invitation to attend Fr. Raja’s Masses.  He was staying in the Toronto area for several weeks and Mass would be available frequently during that time period.  On the same day, I wrote to Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko and asked them whether they approved of going to Fr. Raja’s Masses.  They both responded the same day giving me the green light to attend.  Fr. Pfeiffer even ending up visiting Fr. Raja during that time period.

 

On August 13, 2017, at Sunday Mass, Fr. Raja told me that it is his opinion that one is morally obligated, under pain of mortal sin, to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation when one is certain that the priest is validly ordained and that he validly celebrates the Tridentine Mass.  This includes of course the Masses of current Society of St. Pius X.  I told Fr. Raja that I hold the position of Fr. Pfeiffer and that I stopped going to the Masses of the Society of St. Pius X.  Fr. Raja told me that he argued with Fr. Pfeiffer on this point for three hours when Fr. Pfeiffer met him in India in 2016.  I told Fr. Raja that I had no intention of returning to the Masses of the Society of St. Pius X.  Then, during the sermon, Fr. Raja said that when one is certain that the priest is validly ordained and that he validly celebrates the Tridentine Mass, one should not deprive oneself of the graces of the Mass and hence should attend it.  He basically repeated publicly that which he told to me privately!

 

My friends, do you understand the significance of this?  Unlike yellow light bishops and priests, who tell the faithful that one is permitted to attend the Masses of the SSPX, Fr. Raja turns a permission into an obligation, and that under pain of mortal sin!  Concerned about this, on August 14, 2017, I wrote to Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko about it and questioned Fr. Pfeiffer as to whether he did indeed know about Fr. Raja’s position, and that if he did, why he gave me the green light to attend his Masses.  I did not receive a response.  Nevertheless, the day before, Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., advised me to stop attending Fr. Raja’s Masses and I did not attend from thereon.  I did not pursue the issue further with Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko after that because I knew Fr. Raja would be going back to India in September 2017.

 

Fast forwarding to a few weeks ago, I learned that Fr. Raja was at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Boston, Kentucky.  Even though I shook my head on hearing this, I decided to write to Fr. Hewko and ask him why Fr. Raja was invited to Kentucky given his doctrine about being morally obligated to attend SSPX Masses.  I thought perhaps the justification was that Fr. Raja changed his position.  Fr. Hewko did not respond.  Therefore, I proceeded to contact Fr. Raja to ask him directly whether he still held the same position as he did the year before.  Fr. Raja responded that neither did he change his position nor was he demanded to do so by Fr. Pfeiffer and that he was invited to Kentucky to preach a retreat to the seminarians!  Since Fr. Raja arrived at Kentucky a few weeks ago, he has celebrated three Sunday Masses at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel church (see screenshots below).

 

Before writing this post, I spoke to Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., about the situation and asked him whether I should make it public.  He encouraged me to do so for everybody to see that the Kentucky Fathers themselves are co-operating in a variant of tradecumenism, which is a grave danger to the purity of the true Resistance.  Fr. Rafael has approved this post as written.

 

Watch and pray!

 

Addendum – screenshots of Fr. Raja at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel church:

 

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

As most of you are aware, His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson and the Kentucky Fathers (Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko) are at odds with each other.  Things really started to heat up after His Excellency’s infamous comments regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass spoken in June 2015.  Eventually it got to the point where the term “Fake (or False) Resistance” was applied by the Kentucky Fathers and their supporters towards Bishop Williamson and his supporters.  The Winter 2017 Issue of Gladium published by the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary defines the Fake Resistance as such:

 

“The Fake Resistance was a movement, beginning in 2013, engineered to neutralize the real Resistance, and lead souls in the very same direction of compromise, while at the same time appearing to be ‘conservative’.”

 

Then it continues:

 

“What is wrong with the Fake Resistance? Why are their teachings so unclear? The answer is in the DOCTRINAL errors of the Fake Resistance. Led by Bp. Williamson, it is meant to channel Traditional Catholics to the novel idea that the New Mass and Vatican II are indeed bad and harmful, but that they are merely a secondary problem. So they will insist that the New Religion can help you live your faith, but not that it is really deadly to souls. They insist that the problem of Vatican II is that it is ‘ambiguous’ but not that it is erroneous and heretical.”

 

Prior to the publication of this issue of Gladium, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko gave conferences (see herehere, and here) in September 2017 on the errors of Bishop Williamson.  Fr. Hewko, on August 28, 2016, preached (see here) that we should tell Bishop Williamson not to come to the missions to give confirmations until he renounces his errors.  Here is a clip from this August 28, 2016 sermon:

 

 

Fr. Hewko has also preached on several occasions that we should not attend the Masses of Bishop Williamson.  Now I must admit that I have never heard Fr. Pfeiffer publicly say these things.  However, I remember driving Fr. Pfeiffer to the Toronto airport after Mass on March 12, 2017 and I asked him whether he would celebrate Mass with Bishop Williamson.  Fr. Pfeiffer responded that he doesn’t think he would.  Nonetheless, the true (and even fake) Resistance faithful know that if a bishop or priest publicly teaches errors we should avoid his Masses.  We apply the red light to neo-SSPX Masses and the same we do to fake Resistance Masses.

 

Given, then, what I have written above, I was disturbed to read on The Catacombs forum a post made by a forum member, who goes by the name of Machabees and is an avid proponent of the Kentucky Fathers, that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko wrote in May 2018 to Bishop Williamson to come administer the sacraments at the Our Lady of Mount Carmel church and seminary, and that they have been doing this every year.  Here is the quote:

 

“The SSPX-mc priests (Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko) wrote another letter (sent via confirmed email) this past May 2018 to Bishop Williamson, as they do every year, requesting Holy oils, Confirmations, and elevations to priesthood for the Traditional Catholic seminarians present serving the Church.”  

 

Here is a screenshot of part of Machabees’ post:

 

 

When I read this, I said to myself, “What!”  How could Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko preach that Bishop Williamson teaches errors and, in the case of Fr. Hewko, preach that we should not go to his Masses, and yet write to him to come administer the sacraments?  Another forum member, Fidelis, in the very next post iterated some of my thoughts on the matter:

 

“Shouldn’t BW recant first his heresies regarding the New Mass and openness to the Sedevacantist before one receives the Sacraments from him or it doesn’t matter considering the dire circumstances? If that is the case then what is the problem of going to the Orthodox Bishop or NovusOrdo for the ordination? The way I see it and please clarify, the False resistance must be treated with caution like the NeoSspx until they convert back to the stance of combat for the Faith!”

 

Here is a screenshot of Fidelis’ post:

 

 

My friends, please consider this.  Imagine if Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko wrote to Bishop Fellay to come to the Our Lady of Mount Carmel church and seminary to administer the sacraments despite the fact they preach that Bishop Fellay teaches errors.  What would be your reaction?  I hope it would be one of shock!  Now if Bishop Williamson is the leader of the fake Resistance, does that not place him in the same category as Bishop Fellay?  Yes; it does.  The common ground is that they both teach errors.  The difference between the two bishops, then, is only a matter of degree and not of substance.  So for Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko to preach one thing and then do another is very troubling.  Furthermore, the Kentucky Fathers’ willingness to have Bishop Williamson come administer the sacraments is a variant of tradecumenism, which was also condemned by them (see here).  Therefore, the question needs to be asked whether or not Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko are also part of the fake Resistance.  I wrote to the Fathers at least twice regarding their letters to Bishop Williamson and neither of them responded to me.

 

Now some defenders of the Kentucky Fathers might argue that the need for future true Resistance priests takes precedence over Bishop Williamson’s errors.  If that is the case, then those defenders should have no problem with the Kentucky Fathers asking a neo-SSPX, Sedevacantist, or a Vatican II adhering bishop consecrated before 1968 to come and perform ordinations for the Our Lady of Mount Carmel seminarians.  After all, as long as we have a moral certitude of validity, what’s the problem?  Well, the problem is that doctrine comes first.  Our fight first and foremost is a doctrinal one.  To set aside doctrine is no better than what the neo-SSPX is doing with Modernist Rome.  To set aside doctrine really undermines the very basis of our decision to be in the true Resistance in the first place.  How, then, will the Catholic Church continue without future priests?  This is not the concern of Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko because being simple priests they do not have the sacerdotal power to make new priests.  A seminary requires a bishop because the output of that seminary are priests.  A priest has a moral obligation to run a seminary only if he is commanded to do so by a legitimate superior, but it is that superior that must provide the bishop.  Since Fr. Pfeiffer, a simple priest, runs the Our Lady of Mount Carmel seminary, but is not being commanded to run it by any legitimate superior (who would anyways need to provide a bishop), he has no moral obligation to run it.  Yet he speaks and acts as if he does have moral obligation to do so.  This leads him to seek out the ministerial services of a compromising bishop (or even one that has questionably valid orders).  This places in danger the Faith (or even the validity of the sacraments) for the sake of a seminary.  In essence, that which Fr. Pfeiffer is morally obliged to provide (e.g., the Faith and valid sacraments) becomes endangered by that which he is not morally obliged to provide (e.g., a seminary).

 

In my communications with Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., regarding this matter, he stated that Fr. Pfeiffer should not set aside doctrine for the sake of the sacraments and should be willing to lose each and every seminarian rather than compromise with the fake Resistance or questionably valid bishops.  I must agree.

 

Let us keep the Kentucky Fathers in our prayers.

 

Addendum – screenshots of the YouTube videos linked to above:

 

Over three years ago I wrote a post called “In Defence of the Red Light Position”.  Those in the true Resistance should not forget this important position in our fight against the liberal direction taken by the leaders of the neo-SSPX.  It is easy to do so because of the many divisions that have occurred in the Resistance since I wrote this post.  Remember that at that time Bishop Williamson had not yet publicly stated that one may actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances.  Bishop Faure was consecrated a few months before and Bishops Thomas Aquinas and Zendajas were consecrated the following years.  As it stands today, despite everything that has happened within the neo-SSPX since 2012, not one of these four bishops have publicly proclaimed the red light position.  What a shame.  Unfortunately, some of the red light priests that maintained their association with the ministry of the four bishops have either changed their position to yellow or have gone silent regarding the red.  This is one of the negative influences effected by the four bishops.  One cannot walk into a smoke-filled room and expect to come out smelling like roses.

 

My friends in the true Resistance, let us keep strong and public in the promotion and defence of the red light position.  Let us keep with priests that hold the red light position and are not afraid to publicly proclaim it.  Let us also keep with priests who don’t look to the false resistance bishops to bring the sacrament of Holy Orders for their seminarians or priests that look to “bishops” who in turn bring with them questionably valid sacraments.

 

Below is the link to the post I wrote.  Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., a true Resistance priest, read it and approved of it on September 7, 2018.

 

In Defence of the Red Light Position

In His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson’s 566th Edition of Eleison Comments, he writes the following:

 

“If there is one thing certain about Catholic Tradition and the Second Vatican Council, it is that they are irreconcilable.”

 

“…..the spirit of the Council is driving towards a new religion centred on man…..”

 

“…..in 1990 Archbishop Lefebvre saw and said that Vatican II is 100% infected by subjectivism…..”

 

“…..the fact that they (i.e., Tradition and the Second Vatican Council) are irreconcilable is the most important reality now governing the life of the Church…..”

 

Bravo!  However, we still await His Excellency’s public retraction that one may morally actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances.

 

As I wrote in a previous post, let us keep praying and hoping that His Excellency will return to the position of his spiritual father, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, on this essential matter stating that:

 

“I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass (i.e., Novus Ordo).”

(Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the SSPX)

 

Until then, we should steer clear of his false resistance.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

In a post dated April 2, 2018, Mr. Sean Johnson writes in his blog Sodalitium Pianum that in 2007 he and his wife to be had to sign this form of the SSPX U.S.A. District prior to the priest consenting to marry them.  Mr. Johnson points out the statement of most interest on page 1 of the form relevant to the recent marriage that took place in a Novus Ordo parish (emphasis mine):

 

“Moreover, I insist on my right to receive all the sacraments in an entirely traditional way, and consequently refuse to have my wedding celebrated by a priest who celebrates the new Mass, or in a church in which the new Mass is celebrated.”

 

What a difference between the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre and the neo-SSPX of Bishop Fellay!

 

I would love to see the form currently required by the SSPX in Canada or the U.S.A. to be signed by a couple intending to marry.  If anybody has either, please send it to me at info@ecclesiamilitans.com.

 

As a side note, the same form noted by Mr. Johnson also contains the following (emphasis mine):

 

“Moreover, I have grave objection, in conscience, in asking for the Indult granted by His Holiness Pope John Paul II (October 3, 1984), even should it be allowed in my parish, since its application is based upon a compromise, namely the acceptation that the New Mass is a licit Catholic rite and that the traditional Mass does reflect our refusal of the errors of Vatican II.”

 

Here is another piece of evidence that the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the New Mass.  Yet we have His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson now of the public position that one may actively attend the New Mass under certain circumstances, and the likes of Mr. Johnson defending him.  Hmm.  But does that not transform the New Mass into a licit Catholic rite, at least under certain circumstances?  Confusing.  That’s the false resistance for you!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

Here is a link to the most frequently asked questions about the SSPX, that is, the SSPX of the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

 

http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-sspx.7031/

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

Today is the sixth anniversary of that infamous sermon given by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota.  The following is the quote that really caught my ear back then:

 

“We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready.”

 

By these words Bishop Fellay publicly opposed the old SSPX adage of “no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution”.  In other words, he publicly adopted a position in opposition to that of the SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who from the 1988 Consecrations onward clearly and firmly held the position that Rome must accept the pre-conciliar Magisterial teachings prior to the resumption of discussions regarding a canonical regularization.  It is true that there were almost two years of doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX prior to this sermon, but the conclusion reached was that each party could not convince the other of its position.

 

My friends, does this make any sense?  The SSPX starts the doctrinal discussions with Rome in 2009 with the position that the doctrinal differences between the two parties must be resolved prior to any canonical regularization.  Then almost two years of discussions are held after which both parties cannot come to an agreement on the doctrinal discrepancies.  Nonetheless, soon after Bishop Fellay is willing to accept a canonical regularization so long as Rome accepts the SSPX “as is”.  Huh?

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

In His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson’s 548th Edition of Eleison Comments, he sounds more like the Bishop Williamson of old where he states clearly (emphases mine):

 

“…..ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) these have not been sane times, because the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism. So ever since the 1960’s, Catholics have been confused from top to bottom of the Church, by trying to go in two directions at once. For instance, your Indult priest says the Mass of the true religion, while meaning to obey the Romans set upon the false religion. No wonder it confuses you to listen to him. And you will remain confused until you fully grasp the difference between God’s true religion and men’s Conciliarism….”

 

His Excellency is quite correct that a new religion was established at the Second Vatican Council by the Catholic Church hierarchy.

 

The new religion produced a (rotten) fruit called the Novus Ordo Missae, as proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum”:

 

“The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal….”

 

Bishop Williamson has acknowledged this in the past.  For example, in his 387th Edition of Eleison Comments, His Excellency writes about the distinctions necessary when speaking about the validity of the New Mass and New Rite of ordination and also states (emphasis mine):

 

“This playing between white and black, this ambiguity, is what is properly diabolical in the Conciliar reform of the sacramental Rites.”

 

Now if one is a Catholic, is not a Sedevacantist, admits that the Second Vatican Council established a new religion, and admits that the New Mass is a product of that new religion, does it not follow that he ought to declare that active attendance at the New Mass is morally strictly forbidden?  Of course!  Unfortunately, however, His Excellency has advised that one may morally actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances (see here).  Therefore, His Excellency has not been consistent with what he wrote in his two Eleison Comments quoted above.  Rather, His Excellency would seem to answer in the negative to the question posed above.  If that were the case, then His Excellency should advise the Catholic faithful that they may morally actively attend Mass celebrated in the Anglican Rite by a Catholic priest under certain circumstances.  As strange as that sounds, the reasoning would follow.

 

Let us keep praying and hoping that His Excellency will return to the position of his spiritual father, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, stating that:

 

“I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass (i.e., Novus Ordo).”

(Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the SSPX)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

It is now two and a half years since His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson delivered his infamous conference in which he advised a lady that she may go to the Novus Ordo Mass given her circumstances.  Till this day, His Excellency has refused to back down on his advice.  Likewise, his defenders continue to refuse to acknowledge that His Excellency’s advice flies in the face of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X in which it is clearly stated that the Novus Ordo Missae is in itself bad and consequently no priest of his may celebrate it or advise the faithful in a positive manner to take an active part in it.  All seminarians since 1981 were required to sign this Declaration before receiving the subdiaconate.

 

The latest rant of one of Bishop Williamson’s avid supporters, Mr. Sean Johnson, continues the quest to demonstrate that Archbishop Lefebvre allowed for active Novus Ordo Mass attendance under certain circumstances:

 

“[On this latter point, it is worth recalling Archbishop Lefebvre’s May 9, 1980 comment in Michael Davies’ classic Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol. II, Ch. 40) positively endorsing Novus Ordo Mass attendance, stating that ‘Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfill their Sunday obligation’ here.  I make the same observation regarding the quote the Pfeifferites (sic) pull from ‘Open Letter to Confused Catholics’ in one of the refutations above, in which the Archbishop makes his comments on grace specific to the sacrilegious and desecrated Masses he was there describing, not all Novus Ordo Masses.]”

 

Note that the comment quoted above was made in 1980, whereas the Declaration was required of seminarians since 1981.  I have shown in “A Refutation of a Catechetical Refutation” that the Archbishop’s position hardened regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass to the point of the Declaration where active attendance would no longer be acceptable under any circumstances.  An official declaration, furthermore, trumps comments made in an interview or conference.  From 1981 until his death, the Archbishop did not change his position.

 

It is sad the Mr. Johnson refuses to correct his position and that he rather doubles down, triples down, quadruples down, etc.  For Mr. Johnson, “ignorance” is a circumstance that permits one to actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass, while failing to point out that “ignorance” (and/or consent) is a subjective circumstance that is of no import in regards to determining the objective evilness of an act.  Whether one is guilty of sin before God is a separate matter from whether the act itself is evil.  Mr. Johnson, however, confounds these two.  Furthermore, for Mr. Johnson, “extreme necessity” is a circumstance that permits one to actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass, while failing to demonstrate in Church doctrine where “extreme necessity” permits one to actively attend a schismatic Mass.

 

My friends, I have said this before on more than one occasion:  we must reject the Novus Ordo Mass wholesale.  It is not a work of the Roman Catholic Church.  Rather, it is the work of the conciliar church, a new religion foreign to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  One cannot claim to be faithful to Roman Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre while at the same time holding that the Novus Ordo Mass may be actively attended under certain circumstances.  No!  We must affirm the following proposition:

 

Active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is an intrinsically evil act.

 

To deny this proposition is to renege on a core issue in the defence of Catholic Tradition.  Let us therefore continue the fight for Catholic Tradition in 2018 as espoused by Archbishop Lefebvre and continue to pray for those, especially the bishops and priests of the false resistance, who either through commission or omission have steered off the Archbishop’s course.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |