Bishop Williamson believes in the conciliar church!


Deleted member 149


What a ‘Novus Ordo Mess’ :

Bishop Williamson believes in the conciliar church!

A Closer Look at
‘Eleison Comments’ #447
(“Host and Parasite II”), 7th Feb. 2016:​

"Two weeks ago these “Comments” stepped back onto a minefield, and defended the position that there is still something Catholic in what has become of the Catholic Church since Vatican II."

Stepping onto a minefield is not an apt metaphor because what it implies is so far removed from what it represents in reality. Bishop Williamson is not putting himself in the firing line to defend Our Lord and His teaching, nor taking a personal risk for the greater good, despite his own peculiar conceit to the contrary. What he is in fact doing is indulging his own whim and fancy without regard for the devastation which his scandalous words, spoken and written have on souls who have already suffered so much. Worse, when he implies that he is somehow taking a risk, this is tantamount to lying since, in reality, anyone who disagrees with him is “dealt with”, though in secret (so you may not often hear about it). His words are a standing scandal and are causing souls to fall away. “Woe to him by whom the scandal cometh” would be more accurate than talk about ‘minefields’. How tragic to witness a man, a bishop no less, who has so little self knowledge that he can apparently view himself as some sort of hero-martyr, all the while behaving so selfishly. But I digress. Tragic and pitiable though it is, this is not what is important.

‘Still something Catholic’ in… ...what?

What concept does he say he is defending? “That there is still something Catholic in what has become the Church since Vatican II.” Which begs the question - what has become the Church since Vatican II? The common understanding would be that what we are talking about is the conciliar church. That is what has become, since Vatican II, of what is generally considered “the Catholic Church.” So is he saying that there is still something Catholic in the conciliar church? Why not come clean and say it? If he means something else, why put it in a way which is so unclear? Lack of clarity when it comes to the “Catholic Church vs. conciliar church” distinction is something which we are accustomed to expect from Bishop Fellay and Menzingen. Alas, it seems the disease has now spread to Bishop Williamson too!

How Catholic is Catholic?

Further reflection ought to remind us of the following. Just how Catholic is “something Catholic”? Here’s a hint. If it isn’t 100% Catholic, it’s not Catholic. There is undeniably “still something Catholic” in the Anglicans, for example. They still have the sign of the cross, the Our Father, stained-glass windows, candles, crucifixes, the Nicene Creed… are the Anglicans Catholic? No. But it most definitely has “something Catholic in it.” Does it matter whether there is “still something Catholic” in it, as far as our support or acceptance goes? No. The same goes for the conciliar church: of course there is “still something Catholic” in the conciliar church - some of the modernist architects of the conciliar church themselves have admitted that the “still Catholic” bits are useful to help get the new bits accepted. So, insofar as it is different in any way from the Catholic Church, the conciliar church is a false religion which we must avoid and resist, and the fact that there is “still something Catholic” in it does not change that. Near the end of the Eleison Comments, the same straw-man fallacy is advanced once again:

“ say that there is nothing at all of these [‘Catholic decency and devotion’] left in the Newchurch seems to me to be a gross exaggeration.”

Again, that there is “something” (not “nothing”) left is beside the point. There is something of Catholic decency and devotion left in the Anglicans. This is mere sophistry. But it is very important to spot it and understand it, given what follows.

For example on the one side the present leaders of the Society of St Pius X act as though the official Church in Rome is still so Catholic(*) that the SSPX cannot do without its official recognition. On the other side many souls that really have the Catholic faith utterly repudiate the idea that there is still anything Catholic whatsoever left in the “Church” now being led by “Pope” Francis.(**) What follows is just one attempt to discern what truth may be on both sides.

Did you spot the sleight of hand, the two fake alternatives which are not really alternatives at all, the one exaggeration verses the other parody? According to Bishop Williamson, the two alternatives are:

1. “We cannot do without official recognition from the official Church in Rome!”
This is the voice of the neo-SSPX.

2. “We utterly repudiate the idea that there is anything Catholic left in Rome!”
This, presumably, is us.

He then goes on to present his thesis as a “solution” to the “problem” presented in these two positions. The fact is, however, these two extremes are in reality just caricatures. As mentioned above, there is “still something Catholic” in the Anglicans, so of course there is still something Catholic in the conciliar church. But, as discussed above, “something Catholic” is as good as useless. “Something Catholic” is not Catholic; only 100% Catholic is Catholic. bonum ex integra causa. malum ex quocumque defectu.

Incidentally, if the conciliar church really is the Catholic Church - sorry, the “official Church” - then why exactly are Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX wrong to seek its approval? If they are wrong to do so, is that not because the conciliar church is something different to, other than, or distinct from the Catholic Church?

“And since they [modernists] have had nearly 50 years to conform the Church to their insanity, from top to bottom, then there has emerged a Church so different from the pre-conciliar Church that it is a reality deserving the name of Newchurch.”

As mentioned above, talk of “...a Church so different...”, just like “...the official Church in Rome is still so Catholic…” and “...still anything Catholic whatsoever [in it]” is all highly misleading, implying as it does something quantitative. But the question “Catholic or not?” is a binary choice. The only answers possible are “Yes” or “No”. It is not something quantitative. There is no such thing as “less Catholic” or “more Catholic” or “so Catholic” or “not anything Catholic”. We also note with dismay that there seems to be a suggestion of an equivalence between the Church and the conciliar church, both being described in similar terms (“the pre-conciliar Church” and “a Church [sic] so different...”). And need one add: “the Church” is the Bride of Christ: what was “made to conform” was the people and not, properly speaking, the Church herself.

So, Bishop Williamson’s thesis seems to be as follows.

1. The Church is so different now to how it was before the Council, “that it is deserving [of] the name ‘Newchurch’. ”

2 . But this “Newchurch” still has the faith, even though lots of people in it don’t, so you can’t reject it altogether.

“But if one respects reality, one is bound to admit that there is still faith in the Newchurch.”

If one respects reality, one is bound to admit that Bishop Williamson is talking nonsense, and that he has fallen away from Tradition every bit as much as has Bishop Fellay. That there may be an old babushka somewhere in Siberia who has the Faith and knows nothing about “Orthodox vs. Catholic” and who thus may save her soul, does not mean we can say that the Russian Orthodox church has the Faith and people can be saved in it! That there may well be souls in the conciliar church who still have the Faith in spite of it, does not prove that the conciliar church as the conciliar church has the Faith. It does not. This is not just an abstract idea: for a look at how serious it is, consider the inter-religious meetings at Assisi which deny Our Lord publicly before the world and place him on a par with Buddha, Mohammed and so many other false gods and demons (cf. Psalm 95 “omnes dii gentium daemonia”). That is not the Catholic Church acting, organising these Assisi meetings. It is the conciliar church.

“A layman tells me that his father has faithfully attended the Novus Ordo Mass for the last 45 years, and still has the faith. A priest tells me that he can remember a laywoman presenting to Archbishop Lefebvre himself her reasons for needing to attend the NOM, and he merely shrugged his shoulders.”

...and as proof of this idea (“that there is still faith in the Newchurch”), Bishop Williamson advances the spurious claim of a story about a layman who has attended the New Mass for 45 years and it didn’t do him any harm! I say “spurious” because there are so many things wrong with this. You can’t prove a point as important as this with just one example, and a subjective personal example at that. And even a whole list of personal examples would each have the same limitations as that one example, each would remain personal and subjective, subject in the same way to circumstance, interpretation, etc. Our own personal experience, mine and yours, surely shows beyond any doubt that over the past 40-odd years, those who stopped practising in the early days of the Novus Ordo are far more likely to have kept the Faith than those who carried on going. Finally, as chance would have it, the layman in question was recently located. Suffice it to say that his particular case in point has been here rather misrepresented by Bishop Williamson. He is a liberal, a fan of Pope Francis, a follower of modern bogus apparitions. And he himself says that if he has kept the Faith it is only despite the Novus Ordo and he would never recommend anyone else to go to it!
[Don’t take my word for this: see for yourself in the article “A Message from Gabrielle”]

As for the latest example of taking Archbishop Lefebvre’s name in vain (you might call it the “x+1” example), please note that it is third-hand, (a priest tells Bishop Williamson who tells us that he witnessed something), which given Bishop Williamson’s record in recounting the example of the layman above, does not inspire confidence; and that it does not involve any actual words spoken by the Archbishop. Where and when was the question put? Was it even a question (and thus requiring of a reply?) What did the shrug denote? Could it be that, for example, that the person in question, having listened to an entire conference from the Archbishop about why one cannot go to the New Mass, but seeking to justify her own guilty conscience, asked an infuriatingly stupid question immediately afterwards, showing that she had taken in nothing of what had been said, at which point the Archbishop did not bother to repeat what he had just spent an hour or more saying? Was it in a crowd of people, or ‘buttonholing’ him on his way out, so that he had no time to give a verbal reply? I am just speculating. We have no way of knowing. Either way, for Bishop Williamson to have to resort to such “evidence” speaks volumes and is surely a sign of desperation.

“The reason for these testimonies being real should be obvious. As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the NOM can be what you make of it.”

So the Novus Ordo is not itself bad, then. It is only bad when liberal priests say it badly. It can be what you make of it. Are there really people in the Resistance who are going to swallow this poison?

“A priest can celebrate it “decently,” a Catholic can attend it “devoutly.” The inverted commas are to placate the hard-liners who will insist that with the NOM there can be neither true decency nor true devotion, but when they say such things, I think that they are flying in the face of reality.”

Notice the dishonest way in which Bishop Williamson moves the goalposts: not only Archbishop Lefebvre but, until a mere four or five years ago, the whole SSPX and all the priests, religious and faithful of Tradition would have said that the Novus Ordo is simply not reconcilable with real devotion and reverence. But now such a position has suddenly become the exclusive domain of “hard liners”. When did that happen? How many other things, commonly accepted now, will magically become something which only “hard liners” think or do or say? As with the leftward drift of secular politics and social custom, if we wake up one day to find that what was once normal and widespread is now ‘right wing’ or ‘hard line’, it is because the so-called ‘centre’ or ‘mainstream’ has been moved, leaving behind those who have not moved with it. But we are not talking about Freemasonic politicians or their corrupt media lackeys, here. This is Bishop Williamson doing this. Ask yourself why.

And by the way, if the inverted commas are only there to placate people with whom you disagree, (and who are “out of touch with reality”) then one must remove those inverted commas in order to get the true sense. So, according to Bishop Williamson:
“A priest can celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.” Again I ask: who in the Resistance is going to swallow this poison? And if they do, what exactly are they “resisting”?

What does all this mean? It means that Bishop Williamson believes in the conciliar church. Whether one sees it as a mistake, an error of judgement, a deviation from the path of truth, it is the same mistake, the same misjudgement, the same deviation which Bishop Fellay has fallen into. Like Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson sees the conciliar church (“the official Church in Rome”) as being something which we cannot reject. Worse, he not only believes it himself, but stubbornly promotes it to anyone who will listen. His own words witness it, even the bad rhyming couplet with which this unfortunate ‘Eleison Comments’ begins:

A leprous Mother some sons will desert.
Others will get too close, not being alert.

I wonder how many of his poor readers have thought carefully about what that means: it is a curious choice of metaphor and bares careful thinking about. What are the characteristics of a leprous mother? She has leprosy, through no fault of her own, but she is still your mother. She is still in essence good, though in appearance bad; she is still the same, though in appearance, superficially, different. You still love her, honour her, treat her as a mother (with obedience and respect), and wish to nurse her back to health. If in nursing her back to health, you have to keep a physical distance for some time, then that is only a temporary measure, and it is only physical - you are still united in heart and mind all the while. You still serve her and carry out her wishes, and wish to embrace her as soon as you are able. Is this really how Bishop Williamson sees the conciliar church? It seems so. Kyrie Eleison.

Since I must finish somewhere, and since the Muse of Bad Taste has been provoking me for some time now and I feel the urge to write a very bad rhyming couplet, let me leave you with this to chew on:

For the Bishop ‘conciliar’ and ‘Catholic’ church is one!
Then why from the Resistance (and to Rome) is he not gone?


Sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer, Sunday in the octave of the Resurrection May 8th 2016

We are in this time now just before Pentecost when the Lord giveth his final instructions as the Holy Ghost of God is going to come in a few days on Pentecost next Sunday and then our Lord, the Ascension just happened a few days ago and our Lord gave his final instructions and we have these final instructions before he went up into heaven on what is going to happen to his holy Church are made, and he warns about persecution. One of the aspects of persecution he speaks about in the Gospel today, that they will persecute you and they will throw you out of the synagogues, they will throw you out of the churches and then they will come and kill you thinking they do a service to God.

And why will they do these things? Because they have not known the Father or me. And also it says in alleluia of the the Mass it says today, 'I will not leave you orphans but I’m going to be leaving you. I'm warning you of what’s going to happen. You’re going to not see me for a little while. A little while I will go to the Father. A little while you will not see Me and in a little while you shall see Me after I returned from the Father. We see that souls will attack those who hold the truth. We are holding the truth. We are following the Lord Jesus Christ and following the saints of the last 2000 years. And our Lord said, when you hold the truth you will be persecuted and those that persecute you and throw you out of the synagogues and kill you they will think they are doing a service to God, and why will they do this? Because they have not known the Father nor Me. Every time we go to the root cause of this persecution. And here we know that the persecution of the early ages of the Church, the Diocletian’s of the world, the wicked emperors of the 10 great persecutions and the pagans that persecuted the Church down the last two thousand 2000 years, we know that they have not known the Father. They have not known Christ. And in their ignorance they attacked and killed the followers of Christ. But we find also, those who claim that they know Jesus Christ, those who claim that they know the truth will throw out of the synagogues, those who claim that they are the friends of Christ will throw you out of the synagogues and they will persecute and say all manner of evil against you for my name's sake.

And what is the reason? Going down to the bottom of the page, because they have not known the Father nor Me. And now we have a crisis developing in our little resistance in the battle against modernism. The great battle against modernism. And what is the root of this crisis? One of the great mistakes that laity can make, even also the priests. Many priests make the same mistake. And they say that the crisis is because of bad bishops, and because of bad priests, and because of a bad Pope, because of bad faithful. Now it is true that bad popes, bad Bishops and bad priests and bad faithful lead to a great crisis. But what’s the crisis? For instance, if a man comes in here who is an evil man but he doesn’t have very many muscles and he comes in and he wants to kill. That he is an evil man, that’s a bad thing and if he’s not an evil man there is no problem. But if he is an evil man there's still no problem. Because if his evil stays only in himself there is no damage done to anyone. But if an evil man comes in with a gun and the evil man shoots everyone in the house or the evil man blows up the house, the evil man with the gun, the evil man with bullets, the evil man with a bomb and setting off a bomb in the house will destroy the people in the house. Evil men by themselves don’t accomplish evil, they must take something real, such as a gun, such as a bullet, such as a bomb, such as a sword. Such as something which they're going to use to accomplish the evil. Therefore our Lord says don’t fear he who can kill your body, but he who can kill your soul. He'll kill your body and afterwards cast your soul into eternal fire. Him you must fear. What is the one thing that kills our soul? What is the one thing that is the greatest danger to a living soul? What is the bullet that kills the Catholic? What is the bomb that blows him up? It is lies. Error. Heresy. Modernists try to limit it to only the word heresy and only those heresies which could be clearly defined as precise heresies defined by the Church. One priest told me for instance, a traditional priest a few years ago. He said, "You know, I don’t like the new mass. I'm never going to say the new mass. I think the new mass is bad. I think new church is bad. But I can’t say for sure that it’s really that way." I said, "why not?" "Because a Pope hasn’t defined it yet."

They're waiting for a Pope to define it, it's something like a man who has on the table rat poison. And on the table you have a new kind of poison no one has ever heard of, and then you have edible food. How do I know that the poison is going to kill me? Well I have to wait until the Surgeon General report comes out. I need to wait until the doctors of the American Medical Association have decided that this is classified as poison. And then I might know whether I’m going to die are not. That’s one way to test, the other way is, eat it. If you eat the poison you will die. The American Medical Association doesn’t even say that that was designated poison. We did, You can be part of the test group. We'll take the poison and feed it to the 35 people in this room. Sure enough, 35 of them died. We'll write that down as evidence towards this possibly being bad for your health. But we're not sure yet because there's greater than 50 million people in America so we need to do more tests. And after maybe at thousand people have died, then we can say that there are signs that this particular food is bad for your health. What is it that kills? I s it the decree of the American Medical Association and what they say is bad for your health? Or it is the food itself? It’s the food itself that kills. We don’t need the American Medical Association to tell us that rat poison is bad for little children to eat. My little brother used to eat dog food. He's okay. But if he eats rat poison it won’t be okay. So there is something about the dog food which is not quite as deadly as the rat poison.

What matters is, what is in the food. Now what is food for us Catholics? What is food for human beings, not just Catholics, any one that’s a man. We are called rational creatures. We are rational creatures. That is creatures that have a mind. If food is what goes into our minds, this is what makes us tick as human beings. A child can’t even eat or learn to live as a human being unless his mind is filled. He has to learn what is food and what is not food. He has to use his reason to even eat. So human beings require reason, they require truth. That’s our food. Therefore the greatest harm that can ever come to a human being, is a lie. Now the greatest protector of human beings is the Pope. After him the bishops. After him the priests. We are the greatest protectors of human life. And human life is protected by truth. Human life is destroyed by lies. We are not going to march only against abortion. Abortion kills only the body. It is not that great of a harm. But that which kills the soul destroys generations, destroys civilizations, causes souls go to hell. Destroys forever. If you want to defend, we must defend the truth.

Now how does the devil destroy souls? Through lies. Well there’s one particular lie which we thought a few years ago could never happen inside tradition. We thought it could never happen in the mainstream Society. We thought it could never happen within the resistance in the last four years. But it has happened. And these lies they are destroying souls and we don’t need to wait for an infallible decree from the Pope. The decrees have already been given. We don’t need to wait for a special command from on high. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, "They will kill you, they will persecute you, they will throw you out", as it says in the Gospel today. Why? Because they have not known the Father nor Me. They have not known Me who is the Truth. They have not known the Father who speaks the truth. The father speaks the Word and the Son is the Word. They have not known the Father. They won’t listen. They have not known the Word. He is not in their hearts, He is not in their mind and therefore since they know not the Father to whom they do not listen and they know not the Son who is not in their hearts, not in their mind, not in their blood the Truth, the living Truth, therefore they believe lies. And what will they do they do when they come into contact with the Truth? Whenever lie comes in contact with truth, lie hates the truth. The liars hate the truth and they tried to destroy it. So how do we protect ourselves? Know the truth, love the truth , listen to the truth and let the truth enter into our mind and hearts. Now there is a lie that is presently spread and it has becomes familiar with us in the last 11 months. Now we find in the mainstream Society, in an unusual ploy. The mainstream Society is now following the liberalism of the resistance. We thought that the danger was that the resistance would follow the liberalism in the mainstream Society. But now we find the mainstream finding itself following the liberalism of a part of the resistance which says that there are miracles in the new mass.

So, we have here from the on the website now. A few years ago whenever we gave a sermon about what’s on the website, a few days later it disappeared from the website. I don’t know if that will happen this time maybe not but in any case as of today it’s still on the website. The the miracles of the new mass, Eucharistic miracles. The latest Eucharistic miracles. New Eucharistic miracle in Poland. A report on the most recent Eucharistic miracle in Poland with an answer to a common objection. This miracle is a miracle of 2013 and this miracle almost looks completely identical to the miracle mentioned by Bishop Williamson and his first Eleison Comments of the five on the new mass in November of last year where he said that there were miracles in the new mass. Miracles, there are miracles in the new mass points to the good alas, in one of his little poems. So there's miracles in the new mass and he gives an example of Buenos Aires. In Buenos Aires there was a host that was dropped on the floor. The priest put it into a bowl of water. Several days later when he opened up the bowl in the cabinet where the host was, that it turned into a human heart. It was sent to a laboratory. 2008 in Poland, he mentions that miracle a similar thing happened. 2013 in Poland also, now the Society of St. Pius X mentions a miracle. What happened? A host fell on the floor. The host was picked up. The host was put by the priest into a bowl of water allowed by the rubrics. Well the host was contaminated. He put the host in the water. He put the host in the tabernacle. A few days later they opened it up and it was turning into a human heart of a man who had been wounded. The same miracle. So we got the miracle in Buenos Aires in 1996, another one in Poland in 2008, and another one in 2013 in Poland also. All miracles of the new mass and then Bishop William said about these miracles of the new mass, facts are stubborn, facts are stubborn things. These facts indicate that there's good coming out of the new mass. Yes in general the new mass as a new religion is bad. But even then he doesn't say that. He says the new mass like onto the new religion is ambiguous. And the trouble with ambiguity is it depends if the good priest say it the ambiguity he turns it into the good and the bad priest turns it into the bad. So he says both the new mass and the new religion are ambiguous and can be used for good or ill depending upon the priest.

Now the SSPX follows the suit of Bishop Williamson and of his part of the resistance and they says well there's miracles in the new mass. Miracles in Poland. 'Recent miracles which are investigated by scientists and made public by the proper ecclesiastical authority, are they not in the plan of God? And today as in the past, are they not a reminder of His real presence, a powerful apologetical argument and an invitation to increase our faith and devotion.' A powerful apologetical argument for what? Here there a dispute. Some say it’s a powerful apologetic argument that says only that there may be valid masses in the new rite. And of course where there's valid masses, well Christ is there, so certainly there must be some grace, since Christ is there. Others who have more reason to say, no, these miracles indicate that of course the new mass is good, the new mass is a true expression of the sacrifice of Calvary, it is pleasing to our Lord Jesus Christ and it is beneficial to souls. Therefore these are the facts. The facts are there's miracles. How can you deny the miracles? Two priests in the resistance and Bishop Faure talked to me about the miracles. [they said] "These are our facts there are miracles in the new mass, there is miracles in the new mass." Is it a fact? No it is not. No it is not at all. Just briefly, one point about this miracle which is different from the other miracles, Eucharistic miracles There were no witnesses of the miracle. There was a host put in water. Come back three days later and it is changed. Is it changed or did someone make a switch? And furthermore, why the water? Is it water? Or is it some kind of fluid that preserves tissues. Is there a hoax? Or is it real? If It happens once maybe it’s real. But now we're finding a pattern of the same miracle in Buenos Ares. The first miracle was in 1993 it didn’t work out. The second miracle was '94, '95 didn’t work out. The third miracle in '96 they finally got the miracle down. The same church. The third miracle worked. The third miracle is a charm, is how the saying goes. And then so the third miracle worked. Then the bishop Burgoglio and the other Bishop in Poland they say it’s a miracle. Now remember, these one's who says it’s a miracle, the proper ecclesiastical authority... the Pope is the proper ecclesiastical authority. The Bishop is the proper ecclesiastical authority. So ask them, 'Do you believe in the miracle the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?' [they'll say] "Well we're not certain". Well they believe in the miracles of this host, but they don’t believe that Jesus Christ necessarily rose from the dead. [ask them] "Do you believe that Moses walked on dry land with six hundred thousand men and another million and a half women and children through the middle of the Red Sea with a wall of water on one side and a wall of water on the other side and walked up the other side and Pharaoh tried it and it didn’t work. And Pharaoh and all of his cohorts were killed by that sea and that same sea saved Moses do you believe that? [their reply]" "Well we don’t know." They don’t believe in the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea, they don’t believe in the miracle of the resurrection, they don’t believe in the miracle of the raising of Lazarus, they don’t believe in the miracles contained in the Gospel, they don’t believe in the miracles of the Old Testament.

But see these are the right experts to go to so we go to see if this was a miracle. So, we go to the experts who do not believe the miracles of the Gospel, who do not believe in the miracles of sacred Scripture, who don't even believe that the Catholic Church is the true church and these are the "experts"! And they said it’s a miracle. Why do they say it’s a miracle? Because this miracle confirms Vatican II. Because this miracle confirms the new mass. This miracle means you can be madly in love with God and your fourth wife, whereas a real miracle is going to tell you, you that you gotta dump your 4th wife and you’ve got to go back to God and you have to not live in sin anymore. The new miracle says you can have abortion and contraception. You don’t have to have all those children.

The old miracle says you have all the children God sends you. The old miracle confirmed 10 of the 10 commandments. 10 out of 10. The new miracle confirms 0.00 out of 10. Bad number, bad percentage. And so what is happening? These miracles are confirming souls onto domination. They are not confirming souls onto salvation. Now, how is it causing confusion amongst our people? Well, Bishop Fellay says that it can be a real miracle, and he’s a man of tradition. Bsp. Williamson's the man of tradition! He is the holocaust denier. You can't be more traditional than that. If you're a holocaust denier then you are the most traditional man in the world. And therefore he is the most traditional man in the world since he's a holocaust denier and he says that there are miracles in the new mass, so there must be miracles in the new mass. These miracles indicate that the new mass and the new church can do good for your souls.

(here he's speaking as some in the sspx might say)-Now I know the old Mass is better, I prefer the old mass but I can’t be against the new mass.

What is the purpose of this lie? It is to make traditional Catholics go one step closer to hell. What does that mean? That we will believe that the new mass while it is not quite as good as the old Mass, essentially, it is good enough. It is like taking a cheap car and driving it, or taking a Lamborghini and driving it. You can take an expensive good car and take it from A to B. You can take a cheap car and take it from A to B. You can take a car that barely works and a car that is in magnificent condition but both of them will take you from A to B. So they're both essentially okay. One car might be faster. One car might be more beautiful. One car might be better, but they both get you there.

But what we say is the truth. and that is, the one car is owned by Al Qaeda and it has explosives in it. Don’t get in it! It’s going to be an unhappy experience for you and your neighbors. Don’t get in that car. That car will not get you to your destination. That car is deadly. That car is called the Novus Ordo Missae, which is straight from hell.

And not only that, but let’s see what the Church has to say about valid Sacraments. Confusion is coming to souls because they are saying, "well, if its valid then Christ is there. And if Christ is there then it must be good - because Christ is there." I mean if a schismatic priest or a heretical priest says the Latin Tridentine Mass, can you go to it?

You know, that the Orthodox , the schismatics,- they have the Ukrainians and the Russians and so on - they say they say the same Mass we say. It’s perfectly valid. They are real Priests, they're real Bishops. They are celebrating the same Mass, with the same words. And if you go to it you commit a mortal sin. But that’s not all, that’s not all. The fact is grace does not flow from that Mass. Christ is really present. We know the rules from Canon Law, if you walk by an Orthodox Church for instance, if you’re in that church and you have to attend a wedding. So what do you do if you have to attend a wedding in an Orthodox Church? You can't participate. Here is the rule of cannon law, you can’t participate but since Christ is really present in the tabernacle you can neel down and you can genuflect, but you can’t participate. If you participate it’s a sin, but you can kneel down and you can genuflect because Christ is really present in the tabernacle, since it's a real Orthodox Priest. The Othodox are validly ordained. They're valid priest and valid bishops and so on, but if you participate it’s a mortal sin. It's a mortal sin, and grace does not flow from that valid mass.

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas - question 82 , article 7 in the Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars:
And since the consecration of the Eucharist is a power which follows the power of order (Father pointing to himself, saying "remember I'm Holy Orders. Holy Orders is the living sacrament, lives inside of a Priest) so since the consecration of the Eucharist is a power which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism or excommunication, they can indeed consecrate the Eucharist.

See the argument is if Christ is really present in a valid Mass, well then it must be sufficiently good. Not according to St. Thomas. St. Thomas didn’t talk about the new mass. St. Thomas is talking about the Latin Tridentine mass celebrated by a schismatic, celebrated by a heretic or by one who is truly and validly excommunicated, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true Body and Blood, but they act wrongly and they sin by doing so and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice which is a spiritual sacrifice.

There is no fruit of the sacrifice. Christ is made present. Let’s go to the example of the Priest who was there and made the crucifixion possible. Caiaphas is his name. Caiaphas was a true Priest though of the Old Testament. He was the one who arranged the crucifixion of Christ. Did grace flow from Caiaphas? Do we say sancte Caipha ora pro nobis? We don’t. Caiaphas arranged the crucifixion. Caiaphas was a priest, a true priest made priest by God, even though a priest of the Old Testament. Caiaphas offered sacrifice and they were true sacrifices of the Old Testament and his sacrifices were bloody sacrifices. He couldn’t offer a un-bloody sacrifice he was not a priest of the New Testament. But he could offer a bloody sacrifice and he was the one who made sure that the bloody sacrifice of Calvary happened. He was a priest that made sure the bloody sacrifice of Calvary happened and through that bloody sacrifice we are saved. Was Caiaphas saved? No, he's damned. Did Caiaphas get benefit from that sacrifice? No he did not. And of course it wasn’t a true sacrifice of Caiaphas but he was a real priest of the Old Testament and his sacrifices were not pleasing to God. Just like Cain's sacrifice was not pleasing to God. But Cain offered a true sacrifice. Abel also offered a true sacrifice. Able's sacrifice was pleasing, Cain's sacrifice was not. True God, true sacrifice. We go forward in time to Moses and the sons of Core was legitimate priests before he Aaron was made a priest. But they didn’t like the fact that they were no longer priests. They offered sacrifice to the true God and they were swallowed up into hell. It was not pleasing to Him.

So some say, well at least it’s not a Protestant church. At least it’s not a Protestant sacrifice. The new mass is a Protestant sacrifice. The old Mass, said in union with the conciliar church, or the old Mass which is a schismatic church. The old Mass being said in communion with the orthodox church, the old Mass being said separated from the true Church, is not pleasing to God. The fruit of the sacrifice does not happen .

Question 82 according to St. Thomas Aquinas:
Also further on in the same article:

Consequently a priest who is severed from the unity of the church celebrates Mass, (so it's the true Mass) not having lost the power of order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood but because is severed from the unity of the church his prayers have no efficacy.

If you want to read holy prayers, Wisdom, chapter 4. We quote it often. Beautiful prayers. The only problem is they’re the prayers of the damned. "We fools, we estimated their life as madness. Behold how they are in glory and we are condemned." And they're sorry. They're so sorry. Are they forgiven? No! Jeremiah, God tells Jeremiah "pray not for this people. I will not hear thee." " So, man can pray and God can decide to not hear. "Pray not for the damned. I will not hear thee". And the damned pray. They pray to cease to exist. They will never cease to exist. They pray that their sufferings come to an end. It shall never come to an end. They wish that they can have eternal happiness. This is a prayer they will never have it, and they will pray to the true God whom they hate and they will never have him.

So, there are no liars in hell, they all speak truth down there. There are no liars in heaven. Lies are only on this earth. They don’t last and they don’t last. Those who believe lies end up in the true place called Hell. Those who reject the lies and live according to that rejection of the lies they end up in the true place called Heaven. There are not miracles in the new mass. God could not confirm these miracles.

Now Capello, a theologian before Vat II, a Jesuit, in his Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis:

"Priests who are separated from the Church, although they validly sacrifice in the name of Christ", and we're assuming they’re saying the true Mass. The same thing over and over again:

'They validly sacrifice in the name of Christ."
So it's the true Mass, the true priesthood. Okay no problem. "Nevertheless they do not offer the sacrifice as ministers of the Church."

They’re not offering as ministers of the church.

Here we can point out, as Father Hesse explains quite well. Watch again his explanation of the new ordination rite, the new mass. He says correctly ‘they are schismatic rites.’ So lets say they might be valid. The new mass might be valid. The new ordination rite is most likely valid. The new mass doubtfully valid, but even if they are valid, guess what? They are schismatic. They are displeasing to God. They are sacrileges. And you can even see the difference with your own eyes. When you see a traditional priest and when you see a novus ordo priest, you can tell the difference. They're different. They might be validly ordained, but they belong to another rite. They belong to a rite that is not of God, it is a schismatic rite. It is not pleasing to God and therefore it's strictly speaking, schismatics. They are schismatics. Inside of their hearts they may not be, but objectively, externally they are. They are in a schismatic rite. And when they unite their hearts to the modernists teaching of the church they become schismatics. And if they don't unite their hearts to it, they may not be personally schismatics, but they're definitely participating in the schismatic rite which is displeasing to God. What is the rule about a schismatic rite? Assuming that it couldn’t even be valid, the new mass forget it , it’s garbage. It’s displeasing to God, in its own nature. It could never be pleasing to God. No matter how holy the priest that says it, it can never be pleasing to God. Never. The old Mass can be pleasing to God on the condition that the priest who celebrates it, is in true union with the Church. That’s why it matters whether we say, una cum papa nostro Francisco, during the Canon. You can’t hear that. Even if you’re a server and an MC at Mass, you still can’t hear that because the priest says it in a low voice. Not even the server standing at the alter can hear. You can hear a little whispering, but you can’t hear the words. But it matters what words I whisper at this book. It matters. Even the MC can’t hear it, but it matters. Una cum papa nostro Francisco, he really is the Pope. Does he have to be that holy? No. If he did, there would probably be five Popes. Only the ones that are canonized. The rest of them probably not even popes. Doesn't have to be that holy.

Back to Capello- He's cut off from the Church. And then Leo XIII gives another explanation. and the same thing. He quotes Saint Augustine, who explained very clearly how it is you can have a true Mass, in which Christ is present, and it is displeasing to God, and no grace flows from that mass. If it does you can go to it. If it doesn’t you can’t.

Just the other day I went to a place called, you may heard of it, Dairy Queen. Dairy Queen driving through Texas, I stopped at Dairy Queen to get my blizzard. It was open and I walked into the Dairy Queen and they said our machines are broken. So then why is the door open? The place is called Dairy Queen. You sell the fake ice-cream stuff with stuff in it. Well it’s broken. We don’t have any Dairy Queen products available today but we’re still open. Well if the machine is broken, it’s broken. You can’t get your blizzard. And so if you’re cut off from the Church, it looks like a church but it’s not.

Pope Leo XIII says in........ from the Church ?? , a schismatic church, which they said the Latin mass, ? Petite? Gleize, a small schismatic Church in France. He writes about that church. "From this it follows also that they cannot promise themselves any of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice." They cannot promise themselves any, any, not one drop "of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice and of the sacraments which although they are sacrilegiously administered are none the less valid and serve in some measure to form an appearance of piety, which St Paul mentions ICorinthians chapter 13 and which St. Augustine speaks of at greater length." They get no fruits, but it has the appearance of piety. They have a beautiful choir, there's a Latin Mass, they'e saying the prayers.

Then he quotes St. Augustine. quote - "The form of the branch, says St Augustine in great precision, may still be visible even apart from the vine but the invisible life of the root can be preserved only in union with the s...... That is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ can preserve the appearance of piety." It looks pious, these schismatic rites, on the surfaces. "But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there, any more than feeling can remain in an amputated member." So, the sermon of St. Augustine on the Gospel of St. Matthew. So there's no grace that flows from their sacraments.

And here, so that we have here ,this is assuming the new mass, this is the reason why we say, the quote /un-quote, I don't like the term, but it's still they say, the "red light position". Why do we tell you that you should not go to a Schismatic mass? It's interesting that in our present crisis, they say you can go to the orthodox mass you can go to every mass, you can go to the indult mass, you can go to the new mass, you can go to the sedevacantist's mass, you can go to a normal priest's mass, you can go to any mass you want except for the mass of Boston, Kentucky. You cannot go to the mass of the resistance. All the other masses are open and for business. According to Bishop Williamson and according to the many priests of the resistance. And what are they saying now already? Some of our people are being refused the sacraments, already some of our faithful have been refused confirmations. It already happened in the last year already. And so the sacraments are being refused just like it was in 2012, being refused from main stream, now being refused from our own people.

And it’s interesting, we’re the ones that say continuously, "don’t play games with the faith." Do not go to the new mass. Do not go to the Society St. Pius X mainstream. Don't go to those who don’t profess clearly the Catholic faith. But if you go and you come back here I'm not going to refuse you Holy Communion. I'm not going to condemn, because of the great crisis in the church. We must say clearly what is the truth but the individuals have to see that truth for themselves by opening their minds and reading. Reading what the Gospel says, following what the Fathers and the ancients have taught.

So, it is very serious that you cannot say,... they say that there are miracles in the new mass. [They say] "you cannot say the new mass is not doing good for souls." So what is it doing? It’s leading souls to no longer know their faith and when they no longer know their faith what's going to happening? They’re going to abandon it, they’re going to abandon it. We can’t have that, we can’t have that. So there must be a firm profession of the faith.

And Archbishop Lefebvre says concerning the new mass. We take an oath in the Society of St. Pius X, that we are never going to recommend anyone to go to the new mass. Bishop Williamson took that oath, all of us Priests of the Society took that oath, that we'll never make a recommendation for anyone to attend it. And yet many are making the recommendation now. And that’s against an oath that we take.

Why this oath? Abp. Lefebvre - "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. This is a choice between a Catholic rite and a rite that is practically favoring Protestantism. " You can't choose between a Catholic rite and a Protestant rite. Therefore you cannot under any circumstances say that you can go to the new mass. It is a harm, it harms our faith. "It harms the Catholic faith." That's Archbishop Lefebvre in 1990 concerning why we make this oath and then also, (ABL)- "I’m a little surprised you know sometimes I receive," says Archbp. Lefebvre, a lot of requests for advice from our priests," that's SSPX priests back in 1990, "who are in the priories and some ask me, 'what should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St Pius V, and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a mass of the new rite said by a good priest, a serious priest who is holy etc." - all the conditions mentioned by Bsp. Williamson in his Eleison Comments and also in this talk that he gave the lady in Mahopac, New York. " But I do not understand how they cannot answer this by themselves. They don't see the conclusion for themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It’s incredible. So you see there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable." How on earth you can even ask the question! Don’t go to new mass, it’s poison to the soul. It's poison.

ABL continued -" Then of course what about those that left us and that you will see will be mandatory for some of those for those who have left us, for the Fraternity of St Peter, for Dom Gerard, even if they never say the new mass themselves, even if they have their own convictions, they will be obliged to consider the new rite with the same value as the Traditional rite. " That’s what we’re after right now.

Well the new rite is essential the same. No it’s not! In practice when they will receive priests, they'll have to say to them , yes, you can go ahead and say your new mass. No problem, you can say your new mass. It's already happened in many cases, already, by then between 1988 and 90. (regarding the SSPX and N.O rite priests)

So we have to follow the teaching of the Church. Remember our Lord Jesus Christ, St Paul told us, 'If an angel from teaches something different from what I have taught you let him be anathema.' Let him be anathema. We don’t follow what is different. We follow what the Church has always taught. We don’t mix with heretics.. St John the almsgiver says, ‘you keep fidelity of the flesh'. You are worried about fidelity of the flesh. So if a husband and wife are separated for a long time there are laws and punishment that say you can’t have adultery even if you’re separated for a long time. And if you keep fidelity of the flesh, what about the fidelity of the spirit? the fidelity of the spirit is infinitely more important. Therefore I say to you my children, never take communion with heretics or schismatics. Never do it. Never. Even if you can never take Communion for the rest of your life.

And so, we cannot commune with the enemies of God and he also says in the same talk (Archbp. Lefebvre), “some of the people have mass only three times a year. That’s the best we could do! But they are good Catholics, they are in the missions. “ (ABL here referring to the isolated foreign missions) (despite fact of infrequent Mass Fr. P. adds)-They were good Catholic s. We are not obliged to go to a Mass every Sunday. There are many things that can exempt us from the Mass every Sunday. Sickness , distance and so on. But we are obliged to keep our faith every minute of our lives. There can be no exceptions to that. We can never give up the faith. If someone puts a gun to our head and said you’re not going to Mass today we can skip out. It’s okay. But if somebody puts a gun to your head and says you must spit on a crucifix , somebody puts a gun to your head and says you must believe that there are not three Persons in God you must accept the false religion in one form or another or any error against our holy faith , we must die rather than make any question of that faith. That’s what we must do.

The are many, many exceptions to Mass on Sunday. None for the faith. So let's persevere in the faith. And let's say that given our present situation, everyone ha to decide for themselves what there are going to do in the time of great crises. The fact is, that unfortunately, right now Bishop Williamson this is publicly professing another faith than the one given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. He is publicly is saying that there is good in the new mass and the new church. And that it can benefit your souls and that many souls have benefited from the new mass an the new church. Bishop Thomas Aquinas says in defense of Bsp. Williamson, says: 'surely there are graces coming from the Novus Ordo Holy Communions since Christ is there. ' But St. Thomas Aquinas says no. No grace comes from the Holy Communion. In fact, those communions are all sacrilegious. If a Catholic goes up to a heretic saying the true Mass or goes up to a schismatic saying the true Mass and and receives holy communion, it’s a sacrilege and no grace is past. Any grace that comes to those souls of the new mass, or those souls at masses which are not in union with the true faith and the true Church, these graces are only ex opere operantis. They are not ex opere operato.

To make it clear theologically in Question 64 of the Tertia Pars, article 9, St Thomas Aquinas says that when heretics offer the true and correct form of the mass as well as schismatics or those excommunicated, there is a sacramentum tantum but there is “non rez in sacramentum,”

Non rez! So there's a sacramentum tantum which mean a sacrament only. Christ is validly present . But there is no grace, no rez? The Latin word for the grace of sacrament is a special word ‘Rez’ which means the thing in literal translation. But it’s the whole rez of the sacrament, the reality of the sacrament, the thing of the sacrament, the grace of the sacrament is not past. Is not past. Furthermore, they block it by their heresy. They block it by their schism. The only way in which grace flows into this world is by the grace coming from heaven , through the Church, through the holy sacrifice of the Mass. And we can say that ordinary graces are being cut off leading to the damnation of billions of souls.

When the SSPX theologically collapsed in 2012 it did not just hurt the SSPX. It hurt the whole world. It hurt the entirety of the Catholic Church. Graces flowing from SSPX alters, and now those graces are being squeezed out. The infinite reservoir of grace in heaven or in the well that the priest approaches when he comes to the alter. At each Mass when we reach down to that grace and pull out some of that grace and pour it on souls. And the grace is blocked. Christ is made present but no grace flows. The only graces that do flow are the graces of the individual goodness of the Priests, the individual goodness of the faithful. And these are very small trickles of graces and they are the normal graces, You can receive in any place. You don’t need to go to a church to receive such graces. Therefore, a weakening of morality. A weakening of doctrine. A going away from the truth. The graces are not flowing. The devil wants to stop all flow of true graces. When we celebrate this holy sacrifice of the Mass in true union with the Pope, we are true servants of Pope Francis, because we obey the laws he’s supposed to put into practice. We obey the King he is a representative of. We have the faith that he is supposed to promote. But unfortunately, he’s not doing so. And there he will have to answer to God for that. But we must continue to be faithful servant s. Like Archbishop Lefebvre in the '74 declaration said, 'the only way to remain faithful, to remain faithful to the Pope, at that time Paul VI. The only way to remain faithful is to continue this fight for the Catholic tradition against all modernists errors, the heresies of Vat II, period! And we pray for our superiors, the Bishops of the dioceses, and the Pope that they convert and come back to their true heritage like Arians had to do. The Arians taught false doctrine and they were heretics and therefore the faithful rightly rejected them and did not go to their masses, did not walk into their churches, did not pray with them. But when the Arian bishop converted and came back to the faith, the people went back into the church. They went back to the church. They didn’t replace the bishop. They didn’t replace the bishop. So it took a long time for a long time for the Arian crisis to end. We know by heaven this crisis will end quickly, by the intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's the only way it can end.

But between now and then, stand firm in the faith. They have not known the Father nor me, hence they find themselves doing these evil things. We must know the Father, listen to his teaching that comes down in scared scripture and tradition. We must know the Son which is that truth must enter into our minds and be a part of us. (recording ends here. Emphasis added)

Grateful thanks to the member who generously transcribed this important sermon for us.
Last edited:


THE OATH REQUIRED OF SSPX : Let’s be honest, would Bishop Williamson sign this Oath again?
(Fr Hewko)


(To the Positions of the Society of St Pius X)

I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize Benedict XVI as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecumenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.

I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However,

considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.

I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs” in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.

That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am

threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.

Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.

In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the

obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.

Signed ________________________


Fr. MacDonald's response:

Dear Mr Johnson,

I do not understand why you are defending Bishop Williamson. It has been some time since I listened to his conference but I think that my memory is sufficiently accurate.
  1. His Excellency prefaced his remarks about the NO Mass with the statement that what he was about to say was heresy for traditionalists.
Therefore, he has pre-judged and pre-condemned himself. He is guilty by his own admission.
  1. He said that he was going to stick his neck out and people could chop it off.
Thus he has given permission for people to attack what he has said. Those attacking him on this matter do so with his authorisation. Therefore we should not think that we have to counter their arguments. It is curious that being an Englishman he did not offer to be hanged, drawn and quartered, rather than having his head chopped off which is more appropriate for a Frenchman.

In my view these two reasons preclude a defence of His Excellency.
  1. His Excellency said that the NO Mass was designed to destroy faith.
There is plenty of empirical evidence to show that is was well designed and has successfully destroyed the faith of millions. Nothing is perfect and some people who attended the NO Mass for many years managed to keep the faith. They are the exception. In those cases it is usually due to some other practise of theirs, e.g., morning and night prayers, the rosary, the little office…

Regarding the Archbishop Lefebvre quote, on page 2 of your document.

The Archbishop is talking about the pastoral care of one either saying the NO Mass or actively assisting at it. He says that for some it may be NOT be subjectively a sin. It is OBJECTIVELY a sin. I would say that almost always someone attending the NO Mass is not guilty of grave sin. If they knew it was evil they would not attend. (In the seminary we were taught that it is intrinsically evil.)

“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.”

This is not at all what Bishop Williamson said.

Note also, that the Archbishop is speaking of people who are ignorant. This woman did not want to be ignorant. She wanted to know. Probably she expected and wanted His Excellency to tell her why she should not go to the NO Mass. She was not completely ignorant as she did know about the traditional Mass and was at the Bishop’s conference.

Bishop Williamson’s criterion

According to His Excellency how do we know if we can attend the NO Mass. “IF it nourishes your Faith”. This criterion is no good. It cannot be assessed. How do I know if my Faith is nourished or not? I don’t know. I do not even know if I am in the state of grace. If I am not in the state of grace my faith is dead and cannot be nourished. If I am in the state of grace I am incapable of measuring my faith. Faith is a supernatural reality. While we are in the wayfarer state our minds are limited to what is sensible. We cannot measure supernatural things. Do I have “little faith” or do I have “great faith”? Do I have more faith today than yesterday? I don’t know.

We do know that Catholic sacraments infallibly give grace and with an increase of grace there is an accompanying increase of the virtues. Worthily receiving Holy Communion at the traditional Mass certainly nourishes my faith. Also if I assist at Mass in a dignified manner with attention and devotion it will nourish my faith. This is not the case with the NO Mass.

Another quote from Archbishop Lefebvre more pertinent than yours (emphasis added).

“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.

“The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. That being the case the French Catholic of today finds himself in the conditions of religious practice which prevail in missionary countries. There, the inhabitants in some regions are able to attend Mass only three or four times a year. The faithful of our country should make the effort to attend once each month at the Mass of All Time, the true source of grace and sanctification, in one of those places where it continues to be held in honor."

If we cannot attend the NO Mass on days of obligation, a fortiori, we cannot attend it on weekdays.

The NO Mass, even when said devoutly bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. It poisons the faith. It is incapable of nourishing the faith. This was known long before Archbishop Lefebvre said it. Many priests who rejected the changes of the 60s already said this in 1969.

For many years, perhaps still now, the NO Mass was/is said at Holy Family Church in Detroit, on the high altar, the priest having his back to the people, in Latin, following all the rules, with dignity and presumably devotion. The Communion rail is there and people kneel for Communion received on the tongue. However we cannot go there. Fr. Bonfil2 the priest there rejected all of the changes of the 60s. In the late 60s we traditionalists starting going there. However in about 1970 or 71 the NO Mass was imposed on Holy Family Church. Fr. Bonfil left and cared of us traditionalists. He also invited the SSPX to come. When they came in 72 or 73 he retired to Italy. Fr. Bonfil taught that we could no longer attend Mass at Holy Family Church because now it was the NO Mass. It is poison for the Faith.

The answer to the question “if it nourishes your faith” is that the NO Mass cannot and does not nourish anyone’s faith. Therefore it cannot nourish the woman’s faith. Therefore she cannot go to it. In this case His Excellency gave bad advice. Most good priests do from time to time. The Church is infallible, priests and bishops are not. It is not a disaster because all traditional Catholics knew that he was wrong. Certainly none of the faithful in Ireland think him correct. [A woman] was certain that His Excellency was drunk when making these remarks.


1 Open Letter to Confused Catholics, ch.4

2 I believe that that is his Christian name


Fr. MacDonald said:
"His Excellency gave bad advice. Most good priests do from time to time. The Church is infallible, priests and bishops are not. It is not a disaster because all traditional Catholics knew that he was wrong"
If His Excellency merely made a mistake, giving 'bad advice', then he should immediately and publicly acknowledge that he was wrong to give this advice. Instead he has continued through about five of his "Kyrie Eleison" letters to promote it.
And if 'all traditional Catholics knew that he was wrong' how come Bishop Williamson, a traditional Catholic - how did he not know that he was wrong? His Excellency has a very serious obligation to repent publicly of his 'bad advice' because he has opened the door to many souls to attend this poisonous 'Mass' and lose their faith.


Well-Known Member
I was wondering, if my children were baptized in the NO, should they be conditionally baptized? Is all of the above saying the NO is a schismatic rite? If we have family members attending the NO does that mean mean they are schismatic?


For the personal direction you need Ruthy I suggest you get in touch with the Kentucky Seminary priests or a priest who upholds to the above teachings of the Church. In the meantime you should be at peace because you yourself have the true faith and God will not leave you or your family orphaned. We have come to a time where we have to really use our faith and trust in Him whilst at the same time doing everything we can ourselves.

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
In the video below, at about the 33 min. point, Fr. Hesse's explanation about validity of sacraments, helps to further understand our peculiar situation in this crisis.
At 39 min. he answers a question from a lady regarding validity of ordination. He even states, that he himself (42 min.) was ordained in a schismatic rite. He further explains in detail, how his ordination, even though in a schismatic rite, is indeed valid.
In this talk he also addresses and distinguishes the difference between the 3rd Commandment of God and the Commandment of the Church.
For those finding it hard to not attend Mass of compromisors on Sundays, this is a great help.

Last edited:


Thank you for posting this Deus Vult. It is excellent in its clear teaching. May the soul of this faithful priest rest in peace and may perpetual light shine upon him. Amen.

Deleted member 149

I was wondering, if my children were baptized in the NO, should they be conditionally baptized? Is all of the above saying the NO is a schismatic rite? If we have family members attending the NO does that mean mean they are schismatic?
Your 3-questions Ruthy are important to understand the mess and apostasy of the N.O.

1- Yes, everyone should be conditionally-sacramentalized. I did. For the old-sspx, this is normal theology and procedure. No one wants to be unsure.

2- Remembering that a schism means to separate from the things of God. The N.O. is a schismatic rite by fact of a different intention and an altogether different religion of ecumenism to serve man not God. Ironic as it is, not only is it necessary to state that the N.O. is schismatic so to inform and help our neighbor to find the right path, the conciliar church themselves even state this when they call us being "schismatic" for remaining in the [traditions] of the Catholic Church. In other words, from their own mouth they acknowledge that there are two different religions! God is not pleased...

3- "If we have family members attending the NO does that mean mean they are schismatic?" No, not by ignorance. Yes if by knowledge and intention to stay away from God to serve man. That is the difficult discernment and impossible to know the internal forum of someones soul. Only souls and God knows; which is why we continue with utmost charity in the apostolate 70x7.
Last edited by a moderator:


Well-Known Member
In a recent Bishop Williamson sermon, the bishop said, "Some Novus Ordo masses are valid, and if they're valid, if the consecration is valid, then it's defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes ...Latin term ex abauri...? and you and I have no right before God to look down our noses and to write off these Catholics as though they are trash." video mark around 22:34
From my understanding, after listening to Fr. Hesse explain how the Novus Ordo has cut itself off from the trunk of the church, how could grace pass through a valid mass? What is the definition from the Council of Trent referring to, that the bishop mentions?

Also around 15:00 mark in video, the bishop starts talking about charity. He says traditional Catholics need to cut slack, stop believing you a judge of your fellowman, as if they were heretics, looking for heresy, etc.

Deleted member 149

This posture of Bishop Williamson is not acceptable. It is another distraction and pertinacity with his comment "do whatever you need to nourish your faith". The Catholic Church has always been fighting errors and specifically the errors of modernism and liberalism for over a century! Many people and saints have died defending the Church. We ourselves have been fighting its evil evolution promoted in the new order conciliar religion -the novus ordo church- for over 50 years! Why is BW, a son of ABL, reintroducing the heresy of the novus ordo in our lives? BW is starting to sound more like those people in the Ecclesia Dei crowd than a son of ABL and an apostle of Jesus Christ.

There was a time when Bishop Williamson used to say we must follow "principles" not feelings; he now carries himself succumbed to such N.O. feelings and diatribe.

There was a time Bishop Williamson used to say that Vatican II was designed to apostate souls; now he merges his following into the beast.

The definition by the Council of Trent was referring to the only [traditional] Catholic Mass of St. Pius V and its Catholic Sacraments; NOT about the heresy and illegitimacy of the new protestant mass -the novus ordo counterfeit church- that was created some 450 years in the future. The man-centered creation of the illegitimate N.O ecumenical mass in itself does NOT have the sacrifice of Calvary; it does NOT give grace. The counterfeit new mass is a direct diabolical attack against God and his order.

So in question to you Bishop Williamson, as it was difficult in the 1960's and early 1970's to discern, granted, and now with 50 years of displayed revolution, evolution, and heresy, define what is "valid" within the ecumenical creation designed for a protestant supper by six protestant ministers? Where specifically in the world is there a "valid" N.O. mass in 2016 with intent of the Tridentine Mass? No generalization, ambiguity, or illusory terms to suit a political purpose please? How is a supper valid to a sacrifice? How are the "sacraments of the community" within the novus ordo religion likened to the Catholic Sacraments of redemption the Church of tradition codified? Who has the uncompromised catholic faith of time immemorial within the community of the novus ordo made for the world's deity in false ecumenism that we must give tribute to? When was there a clear announced doctrine of the Catholic Church that we can follow in the new religion that calls us schismatics for living the pre-vatican II religion of the saints? Why are we also being condemned by you Bishop Williamson for holding true to the words of Jesus Christ to serve God rather than man?

Your belief Bishop Williamson that one can "nourish your faith" in the religion of Baal is bringing you down and is blasphemous to the Holy Trinity. Who, Bishop Williamson, is against the people in the novus ordo when we are objectively against the new religion that apostates souls. Why the straw-man arguments?

The new mass is objectively evil. If it is not, why are we resisting all of these years? If it is objectively evil, why this nonsense and cutting us up to feed to the alligators? Why Bishop Williamson do you have one foot in each camp? Why not follow Bishop Fellay into the novus ordo if it can "nourish your faith"? Why all of these contradictions from you Bishop Williamson? What motive or agenda do you have to gather sticks than eternal life.

All this because of his own human respect not to retract the errors of what he pastorally said to that woman in July 2015.

“Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.”

“Stay away from the Novus Ordo. But exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.”

“If they
[the lay people] can trust their own judgement, that attending the New Mass will do them more good than harm spiritually.”

“Decide for yourself.”; “If you can trust your own judgment, use your own judgment.”
(Bishop Williamson July 2015).​

It is interesting that BW speaks about "chawity" on one side of his mouth in that sermon and then from the other side a few days later, to say the opposite: (@1:15) "...modern man wants everything nice. Nobody is allowed not to be nice. And if you aren't nice you will be persecuted and prosecuted by today's world for not being nice. You've got to be nice..."

I have no idea what he said elsewhere and from any other sermon or conference, I cannot stomach such betrayal; and frankly, I have given up on him as I did for Bishop Fellay. Their pertinacity is the proof of their treason.

So the real question is, Who is persecuting and prosecuting who?
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 149

This illusion and apostocy of the conciliar church is affecting more souls of [tradition]; the Ecclesia Dei crowd believes that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church; the neo-sspx superiors believe the conciliar church is the Catholic Church; Bishop Williamson believes that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church; and now the Arville Dominicans believe that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church. (sic!)

“The conciliar and neo-modernist Church is therefore neither a substantially different church from the Catholic Church, nor absolutely identical, it mysteriously has something of the one and of the other: it is a foreign body which occupies the Catholic Church. So we need to distinguish between them without separating them.” (Arville Dominicans, Sel de la Terre, 94, Autumn 2015)​