"Catechetical Refutation": taking Christ by fraud

  • Thread starter Deleted member 149
  • Start date

Deleted member 149

"Catechetical Refutation": taking Christ by fraud.

It goes without saying that we live in terrible times; no visible head leading is chaos in the body. The fate of our times is dependent on our good will to turn to God and repair from our sins, as in times past, but specifically in this chastisement our Lady foretold, it is on the will of God leading us through this desert of malignancy effecting the Church like our Lord lead while others disfigure Him within his passion. Our Lord walked the way he walked for a lesson; we must follow in the same wisdom. “Gloria in excelsis Deo…Peace to men of good will” declares the angels sent by God. Peace only resides in a good will and disorder resides in revolution.

We have over 5,000+ catholic bishops living throughout the world whose sole responsibility ordained by Christ is to protect the Catholic faith and propagate it for the salvation of souls unto their eternal reward or to their punishment and damnation.

Out of these 5,000+ bishops, there are over 5,000+ different modernistic variations of what that catholic faith is through the ecumenical errors of private interpretation. How is that possible when Christ gave only one faith; one baptism; one Church; one mass; one bible; under one God?

In our time by God’s grace, Archbishop Lefebvre stood on the great giants of the Church who had previously conquered these modernistic errors: St. Pius X, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Pope Leo XIII…

By prophesy of our Lady in La Salette, all 5,000+ bishops, including many popes, have compromised their consecration one way or another. We see this all too well in the subsequent revolution of Vatican II and taking part in extension by the revolutionaries within Tradition. Forty years of documentation and plain betrayal is all too common hiding in deceit like a cuttlefish; colorful, but dangerous.

Here we have another deceit against the Church manifested in the false-resistance under the direction of Bishop Williamson extending to his supporters. Not only do we have to fight the errors of conciliarism in the neo-sspx trying to go into the front door of the conciliar church, which the Catholic resistance was born anew, we have to fight the neo-resistance making direction into the back door of the conciliar church. How many times do we have to identify and prove to the ill-will the principles and practice of Tradition they have abandoned less the exterior bells and incense?

Once one accepts the premise, one accepts the conclusion.

The revolution of Bishop Williamson, contrary to the will and guidance of his founder Archbishop Lefebvre, had made new paths in independent form and thought. Near five years of Eleison Comments after another, conference after conference, act after act, is his promotion and declaration of a “headless” catholic resistance; refusing catholic organization, refusing to continue a catholic hierarchical structure. The outcome is the same –disorder! Where he states:

  • Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #278:
“It is not clear that the present need is to rebuild a classic Congregation or Seminary. Both may be somehow out-dated. … But God is God, and for the salvation of souls tomorrow it may be that he will no longer resort to the classical Congregation or seminary of yesterday.” Result: Congregations and seminaries are not needed today. They are outdated. God does not want there to be a structure or congregation for the Resistance.”

  • Bp. Williamson, letter to Fr. John Bosco
“Seminarians who are ready for ordination should not be ordained, because there is no structure or congregation for them to be ordained into.”

  • Bp. Williamson, Post Falls, ID (USA), 1st June, 2014:
“Even if all the laity want to obey me, even if all the priests want to obey me, […] can you imagine that commanding resistant priests is like trying to herd cats? Can you imagine, is it unimaginable? In which case, is it worth trying if it’s bound to fail? It may be better not to attempt than to attempt and fail…” Result: We shouldn’t try to get priests to work together. It’s bound to fail, so it’s better not to attempt it at all.

  • Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #307:
That is why, in my opinion, “What cannot be cured must be endured.” And that is why, right now, I envisage [as a Catholic Bishop] being little more than father, adviser and friend for any souls calling for a bishop’s leadership and support..”

  • Williamson Conference Q&A November 5, 2014 St. Catherine’s ON, Canada:
Bishop Williamson openly stated that he does not want anything to do with the resistance – “The resistance isn’t going anywhere”; “put away your toys!; I am not going to lead”

If that isn’t enough of a warning for Catholics to stand up and call out such nonsense, knowing the Holiness of the Catholic Church cannot empty herself of her substance or her essence, there are more of his statements that should disturb even the weak.

We’ll let the false-resistance bring this forward in their "Catechetical Refutation" Regarding Certain Objections Made to Bishop Williamson’s Comments on the Novus Ordo, by Sean Johnson on May 5, 2016. Or will they? No they won’t; they omit such information. In fact, near the majority of what Bishop Williamson had said in his scandalous confirmation conference on June 28, 2015 in NY is missing and laid elsewhere providing his complete thoughts on the matter.

So if they will not provide a transcription of everything he said, we will, therein lies the whole context of his erroneous statements and bad advice to souls in need throughout the world who listens and reads his conciliar compromises. Like anything of simple justice, go to the source.

Before we transcribe it here, we contend that this “Catechetical Refutation" is only lipstick on error condemned by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Church herself. While Mr. Hugh Akins wishes to put a glorified post of seanjohnson as a pay-for “booklet”, the false-resistance holds it as a “banner” to protect and shield error while purposely, yes purposely, deceiving others in hype to join their distilled corruption. Like anything that is not of Christ, it burns on its own being the accelerant as it is.

This “Catechetical Refutation" by seanjohnson is:

1. A discovered vain attempt to bundle everything Bishop Williamson said to a room of traditional catholics and priests, and the listening world, into one topic for a tool to deflect and run a course of political correctness. Moreover, when the other modernist statements of BW are discussed, Mr. Johnson does his typical maneuver, say it doesn’t address his own controlled narration and “refutation”; therefore it does not matter…nor exist. (sic)

2. Mr. Johnson’s all-inclusive topic is whether “grace passes through a valid sacrament” applying to everything Bishop Williamson said (sic). Not only does it not apply here in the schismatic rite of the NOM (addressed in BW’s answer to the lady), Bishop Williamson had also stated clearly what he said is based on his “opinion and personal belief”:

3. That the NOM is a legitimate rite to actively go to. (sic)

4. “The new religion of itself can build your faith.” (sic)

5. “Attending the New Mass will do them more good than harm spiritually.” (sic)

6. Providing the protestant notion of faith and religion – “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.” (sic)

7. Subjectively saying also, “If you can trust your own judgment, use your own judgment.” (sic)

8. Eucharistic miracles in the ecumenical NOM beyond Transubstantiation is “good”, “is from God”, and “must be believed”. (sic)

9. Bishop Williamson stated in his answer at the time of Q&A he believed the woman was a catholic, she specifically has the true traditional faith (there is only one true faith), and she was educated in her question about the conciliar crisis, to nonetheless say to her in compromise for everyone listening that they still can go to the NOM if they subjectively “do not scandalize others” (sic). After the fact and turbulence of BW statements, Mr. Johnson alleges he receive a response prior to his posting of May 2016 through another person, Fr. Zendejas, saying “All I knew at the time from how she presented herself and her question was that she was a distressed Catholic believing in attendance at the New Order Mass who would be more distressed still if she had been given a straight black and white 'stay away'.” Interesting they now wish to use the word “distressed” unsupported in the recorded question and his answer they did not provide in context. More importantly, BW based what he said on how she presented herself and the ATTENDANCE of the NOM. Demonstrating he spoke centrally about the rite of mass he clearly said is both good and bad at the same ambiguous time. Translation: pick one; everyone will be happy. Consistent with his trad-ecuemist mentality to serve everyone and every group in the last documented 5 years; including to give the sacrament of confirmations to Feeneyites.

10. Instead, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Akins built a different fraudulent premise, based on a primed narration they wish the reader to believe the woman was wholly “ignorant”, contrary from her (below) reasoned question they purposely did not provide, which undermines their whole attempt to support conciliar and modernistic errors BW followed with. What they did inject in alternative to these facts, was: “Probably; obvious; scarcely conceivable; not much more likely…”

11. Calculated still, Mr. Johnson then sent out his “refutation” wholly omitting what BW and the lady said for any reference and context to numbers of mixed loose resistance priests already towing the BW line and neo-sspx priests who cannot be caught in an impasse to say otherwise to ruin their conciliar promotion, a mix of six bishops, the majority of recipients who do not care about the resistance and Mr. Johnson’s politics, some stating it so, for Mr. Johnson’s own mode and manipulation of “political correctness” he wants to put on the masses he regularly calls “dupes” and a host of other derogatory statements and character assassinations. Even when Mr. Johnson and his associates are shown to be wrong, many times so, they decry that they cannot inform themselves to read such contrary things because it is “convoluted” or “from children” far too beneath them. Sad. The book of Genesis demonstrates this pride in the garden; the outcome was not very good.

12. In addition, Mr. Johnson falsifies the account of the Avrille Dominican who were present at that conference and shown to be visibly scandalized in a distraught face (including Fr. Zendejas and the other man shown in the video). The Dominican's came out days later and posted an article on their website to condemn such essential claims Bishop Williamson used to give to that lady, and a room full of traditional Catholics, who said that she could still go in spite she had demonstrated she was not ignorant; that the "true faith" is in the new religion (sic), and had left her in the quagmire to "follow your own judgement"; and the claim that one can attend the New Mass if it is celebrated in a worthy and pious manner by a N.O. priest with a "faith" that is absolutely certain. The Dominican's refuted this, stating:

Q. - "Is it permitted to take part in the New Mass?"​

A. - "Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God in so far as it is ecumenical and protestant. Besides that, it represents a danger for the faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It must therefore be rejected. Whoever understands the problem of the New Mass must no longer assist at it, because he puts voluntarily his faith in danger, and, at the same time, encourages others to do the same in appearing to give his assent to the reforms."

Q. - "How can a valid Mass displease God?"

A. - "Even a sacrilegious Mass celebrated by an apostate priest to mock Christ can be valid. It is however evident that it offends God, and it would not be permitted to take part in it. In the same way, the Mass of a Greek Schismatic (valid and celebrated according a venerable rite) displeases God insofar as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and to the unique Church of Christ."

Q. - "Can one attend the New Mass however when it is celebrated in a worthy and pious manner by a Catholic priest with a faith that is absolutely certain?"

A. - "It is not the celebrant who is called into question, but the rite that he is using. It is unfortunately a fact that the new rite has given very many Catholics a false notion of the Mass, which is closer to that of the protestant last supper than that of the Holy Sacrifice. The new Mass is one of the principal sources of the current crises of the faith. It is therefore imperative that we distance ourselves from it."

13. Including the Dominicans rebuke to Bishop Williamson views, so not to be misunderstood or confused, they re-published on their website the “62 Reasons to Reject the new mass (“Novus Ordo Missae”)” Seen here http://www.dominicansavrille.us/62-reasons-to-reject-the-new-mass-novus-ordo-missae/ As with, the Dominicans also rebuked Bishop Williamson’s promotion of Maria Valtorta, which is on the Church's forbidden INDEX of books, in which Bishop Williamson is resurfacing the errors and improprieties of her book. See here http://www.dominicansavrille.us/wha...-the-poem-of-the-man-god-by-maria-valtorta-2/

14. Like the council of Vatican II to inject error and something traditional, the false-resistance whole “catechetical refutation” is fraudulent and distorted in substance.

15. Mr. Johnson is also wrong in his "layman" catholic theology to place his inclusive one topic regarding grace passing from ALL valid sacraments transubstantiated in a mass, including heretical, schismatic, and satanists masses, in rampant distortion of facts to redefine a politically correct agenda posing these modernist views of BW as a “traditional” attire. Like Bishop Fellay and those in the ecclesia dei do in saying Benedict XVI is a “traditionalist” even though he says modernist error.

16. The foundation of these modern errors Bishop Williamson and his followers use, along with the neo-sspx and ecclesia dei camps, they believe and state that the conciliar church IS the Catholic Church. Contrary from Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier, and once held by the Avrille Dominicans.

17. In their knowledge of all of the above facts throughout the many months proving contrary to their political correct position, their persistence and promotion of their errors in “booklets” to the unsuspecting, perpetuates fraud.

18. The outcome is a frame of mind that is trad-ecumenist like the ecclesia dei mentality putting the mass above the faith as with separating the doctrines of the faith from the mass.

19. Also by fraud, they avoided in print what BW said altogether in context only to give the reader what they should think and believe he said.

20. Many priests have called out this nonsense of Bishop Williamson only to receive from his followers disdain for exposing it here and here and more here with a “rebuke” from Bishop Aquinas to Fr. Cadozo, saying “People who disagree with or criticise Bishop Williamson should not be made welcome. Priests who disagree with or criticise Bishop Williamson should not be received and the faithful should not go to their Mass. Criticising Bishop Williamson has consequences.” (sic) http://www.therecusant.com/fake-resistance-statements

21. In addition to Fr. MacDonald openly stating to Mr. Johnson’s fraudulent attempt to deceive and hide the facts and importance of the lady’s question, Fr. MacDonald rebuked him saying: “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.” To Mr. Johnson’s uncomfort, he dismissed it to say that Fr. MacDonald didn’t have the courtesy to respond to all of his nonsense; therefore, it is not worthy of consideration. The supplanted narration continues in the false-resistance.

22. Everything of the false-resistance is a distraction from the goals and mission of the Church and moved by character assassination dominate in their paltry forums needing to be renamed Fisheaters2.0.

The transcription of Bishop Williamson’s Q&A follows:

Question @ 1:01:30: Bishop (pause), I go to the Latin Mass on Sunday, and during the week I go to a Novus Ordo Mass that is said in a very reverent way, where I believe that the priests believe that they are changing the bread and wine.” http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bishop-williamson-states-novus-ordo-mass-is-legitimate.2892/

Noticed the lady’s question defining her subject matter in two clauses:
  • “Bishop (pause), I go to the Latin Mass on Sunday, an active knowledge to a crisis defining two separate masses and going in fulfillment to the Latin mass in an obligation and participation to please God available to her away from the novus ordo mass on Sunday’s which she [could] have attended but conscientiously chose not to. Certainly NO ignorance there.
  • “and during the week I go to a Novus Ordo Mass that is said in a very reverent way, where I believe that the priests believe that they are changing the bread and wine.” She used the important and defined words of “novus ordo” that only is said by traditionalists in the know and educated in the conciliar crisis. No novus ordo catholic calls themselves “novus ordo”. So she distinguished herself from the revolution in those words and novus ordo mass. Moreover, she clearly distinguished the understanding of novus ordo masses in a reverent way to those that are not. More than implying that she will not attend any that are not = red light within a conciliar crisis! Qualifying her reason to go only to a novus ordo mass during the week, she stated that her belief was based on the personal belief of the priest in question who believes that he is changing the bread and wine. This again shows a belief in the priesthood, the sacrificial nature of the mass, and order of liturgical integrity missing in the conciliar church which provides in all of the above she did not have complete, whole, or absolute ignorance on her part regarding an existing crisis in the Church; as with, she expressed an educated catechetical belief that the intention (and form) is necessary to consecrate the matter to change the bread and wine to the body and blood of our Lord. That is not ignorance either as she separated the "meal" depicted in some novus ordo masses and some that may be valid from the matter to a sacrament (illegitimate and schismatic as the rite of the NOM is). In addition, the lady distinctly noted and separated that there are different venues and different priests (plural) from the Sundays of the Latin mass she attends and during the week of the Novus ordo masses she attends. Instead, Mr. Johnson wants to infer from an alleged person 8-months later that she attended both masses from the same singular "bi-ritual" priest to reduce in the mind of the reader her occasions to go to the Latin mass of the sspx or other she implied. Not only is his allegation not so being she stated plural, the lady also distinctly qualified to everyone that the novus ordo masses during the week were said in a very reverent way. If it was the "same" priest, he would have reasonably said BOTH the Latin and the NOM reverently; so it would not have been necessary for her to make her belief different one from the other. A lot of things get made up along the way in Mr. Johnson's "catechetical refutation" doesn't it. Further, this lady attended a traditional Latin mass and confirmation sacrament held by a “resistance” bishop that was exclusive to an invite only resistance attendance. Depicting she was starting to go to "resistance" events, and/or being invited by a resistance friend or relative who are in the know and providing a further basis of knowledge she was instructed in the deeper crisis of the church within the neo-sspx and Church in whole to attend such a venue; along with her hearing both a sermon and a conference of Bishop Williamson and mingling in conversation with the traditional crowd just prior to her question; even to be possibly confirmed herself from a “resistance” bishop that is not disclosed. There certainly is an informed lady here than a complete “ignorance” Mr. Johnson wants people to believe being swept under the revolutionary and proverbial rug.

So why did seanjohnson and Mr. Akins hide this from their readers only to say she is wholly “ignorant”? We’ll continue to see - it is about deception and fraud.

Bp. Williamson at this juncture, nodded his head and spent 13 minutes to answer her question while making several remarks about the licitness of attending the “New Mass” of Paul VI.

Bishop Williamson’s answer: (my comments in red)

“I understand. Yes, okay. Yea, right. Um, There's the principles and then there's the practice. In principle the NOM is a key part of the new religion. Which is a major part of the worldwide apostasy of today. Therefore the Archbishopsp would say, in public, he would say, Stay Away. Keep away from the new mass. Um. You might as well be hanged as for a sheep as for a lamb.
If you're gonna steal, then steal a sheep then just steal a lamb. What it means is, um... I'm gonna stick my neck out. I'm gonna stick my neck out a long way and if anyone wants to chop it off, they're welcome. I would say that in certain circumstances like those you mention, exceptionally if you're not going to scandalize anybody. Because they know that you are a Catholic. They know that you're sticking with the true faith. And then they see you at the new mass, the conclusion that many of them will draw is , the new mass is okay because she's going. We've gotta be careful of that. So you've gotta be careful. [Here Bishop Williamson clearly noted the circumstance she mentioned accepting her to be a catholic who goes to the Latin mass, having the true faith in his mind, and she being informed in this crisis knowing evils [FORMAL evil] as long as she will not “scandalize” anyone. Bishop Williamson acknowledges in the recording that she is NOT “ignorant”! But seanjohnson and Mr. Akins want this to be different. Go figure. Therefore, she and no catholic of such knowledge have a right to attend. That is plain; that should have been the end of it.] I, myself, don't think that the new mass is always invalid. I don't think that. I don't think Archbishop Lefebvre thought that. There's nothing in the text of the new mass which makes it inevitably invalid. There are people who say so, but I don't think they're right. According to Catholic theology, I don't think they're right. [Not true. In the different variations a priest may choose to say within the 6 of 7 Canon Eucharist prayers showing a meal lacking a sacrificial nature does not give invalidly in those types of texts? Of course it does. It is in the other text a priest may choose that does hint or mention a sacrificial nature is the real question of validity. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Sacraments/Mass-the-new-Mass.htm Also exposed in the book “From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy: the study” given to all the cardinals and pope in 2004.] I think that as you say, that it's very possible that the consecration if for real. You say that it's a priest who says it worthily. What I would say is that tomorrow there are going to be many N.O. priests who are going to come through, while there are going to be traditional priests who are not going to come through. [Where is the evidence of this speculation?] Exactly what I've been saying, on the principles I've been saying. Some of the last will be first, and some of the first will be last.
That I believe. That's not a reason to go over to the Novus Ordo. Far from it. The principles are clear and the wrongness of the Novus Ordo Mass, as a whole is clear. [Then why did BW say to every traditional catholic in that room who has the “true faith” that they can actively go if it doesn’t “scandalize” anyone?] But does that mean that every Novus Ordo Mass is invalid? The golden rule is this. The absolute rule of rules seems to me be this. Do whatever you need to nourish your faith. [Where is God in this question? The first three commandment of God states clearly that we CANNOT “do whatever you need to do to nourish your faith”. If to nourish your faith you need to -- and - the Archbishop said, ' if you want to look after your Catholic faith stay away from the new mass.' That he did say. So. [Yes, ABL just contradicted BW’s subjective conciliar version.]
But if for instance should I attend a Society mass? I take the position - do whatever you need, if you need to attend a Society mass, a decent Society mass just as she's spoken of a decent Novus Ordo mass . [This following injecture is important as Bishop Williamson ascribed to her the true faith in familiarity with the sspx masses and quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre in relation to her going to a Latin mass and familiar with the crisis. Simply, Bishop Williamson again placed her as not ignorant to the references he applied knowing she would understand the agents and subject matters.
Here it is necessary to distinguish what is a “decent” mass if not manifested by God. To say decent BW is referring to RITE. There are NO “decent” NOM RITES in the conciliar religion; it is not a legitimate Catholic mass. They are desecrations and abominations! To say “decent” also means that it is in unity with what God says and his Church. It is well stated that the NOM is schismatic and heretical. Therefore there is no unity = NO effect of grace; sterile.

Archbishop Lefebvre in 1972:
“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August, 1972, priestly retreat, can be found in A Bishop Speaks) http://laportelatine.org/bibliotheq...le/1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle.pdf
We will provide more of this catholic theology later on.]
If you need to attend a decent Society mass in order to nourish your faith? [Here again BW puts the mass over the faith when speaking about the neo-sspx in their conciliarrevolution. There too is nothing “decent” we can attend when the faith compromised and not professed whole and entire in the mass with integrity and/or omitted by revolution. The “pax” priests and heretics we were not allowed to go to prior to 1669 prove this who had the true mass. More on this later.]
Go to the Society mass. If you need to stay away from every Society mass in order to protect your faith, then stay away from every Society mass. [So why condemn the red-light of those priests and people who support catholic theology in his regard? Unless you are for the “pax” priest position?]
So there's not something that you can say to everybody. It's case by case. In my opinion.
Some resistance priests who shall remain nameless, but they do exist, say stay away from every Society mass. I can understand, I don't condemn the opinion. [Then why do you let your followers “condemn” such a catholic position?] I can understand the opinion. It's not my opinion. I, but God knows who's right.
I may be wrong I don't know. But that I don't think , I think there are many Society masses still capable of nourishing people's faith without corrupting it. [Back to the subjective again.]
But the moment that you're awake, if you go to Society masses, you've certainly got to keep your eyes and your ears open. You've gotta watch and pray. And if, huh, the moment you watch and listen and realize, there's a false note coming in. The priest is sliding . He's not preaching against the Council any longer. He's even suggesting that the Council is not so bad. He's not talking against Pope Francis in any way, despite the horrors that are coming out of Pope Francis' mouth. The incredible things he's doing and saying. Morality is you've got to make up on your own he said. Who am I to judge? And then there's no Catholic God. I mean this Pope is expressing himself in an incredibly dangerous and foolish way. Um, you've got to stay away from that. [So you just said above to that lady who has the true faith she can actively go if it doesn’t scandalize others, even though the NOM is bad (sic), why the hopscotch to others who have the “true faith” to stay away ONLY with exceptions they stop talking about the pope of conciliarism? Double standards.]
And when that starts creeping into a Society Mass or when it's clearly there in a N.O.M. you stay away. But there are some Novus Ordo priests with Novus Ordo parishes, they get in trouble with their Bishops. They get in trouble with their N.O. Bishops because they are nourishing and building the faith in their N.O. parish. [Either the NO conciliar faith is the true faith it cannot nourish and build the faith. This is precisely the problem we have with BW. These sliding modernist statements. Pick and choose.
Pope Pius VI on the Proto-modernist, Auctorem Fidei (1794) identifies a tenant of modernism:

“…seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statements, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual…” ]
They celebrate Masses as decently as possible. They hold benedictions of the Blesses Sacrament. They encourage the Rosary. The people respond. [These are accidental graces on merit of personal prayers; not on the efficacy of the NOM itself.] The Catholic's respond. Especially since he's not yet against the mainstream authority. Then of course the mainstream authority sooner or later sure enough will come down on him . They'll move him to a backwards parish, whatever it is. [We are in 2016. There are no resistance priests in the novus ordo any longer. Why the wrongful perception?] But, but the, grace was passing. [No. Here explains by St. Thomas Aquinas and others who state that grace CANNOT pass a schismatic or heretical mass in lack of unity to the Church and what the Church does.
Here are some quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976 and 1979.

“The Church has always considered that even a sacrilegious Mass said in a Masonic lodge by a renegade priest is a valid Mass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 10-12-1979, Conspec)


“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants…

All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, November 8, 1979)


This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has its new dogmas, it’s new priesthood, its new institutions its new liturgy already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents. This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist on obedience to the church of today, making abstraction of the Church of yesterday, as if it didn’t exist anymore.

This conciliar Church is schismatic because it has taken as a base for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church: as well as the new conception of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface of the Roman Missal and 7 of the first chapter which give the assembly a priestly role which it cannot have ; and also the natural right, that is to say divine, of every person and of every group of people to religious liberty. This right to religious liberty is blasphemous because it gives God intentions which destroy His Majesty, His Glory, and His Royalty. This right implies liberty of conscience, liberty of thought and all the masonic liberties.

The church which affirms such errors is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. “ (Archbishop Lefebvre ; Refelexions, July 29, 1976, Intineraires, La Condamnation sauvage, no. 40)

Fr. Chautard explains this “Redlight” Position.
Below is a translated excerpt from Fr. Chautard’s article, “ Le combat pour la messe “ (The Combat for the Mass) which can be found in the November 2010 issue of Le Chardonnet (the monthly bulletin of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet parish in Paris). Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).
Fr. Chautard’s explanation clearly shows why one should not attend the NOM including the SSPX Masses itself even though it may be “valid”.

Fr. Chautard:
“…But some do not hesitate to go to traditional Masses celebrated by priests (belonging to institutes) officially recognizing the full catholicity and legitimacy of the Council, of religious freedom, of the new Code of Canon Law, etc.

These faithful, and sometimes these priests, do not themselves adhere to the official directives of the said institutes. This scenario, unprecedented before 1984, more widespread in 1988, was further multiplied by the publication of the Motu Proprio Summarum Pontificum in 2007.

It was then realized – or at least remembered – that fidelity to the Mass of all Time did not automatically entail fidelity to the doctrine of all Time and that allegiance to the traditional Mass did not prevent allegiance to the Council and what comes from it. The combat for the Mass, formerly inseparable from the combat for the Faith, was no more, de facto.

A Change of Emphasis
From this day, the combat of the Society for the Mass was further refined to put the spiritual, moral and normally inseparable link between the combat for the Faith and the combat for the Mass, between the assistance at the Mass of all Time and the confession of the Faith of all Time. Without a doubt, we can argue about the congenital inconsistency between an anti-ecumenical, traditional Mass and modern errors like ecumenism. It is not only about that.

For breaking the link between assistance at Mass and communion in the same faith with the minister of this Mass and his hierarchy rests upon a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharistic cult.
In fact, assisting – in an active manner and not purely passive by civility– at the Mass of a priest (like at any other sacrament) amounts to professing the same faith of this priest and the authority he is under.

Christian antiquity had a clear awareness of this reality. Individualism had not yet penetrated the sanctuary and Christian piety. Every baptized person knew that assisting at Mass meant publicly manifesting his communion in the faith with the celebrant. Whatever the individual reasons, they knew that participation at Mass is always a public confession of adhesion to the faith of the celebrant who presides over the Sacrifice and therefore to the sacramental and liturgical confession of the Faith. That is why they refused to assist at the Mass of a heretical priest. It would have publicly signified their communion in the same faith.

Consequently, to say that assistance at a Mass does not entail of itself any adhesion to the doctrinal orientation of the minister or of his institute constitutes in itself a liturgical error and proof of an individualism foreign to Catholic faith and piety.

That is why the combat led by the Society for the Mass [translator’s note: and now led by the true Catholic Resistance], far from being finished, has taken henceforth a direction that is more doctrinal still, manifesting more the narrow link between the virtue of faith and the virtue of religion, between doctrine and liturgy, between the Lex Credendi and the Lex orandi.

Such is the course to follow in order to keep an authentic fidelity, complete, to the teaching of Jesus Christ and so as not to separate in our Christian life what must stay united: faith in Jesus Christ and the irremediable attachment to the inestimable treasure that He left us: His Sacrifice.”

See here an excellent sermon (transcribed) by Fr. Pfeiffer addressing the same theological question -
Masses that give grace and Masses that do not

“…What Thomas Aquinas says on the 'no grace flowing from the new mass ..from the new church'. And what does the Catholic Church teach about that? This isn't something new, not new at all. Because Catholics have always been tempted to go to the Mass of heretics; to go to the Mass of schismatics; to go to the Mass of excommunicated priests; to go to the Mass with those who are not in union with the Church for the last 2000 years, especially since the orthodox schism of a thousand years ago but which really started well before that, and other schismatic times, and before Vatican II whenever they went to a non-catholic Mass it was always the same rite. Same incense; same ceremonies and when they went to see things they said - Well it's the same! Same lectern, same incense, same ceremony - just valid, and I need my Holy Communion and I need my public prayer with Christ. I've got to go.

What does Thomas Aquinas say? Leo Thirteenth and Pius Ninth etc back it up.

Since the consecration of the Eucharist is the 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, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true body and blood. So when a heretic priest to whom God gives the power to consecrate to a priest (sic). God doesn't take it away so long as the priest is alive - he has that power. Bishops have the power to consecrate Bishops; he has the power to ordain priests; he has the power to say Mass. The priest has the power to say Mass. To make Christ present. The power is not taken away. They 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 proof of the Sacrifice which is a spiritual sacrifice. They do not receive the fruit of the Sacrifice.

When you look at the holy sacrifice of the Mass what is it?

It's the unbloody renewal of Calvary. Christ is crucified once but the unbloody renewal is done millions of times, and why is that? Because when we have a Mass we reach into the infinite value ...think of the value of the Mass as like a giant reservoir of water - a huge water tank. The crucifixion. And then the vast amount of pipes that connect to that water tank and the water flows through the pipe of each Mass and it pours water on this field, and pours the water on that field, pours the water on another field. So when we celebrate this Mass fulfilling your Sunday obligation to come to a Catholic Mass, the water of that infinite amount of grace flows through this Mass on to your souls.

The Church teaches...when the priest is cut off from the church then the water tank is disconnected from the main tank and no water flows. Christ is truly made present, but it is a sacriligious presence and Christ is truly there. (But the argument goes: )

Well Christ is there, so there must be grace since it is really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Bishop Thomas Aquinas, for instance says, they receive Communion in the new mass - so since Communion is Christ they must receive graces.

What does St. Paul say?

He that receives unworthily let him know that he heaps coals of fire upon his own head. Not all that receive Holy Communion receive grace, but they all receive Christ. The Church also teaches if someone is not baptised receives Holy Communion he doesn't even receive Holy Communion, Christ does not enter him. He is not capable of receiving Christ, he must be baptised. Christ is consumed, Christ disappears but he never enters into that soul.

If the soul is baptised in the state of mortal sin Christ truly enters the soul and it is a sacrilege it is a horrible sin. Heaping coals of fire upon the soul. And that soul gets a deeper place in hell rather than a place in heaven - which is why we say you must go to confession before you receive Holy Communion. There must be a worthy receiving of Holy Communion. If you receive Communion from heretics and schismatics and in heretical schismatic churches these Communions do not give grace. There is no fruit.

Further on, St. Thomas says the same thing. A priest separate from the unity of the Church celebrates not having lost the power of Order he is a priest, he can say Mass. He consecrates Christ's true Body and Blood but because he is separate from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy. He says the same Mass that we say - but they have no efficacy.

When we turn around and say, Dominus vobiscum what happens?

The grace of heaven flows down from the alter and flows out to souls. But what happens when the priest is a heretic and he does not believe in the teachings of the Church? If he is a secret heretic the graces flow.

The church supplies for the grace of the soul because you cannot judge if he is a secret heretic. But if he's public in his profession of another faith for another religion, or another teaching than that of Christ, then the grace is blocked. Remember our Church is a physical Church founded by Christ. It is an objective visible church so the grace is blocked. The heretical priest saying the Mass, and the schismatic priest saying the Mass, excommunicated priests saying the Mass (truly excommunicated that is - obviously an invalid excommunication means nothing) then this Mass does not give grace. There is no fruit and his prayers have no efficacy.

In the Cappello a Jesuit in his canonicomoralis de Sacramentis - they validly sacrifice in the name of Christ who are separated from the church. Although they validly sacrifice in the name of Christ, nevertheless they do not offer the Sacrifice as ministers of the Church. And in the person of the Church itself, for the priest is commissioned by the church to pray to intercede and to offer in its Name. In regard to this the Church can take away from the separated priest the ability to sacrifice in its name. It can't take away arbitrarily. But it can, to a separated priest. That is why it matters, for instance during this Mass you could be an MC standing right next to the altar - he'll be standing right next to the book and he will not hear when the priest says Una Cum papa nostro Francisco...it will be said in such a low voice, that even the MC cannot hear it. And as we whisper it in a low voice, but though the words are said in secret they are not secret words. They are only said secretly because of the holiness of the words. And it matters whether we mention the name of Francis in the Mass because in order for grace to flow from this Mass we must truly be united to the Holy Father.

And we are! We are faithful sons of Pope Francis.

Who is the Holy Father? He, as the Holy Father, what is he supposed to do?

He represents Christ as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Our Lord said that there will be cockle and wheat in the church from the very beginning until the very ending. This is the teaching of Christ, that there will be cockle, there will be weeds amongst the wheat. He did not say the weeds will only be amongst the faithful, that is what the pagan religions say - if you study the Hindu priests if you want to be something, be a Hindu priest - it's definitely the 'in' thing to be. A Hindu priest can murder somebody, its not murder. He commits adultery it's not adultery. He steals it's not stealing - definitely an 'in' thing to be. But if you are not a Hindu priest adultery is a terrible sin. Stealing is horrible. Murder is awful. But if you're a priest you get a special 'get out of jail free' card. And all pagan religions have that. But the Catholic religion does not. In fact the priest has more obligations than the faithful. When the priest, if he commits the same sins as faithful, in the Catholic Church we say it is worse. In the pagan religions they say its fine. But not in the Catholic religion because it is the true religion of God. And the priest is the true representative of God. And so for the grace that flows from the church we must be connected to the Holy Father. His personal sinfulness does not take away the holiness of his office. His personal sinfulness does not take away the holiness of his work. When we say the church is holy we mean holy persons, holy places, holy things, holy times. And the holy person is the priest - hopefully his personal sanctity gets as close as possible to official sanctity but he's holy. And so the Pope comes here, and the Pope yells at you, and the Pope screams at you, and the Pope hits you can't hit him back - why not? Because he's holy! He may not look holy, he may not talk holy, he may not act holy and he may not even BE holy. But his Papacy is holy. His priesthood is holy even if he is not holy personally.

So his personal holiness is unimportant as far as the Church is concerned. Extremely important as far as himself is concerned. Well the Church continues with cockle in the Papacy. The Church continues with cockle in the episcopacy, and the church continues with cockle in the priesthood, and the church continues with cockle amongst the faithful. Our Lord did not say there'll only be cockle amongst the wheat. Let there be no confusion - He allowed that Judas be cockle, He also allowed that St. Peter himself would be cockle for a short time, though he would repent and he would deny Christ three times, he allowed all of the twelve apostles to become cockle for at least a short time. And then they would repent and become great saints.

One of them would not repent and now burns in hell.

But the grace of God flows if they are in their holiness; if they are representing the holy church. So when Cardinal Rampola said the Mass who was a well known Mason, an enemy of God a hundred years ago - his Mass, grace flowed through his Mass because it was truly a representative of St. Pius X who was the Pope. He was a true representative of the Church even though he himself was personally very evil. The grace still flowed. On the flip side we have good priests who mean well, who are very good men. but who, unfortunately, are not connected to the truth.

Because they are not connected to the truth the grace does not flow through their Mass.

Many good priests amongst the schismatics and even priests amongst the heretics, amongst those who are separated from the church who maybe don't know better find themseves in a bad situation because they are mistaken, or deceived by the devil, but the grace does not flow. They do not operate in the name of the Church. Pope Leo Thirteenth in 1993 wrote a letter concerning a small particular group of heretics and schismatics. In this letter it says: 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 of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice. And of the Sacraments - which although they are sacrilegiously administered are nonetheless valid and serve in some measure that form and appearance of piety which St. Paul mentions in Corinthians 1 : 13 and which St. Augustine speaks of in [.....] so it looks like an appearance of piety - but there is no grace. And from St. Augustine who says : The form of the branch, says St. Augustine with 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 stock. That is why the corporal Sacraments which some keep and used outside the unity of Christ can preserve the appearance of piety. You take an arm and you cut it off. You might see that it matches the other one. You've got a matching arm. This one is laid on the ground, the other one is still attached. Two ways to make them match perfectly...remove the other one and put the first one back on. But they are not connected, they are not the same. The arm is disconnected. It looks like an arm but it's not. This is St. Augustine's example. That is why the corporal Sacraments which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ - all seven Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist and so on. Some use outside the unity of Christ can preserve the APPEARANCE OF PIETY, but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated member. Sermon of St. Augustine No. 71 on the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Those who operate real Sacraments, true Sacraments but are not in unity with Christ or in a schismatic rite how does this apply to the New Mass?

The New Mass is a schismatic rite. It is not a rite of our holy Mother the Church. It is a Protestant rite and Archishop Lefebvre pointed this out, if one thinks you can't choose between the rites it is a Protestant rite.

What is the proof? The proof is in the pudding.

One billion Catholics loosing the faith as was prophesied in Sacred Scripture 2000 years ago. As Our Lord promised would happen. That there will be a great apostasy and so His promise is being fulfilled. We are in the time of that great apostasy. Archbishop Lefebvre says in a conference given in 1990 it is not a choice between two rites, as if both would be good. There's a choice in the Catholic rite and a rite practically favouring Protestism. It is a harm to our faith, the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a great harm to the faith. How many millions of Catholics throughout the world are losing,or have lost their faith because of this New Mass.

We know the results of the loss of faith. But what about the increase of faith?

We don't find the increase of faith, we find the loss of faith but not the increase of faith. The fact is that this Mass is not pleasing to God, it is a schismatic Mass. As Fr. Hesse points out, it is a schismatic rite. A rite that is identical to Luther's rite, written 400 years ago; Cranmer's rite written 400-500 years ago it is a rite that matches Cranmer which is the Protestant one, it matches Luther which is a Protestant rite. A rite which departs away from the Catholic truth of Mass in the whole as well as in detail.

This rite does not give grace.

Whatever graces come because of the New Mass come because of the personal holiness of the priest. The priest is trying to be a good priest or, from the faithful who are saying their Rosaries and trying to be spiritual. For whatever personal goodness that is in them they get grace, but this grace is called
exculpory operato - the grace by the one giving, the one working. By saying his Rosary, by trying to be spiritual. Trying to abide by a Catholic Sermon and so on. So grace flows only exculpory operatis but no grace flows from the actual rite itself. And this is the continual teaching of the church down the last 2000 years. When there IS a separation of the unity of Christ. when there is not the expression of the true faith then there is a cutting off of the flowing of grace. and though Christ might be validly present there is not the giving of grace. and the devil is trying to cut off this ordinary grace. God will give grace to everyone. But the ordinary grace is disappearing and we have only extraordinary grace. [.....]

(Since extraordinary graces are needed in our time) only some are grabbing on to the extraordinary grace which God gives to every soul. He gives to every soul the means to save their souls, he gives to every soul the extraordinary and necessary grace to go to heaven but the souls are finding it more difficult.

Why is it that looking at the world today not only does the Catholic church, but all the churches in the whole world have declined in the last 50 years. The Catholic Church is not for Catholics. The Catholic Church is for all men. And Our Lord Jesus Christ said their will be a diminishing.. there will be a walking away... there will be an apostasy. There will be a leaving of the faith, so much so will there be any faith left when I return? says OL. It is a terrible question. Of course there will be faith when He returns, but very little. And so the apostasy began and has spread throughout the whole world...that was 500 years ago. And just like the apostasy happened in the OT there was approximately 500 years to the OT..about 600 years between the time of Nebuchnezzer and Christ, there was a 600 year apostasy amongst the Jews. in which they walked away from God and changed their view of the Messiah. So we find in the New Testament a mirroring the Old Testament - that we are now 500 yearrs into that same thing that happened to the Jews before Christ. It is recorded in the book of Machabees; recorded in the minor prophets. So the same thing is happening in the New Testament; an apostasy. Grace is not flowing from this New Mass..

When St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Pius Ninth and the saints before, when they spoke about not going to heretical and schismatic churches they were speaking of those who were saying the true Mass. Those who were saying the correct mass with the exact same ceremonies. You don't go! Well why do you need the Mass? No! you need the faith. Do you realise that Archbishop Lefebvre points out that in canon law it says you don't have to go to Mass every Sunday.”
Thus known for over 40-years, it stands that the NO religion and the NOM is a heretical and schismatic church for which NO grace passes!]

I don't know if any of you know, again I'm gonna get hanged, but um, (shrugs shoulders ) that goes with the territory. There have been Eucharistic miracles with the NOM. Two thousand uh, one was in Barbarville, in Michigan in the early two thousands. Sokolka, Poland in the early two thousands. and another one in New Jersey in the early two thousands. This is the NOM. And there are Eucharistic miracles. Recently in Argentina, uh, these miracles are still occurring. Why? Because the new religion, is false, it's dangerous and it strangles grace. And it's helping many people to lose the faith. At the same time there are still cases where it's been, it can be used and is used still to build the faith.[ This is outright blaspheme. Bishop Williamson is saying that God is intervening in the protestant mass and ecumenical faith of the NOM to give it “miracles” to help save it; and show, as Bishop Aquinas and the neo-sspx says, to show that there is still a source of grace in that city of Baal with a “valid” sacrament. Thus people need to recognize it. The conclusion is evident. The NOM is from God and he endorses it. (sic).

“Miracles 101”: What is a miracle? What is the purpose of miracles?

In brief, Catholics by definition are people who have to believe in at least two miracles - that of Christ’s incarnation and his resurrection, two pillars on which the faith rests.

For modern-day miracles, belief is never required of the faithful. The highest recognition that the Church gives to an alleged miracle is that it is “worthy of belief.”

It’s important for atheists and skeptics, those people who don’t believe, they’ve got to have an explanation for the inexplicable. There’s something for everyone.

What is a miracle?

The sacraments are signs, but the supernatural part -the occurrence of grace coming from the sign- is not perceptible by the senses. For this reason, sacraments are not considered miracles in a strict sense. Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ would be an example. A “Eucharistic miracle,” on the other hand, would entail, for example, a healing directly related to receiving the Eucharist or, more famously, the substance of the Body and Blood taking on the appearance of flesh or blood.

Theologians have identified three categories of divine interactions under the general heading of miracle: (1) physical (the traditional notion), (2) moral, and (3) intellectual. Moral and intellectual miracles are no less wondrous, but they do not occur in a physical way. The fact that they are miracles only becomes known after people perceive that what has been accomplished is beyond human capability. Moral miracles occur in the areas of virtue and right conduct, and enable people to overcome obstacles that would otherwise stunt their moral or spiritual growth.
The Church is an example of a moral miracle. A religious society, convention, or congregation of like-minded people is a natural, human occurrence. However, the Bride of Christ, the Church, has persevered as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in a way that goes well beyond human experience and understanding. The ongoing conduct of the Church according to these four principles indicates to the observer that only God could have brought about this success-by His intervention.

An intellectual miracle takes place when the mind has received from God knowledge or foreknowledge. Prophecy is an example of an intellectual miracle, the words being given to the prophet’s intellect prior to being heard by the intended audience.

Christ Is the Center

Miracles are learning experiences for us. They point to something that God wants us to know or believe about Himself and His will to follow for salvation. Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is Himself God’s revelation. The most fundamental miracle is the Incarnation. It is the fundamental example of God’s will and love for us and His glory (John 1:14, 3:16). Further, all of salvation is rooted in the Incarnation.

Signs of Faith

As said above, while the Incarnation is the root miracle of salvation, the Resurrection is the definitive and ultimate sign. “The empty tomb and the linen cloths lying there signify in themselves that by God’s power Christ’s body had escaped the bonds of death and corruption”. The Resurrection is “the definitive proof” of Christ’s divine authority.
However, as with all signs, some people are able to understand and some are not. Christ used the three years of His public ministry to teach people of His kingship and prepare them for the Resurrection. He used miracles to teach and to touch people with the gift of faith. Through His miracles Jesus called people to faith, bringing before their eyes a meeting of nature and supernature. St. Augustine wrote, “The miracles worked by our Lord Jesus Christ are divine works which raise the human mind above visible things to understand what is divine.” The people who experienced these miracles understood that there is more to truth than what is found in the natural order:

This “power from on high” (Luke. 24:49), namely, God Himself, is above the entire natural order. It directs this order and at the same time it makes known that-through this order and superior to it-human destiny is the kingdom of God. Christ’s miracles are signs of this kingdom.
Miracles will always have as their primary purpose the glorification of God and the calling of people to salvation. The signs worked by Jesus attest to His divine authority and invite belief in Him. After His Ascension and Pentecost, Christ’s disciples worked miracles in the name of Christ, thus giving the people signs of His divinity and proofs that He is who they said He is. In the same way later saints worked miracles to testify to a higher authority and that people are called to His kingdom.

Miracles can also have secondary purposes. They can attest to the divine authority of a mission. The miracles Moses performed not only showed that God wanted Pharaoh to release His people; they also showed that Moses was from God. Further, these miracles, indelibly inscribed in the memory of the Jews, prepared them to understand the signs given to show them that Jesus was sent by the Father. The miracle of the sun at Fatima was a sign to the people that the messages given through the children were of divine origin.

It shows in this that there cannot be such a miracle in the mockery of the ecumenical NOM attesting to God’s blessing and authority when He is present in the true faith and revelation of the true sacrificial mass Codified by St. Pius V embodied in the eternal Church which have created innumerable saints and glory to God throughout tradition.

Adding too, miracles submitted in the process of canonization are an excellent example of primary and secondary ends of miracles. A miracle of healing associated with the intercession of one of God’s servants gives glory to God and manifests His saving mercy. These are primary ends. The beneficiary is given a temporal grace (secondary to eternal salvation) of better health. The miracle testifies to the sanctity of the intercessor and provides a clear sign of God’s intercession.

Miracles are supernatural signs that occur in the natural world. God’s miracles teach us about what is beyond creation. Some people invoke science in opposition to miracles. Yet, science allows us to know what is natural so that we can also know what is supernatural. While miracles communicate a specific message, they are essentially a sign of God’s glory and His loving plan of salvation. Finally, miracles are a call to faith - they appeal to our reason so that our faith may grow.

The Authenticity of Miracles

“If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema” (Vatican Council I, Dei Filius, no. 3).

The Signs of the Kingdom of God

Jesus accompanies His words with many “mighty works and wonders and signs,” which manifest that the kingdom is present in Him and attest that he was the promised Messiah (Acts 2:22).

The signs worked by Jesus attest that the Father has sent Him. They invite belief in Him. To those who turn to Him in faith, He grants what they ask. So miracles strengthen faith in the One who does His Father’s works; they bear witness that He is the Son of God.

Here again, such miracles cannot be from God in the NO religion to promote what is against him –the religion of Baal.

Some miracles are also from the devil clearly shown in Exodus 7 – “Pharaoh’s magicians cast down their rods and turned into serpents.” And other wonders and signs the devils can do. Not all miracles are from God. They are there to raise awareness of adultery against Christ and His Fathers commandments.

Christ’s miracles can also be occasions for “offense” depicted in the inquiry for John the Baptist (Matthew 11); they are not intended to satisfy people’s curiosity or desire for magic in (Act 10). Despite Christ’s evident miracles some people rejected him; He is even accused of acting by the power of demons.

By freeing some individuals from the earthly evils of hunger, injustice, illness, and death, Jesus performed messianic signs. Nevertheless He did not come to abolish all evils here below, but to free men from the gravest slavery, sin, which thwarts them in their vocation as God’s sons and causes all forms of human bondage.

The coming of God’s kingdom means the defeat of Satan’s: “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:26, 28). Jesus’ exorcisms free some individuals from the domination of demons. They anticipate Jesus’ great victory over “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31). The Kingdom of God will be definitively established through Christ’s Cross: “God reigned from the wood”
From the old-sspx, Fr. Pfeiffer addressed this well showing what a miracle does in history for the Catholic Church.


“…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.”]
I would like to say it's all black or it's all white, but if I look at the way it is, it's something of both. Black is not white, white is not black, but the reality is black or white is an alternation of black and white , or is a mixture of black and white and gray. That's real life.
Therefore, the essential principle is do whatever you need to keep the faith. [Here is the foundation of Bishop Williamson’s modernist premise; built on subjective understanding from within. (sic) Do we have to go through
If a priest that you trust says stay absolutely away from the new mass , well if you trust him, that might be the advice to take. Or if he says stay absolutely away from the mass of this priest, because I know that he's misleading,- that 's the advice to follow. [So sic! BW holds private interpretation over Divine decree.]
But you make your own judgements. At the, at our judge.. when we appear in front of our Maker, we're going to answer for our own .. for the people who's.. we're gonna answer for who's advice we chose to follow. [sic] We're not going to be acquitted simple because we followed the advice of a priest. Because the priests are, obviously today, are not necessarily reliable.
I've gotta watch and pray . I've gotta use my own mind . I've gotta make my own decisions in my own circumstances.
Therefore, there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building ones faith, instead of losing it. [He he admits the mass itself, the RITE, can build ones faith. That's almost heresy within tradition. But, that's what I think.
But I hope it's clear that I don't therefore say the NOM is good or the N.O. religion is good, or all N.O. priests are good. It's not the case. Obviously, not the case. [Above he said it was and it can “build your faith”. Which is it?]
Generally it's a tremendous danger because the new religion is very seductive . ,[only generally; occasionally; not specifically; only based on one’s judgement and interpretation. (sic)] It's very soft and sweet and sticky . And, it's easy to go with it and lose the Catholic faith. You have a new and different faith. A happy and clappy faith. Where everybody is nice. Everybody is sweet. That nobody has original sin. The only sin that is left is Nazi sin. That is the new religion.

[@ minute 1:11:11 we skip over BW's ideas about WWII – ]
[Transcribing resumes again @ 1:12:19:]

Be very careful. And be very careful of the Nov..... 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. [sic]
I think that was one ball the went down the alley and sent all the skittles flying. (laughter)
Do understand me right. I think you do. I think you probably do. You think you do. But uh, I'm going out on a limb there, but there it is. I think it's the truth. [Bishop Williamson made a “truth” base on his belief the conciliar religion had the true faith in it. And it is only a matter of attending if it is conservative or liberal that make it good or bad to attend. (sic) All objectivity is lost his answer as a catholic bishop.]
Therefore, I will not say every single person must stay away from every single NOM. I don't, it's . If they can trust their own judgement, that attending this mass will do them more good than harm, spiritually (sic) (shrug, hands out, palms facing the people), But it does harm in itself. There's no doubt about that. It's a rite designed to undermine Catholic's faith and to make them believe in man and to stop -- to turn their belief away from God towards man. [What a riddle. Bad and good; good and bad solely based on a person’s judgement.]
The whole of the new religion and the NOM which is an essential part of the new religion, is designed to get you away from the Catholic faith and that's why the rule of thumb is and will remain, stay away from the NOM. [Only “to get you away”; not evil in itself to be away from it as other false religions are. So it is good but used badly…is his reason to stay away. (sic)]
But exceptionally the wise thing would be probably to say in private, to this or that person, but here I am saying to you in public , that's maybe foolish. But, you must work it out for yourselves. Any other questions?”
[End of Bishop Williamson's answer]

What is drawn from this is Bishop Williamson believes in principle and practice that both the conciliar religion is good and bad at the same time (Fellayism), the conciliar religion can contain the “true faith” and be evil at the same time, the NOM can build your faith and contain the true faith and be dangerous at the same time. Thus, Bishop Williamson clearly described he believes the NO religion and NOM are catholic and could be used to build your faith if you find a “conservative” application of the NOM and bad if there are egregious abuses to your own judgment to stay away from it. (sic) This kool-aid is precisely the adoption of the revolution’s compromise and contrary to the 40 year fight of Archbishop Lefebvre continuing in the SSPX-mc.

Pope Pius X wrote a syllabus of errors describing such an ambiguous split mentality and modernist thought. A whole host of other popes and saints combined had condemned such views with Pope Pius VI manifested above that split mentality:

“…seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statements, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual…” (Pope Pius VI on the Proto-modernist, Auctorem Fidei, 1794)

Here are Bishop Williamson’s above quotes word for word placed in their categories:

Discussing the new religion:
  • While the new religion is false, is dangerous, and it strangles grace, and it’s helping many people to lose the faith, at the same time there are cases where it can be used and is used to build the faith.
  • “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.”
  • “The golden rule is this. The absolute rule of rules seems to me be this. Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.”
  • "In principle the NOM is a key part of the new religion. Which is a major part of the worldwide apostasy of today."
  • "N.O. priests are nourishing and building the faith in their N.O. parish."
  • "The new religion, is false, it's dangerous and it strangles grace. And it's helping many people to lose the faith. At the same time there are still cases where it's been, it can be used and is used still to build the faith."
  • "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."

Discussing the Rite of the NOM:
  • “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.”
  • “If they can trust their own judgement, that attending the New Mass will do them more good than harm spiritually.”
  • “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.”
  • “Ask a priest you trust and heed his advice — maybe.”; “Decide for yourself.”; “If you can trust your own judgment, use your own judgment.”
  • “There are Eucharistic miracles [beyond transubstantiation] in the New Mass.”
  • "I would say that in certain circumstances like those you mention (i.e. you go to the Latin mass and occasionally go to the NOM during the week because you think the priest is saying the NOM “reverently”), exceptionally if you're not going to scandalize anybody. Because they know that you are a Catholic. They know that you're sticking with the true faith. And then they see you at the new mass, the conclusion that many of them will draw is , the new mass is okay because she's going. We've gotta be careful of that. So you've gotta be careful."
  • "There's nothing in the text of the new mass which makes it inevitably invalid."
  • "Novus ordo priests celebrate Masses as decently as possible. "
  • "The essential PRINCIPLE is do whatever you need to keep the faith."
  • "If a priest that you trust says stay absolutely away from the new mass , well if you trust him, that might be the advice to take. Or if he says stay absolutely away from the mass of this priest, because I know that he's misleading,- that 's the advice to follow."
  • "You make your own judgements."
  • "Therefore, there are cases when even the Nouv Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building ones faith, instead of losing it."
  • "That's almost heresy within tradition."
  • "But I hope it's clear that I don't therefore say the NOM is good or the N.O. religion is good, or all N.O. priests are good. It's not the case. Obviously, not the case." [But it still can build your faith?]
  • "But it does harm in itself. There's no doubt about that. It's a rite designed to undermine Catholic's faith and to make them believe in man and to stop -- to turn their belief away from God towards man."
  • "The whole of the new religion and the NOM which is an essential part of the new religion, is designed to get you away from the Catholic faith and that's why the rule of thumb is and will remain, stay away from the NOM."
  • "If they can trust their own judgement, that attending this mass will do them more good than harm, spiritually."
  • "Therefore, I will not say every single person must stay away from every single NOM."
Discussing the Eucharistic “miracles” beyond transubstantiation in the new mass:

  • "There have been Eucharistic miracles with the NOM…and still according."

In result, as many times Bishop Williamson said the NO religion and the NOM is bad, he said it was good to actively go to; along with 15 times saying it is his “opinion”, “I think and do not think”, “I may be wrong”, and saying “I don’t know” pertaining to his thoughts. There is no sound theology or quotes from the Church to support his thoughts, other than some incomplete statements of Archbishop Lefebvre.


Is this all Bishop Williamson said on this topic?

No, thereafter that June 2015 conference, Bishop Williamson’s stated many times his frame of mind and pertinacity of the NO religion and the NOM within his Eleison Comments. Here are only some of his quotes word for word placed in their categories stating his “belief” in the conciliar system seanjohnson and Mr. Akins do not want you to see; but claim the opposite that it “supports” their omni-grace charade. (sic)

Eleison Comments discussing the new religion:

  • (7) – Bp. Williamson, conference in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada, 5th November 2014: “I do not say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!’ ”
[If not every priest “in the Novus Ordo” has to “get out”, what that means exactly will depend on what is meant by “in the Novus Ordo”. It could refer to the Novus Ordo Mass or it could be shorthand for the conciliar church. Therefore, not every priest must either a) stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass, or b) leave the conciliar church. Or both.]

  • (11) Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 5th December 2015:
“Therefore the NOM and the Novus Ordo Church as a whole are dangerous for the Faith, and Catholics are right who have clung to Tradition to avoid the danger. But as they have had to put a distance between themselves and the mainstream Church, so they have exposed themselves to the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality.”

  • (19) Bp. Williamson, Eleison Comments #447
“There’s still something Catholic in the conciliar church, so it’s wrong for us to reject it completely.”

Eleison Comments discussing the Rite of the NOM:

  • (8, 9 & 10) - Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’, #437, 30th November 2015:
“The Novus Ordo Mass, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church … Doctrinally, the Novus Ordo Mass is ambiguous, poised between the religion of God and the Conciliar religion of man. Now in matters of faith, ambiguity is deadly, being normally designed to undermine the Faith, as the Novus Ordo Mass frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the Novus Ordo Mass does not absolutely exclude the old religion.”

  • (14) ‘Eleison Comments’ #437 (as above):
“So does it not make sense that in punishment of their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward of their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass?” Result: The Novus Ordo Mass is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but it is still better than nothing.

  • ‘Eleison Comments’ #438 (as above):
“...while since the 1960’s a mass of Catholic sheep have become too worldly to deserve to keep the true rite of Mass, [yet] they have loved the Mass enough not to lose it altogether.”

“The Novus Ordo Mass may have been allowed by God to make it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith if they wanted to, but not impossible to keep it if they wanted to.”

Eleison Comments discussing the Eucharistic “miracles” beyond transubstantiation in the new mass

  • (12) Eleison Comments #437 (as above):
“Facts are stubborn - as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research... But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008. And a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic.”

  • (13) ‘Eleison Comments’ #438 (as above):
However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition … ”

[Compiled also in this link are BW's above statements the false-resistance is aware of http://www.therecusant.com/fake-resistance-statements ]


In conclusion:

Bishop Williamson’s adamant belief in Conciliarism:

Bishop Williamson had demonstrated that he believes in the conciliar church, that the “true faith” is in the conciliar NO religion, and believes in the Rite of the conciliar NOM. Regardless that the Church so professed by Archbishop Lefebvre saying it is illegitimate and is a schismatic rite and schismatic church invoking Canon Law: “…we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, November 8, 1979)

More of Bishop Williamson beliefs in the conciliar church is explained here:

Condemned by Archbishop Lefebvre.

It reflects Archbishop Lefebvre’s true way of thinking concerning the mystery of a Pope presiding over the destruction of the Church: the Pope remains the Pope, but he is at the head of two churches; the Catholic Church, of which he was elected the head, and another society, the “conciliar church”, which has its dogmas, its liturgy, its new institutions, etc. The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, but a counterfeit “church”. We must separate ourselves from it if we want to keep the Catholic Faith.
Ever since the authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X have been getting closer to conciliar Rome in the hopes of obtaining a canonical recognition, their language has changed. A new thesis contrived by a theology professor at Écône named Fr. Gleize, maintains that there is no conciliar church in the sense of an organized society; the current crisis is rather an “illness” affecting the men of the Church, and the Church presently at Rome is the Catholic Church. This is what Bishop Fellay says, for example in his ordination sermon at the seminary of La Reja (Buenos Aires, Argentina) on December 20th, 2014:
“The problem of jurisdiction shows the importance of being recognized canonically. […] The official church is the visible Church; it is the Catholic Church, period.”
The proponents affirm that the official church is the Catholic Church, – something which Archbishop Lefebvre never did

Even some of his pax priests take this position to another degree:

  • (16) Fr. Zendejas, ‘Blue Paper’ newsletter, #300, November 2015:
“If there could be salvation outside the Conciliar Church, then is there salvation ‘outside the SSPX’ or other traditionalist groups?” Result: There might be salvation outside the conciliar church.

  • (17) Fr. Zendejas, ‘Blue Paper’ (as above):
“In the days of the Council, the teaching of novelties about humanism (man-centered Church) were opposed and then silenced by more or less honest means and men, but adherents thereof have since been installed in key positions of power during the post-Conciliar period…” Result: At Vatican II, the liberals tried to introduce novelty and false teaching, but their attempt was silenced by good men. After the Council, the liberals somehow got into key positions in the Church, and that’s why there is now a new orientation in the Church.

In Bishop Williamson’s own words:
  • (19) Bp. Williamson, Eleison Comments #447
“There’s still something Catholic in the conciliar church, so it’s wrong for us to reject it completely.” (sic)

  • Bishop Williamson continues: Eleison Comments #445, February 6, 2016. “[T]here is still faith in the Newchurch.”
  • (11) Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 5th December 2015:
“Therefore the NOM and the Novus Ordo Church as a whole are dangerous for the Faith, and Catholics are right who have clung to Tradition to avoid the danger. But as they have had to put a distance between themselves and the mainstream Church, so they have exposed themselves to the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality.” (sic)

Bishop Williamson’s belief in the NO religion and the NOM:

Bishop Williamson attends and holds the ecclesia dei mentality that there's good coming out of the new mass, and at the same time like the NO religion, it is ambiguous. Bishop Williamson states that in order to go to the NOM, it depends if a NO priest saying the NOM says it “worthy” or “decently” and “reverently” in a conservative fashion, then it is ok to go to, but if in its ambiguity it is swayed by bad priests opposite to this, the bad priest turns it into bad and you cannot go to it. (sic)

It has been stated over and over again in the old-sspx that the NOM is not legitimate – period! An informed catholic cannot go to it in pain of sin. Bishop Williamson gave bad and sinful advice to that lady, he proved was NOT in ignorance; and to a room full of traditional Catholics.

It follows in Bishop Williamson’s relaxed and erroneous independent position he chose to live under, the resulting liberal thoughts had succumbed as to any priests and other bishops who serve not the Kingship of Christ in his mission foretold by our Lady of La Salette. No priest, bishop, or any soul is immune to the principles of grace and iniquity.

The result of blindness follows…

So what is the point of Christ walking 33 years in suffering and on His ignominious cross if not to get people out of ignorance?

Bishop Williamson failed in all counts; including his followers trying to pin him up as a "booklet" poster boy in a fraudulent “catechetical refutation”. While he yet continues in independence thought to succumb to a false visionary, Maria Valtorta, still promoting her works this week in his Eleison Comments condemned on the Index of the Church twice.

Even when Bishop Williamson is still drawn in conscience about his many ongoing modernist and ambiguity terms he surfaces in his conferences and Eleison Comments, he delves into another one last week "Against N.O.M." #476 where he doesn’t answer the objection in his own words for a coherent doctrinal “against” the NOM; instead, he again arrives at mush on social impacts and contradictions. His unofficial press secretaries cannot keep up trying to "re-interpret" what he is saying.

Clearly, the false-resistance tries to take Christ by fraud.

God have mercy on them…



It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church - all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.


Bishop de Castro Mayer wrote to the pope in 1969 that the NOM does not represent the Council of Trent; which means the documents of grace has nothing to do with a protestant meal (supper). “The Council of Trent Condemns the new mass and the new position of Bp. Williamson”


Yet all of this is found specifically in the “Open Letter to Mr. Hugh Akins and Bishop Williamson’s errors confusing more minds: Mr. Hugh Akins says we need to ‘obey’ him; including, “Bishop Williamson states Novus Ordo Mass is legitimate” in which they have seen the facts and choose to ignore…of course.


“Vatican II has greatly corrupted the Church’s human element, i.e., persons (including the hierarchy) who identify themselves as Catholic. There is a Catholic Church and also a conciliar church. They are:

“two churches which have the same heads and most of the same members, but who have different forms and ends diametrically incongruous: on the one hand eternal salvation seconded by the social reign of Christ, King of Nations, on the other hand the unity of the human race by liberal ecumenism, that is to say broadened to all religions, the heir of the conciliar decisions of Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Ætate, and Dignitatis Humanae, and which is the spirit of Assisi and the antithesis of the social reign of Christ the King. ... [A]ccording to the degree which the authorities and the baptized adhere to this new kind of church, that constitutes a new church.”

Quoted from Bishop Tissier analysis, posted by the Dominicans of Avrille, reposted here: http://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/is-there-conciliar-church.html (emphasis added).


Archbishop Lefebvre, “Spiritual Journey”, page 9:

“ It is not pride and self-importance to say that God in His merciful wisdom saved the heritage of His priesthood, of His grace, of His revelation, through these two bishops. It is not we who chose ourselves, but God has guided us in the upholding of all the riches of His Incarnation and of His Redemption. Those who feel they must minimize these riches and deny them can only condemn us. This can only confirm their schism with Our Lord and His Kingdom, by means of their secularism and their apostate ecumenism.

I can hear them say : "You exaggerate! There are many good bishops who pray, who have the Faith, who are edifying..." Were they saints, as soon as they accept the false religious liberty, hence the secular State; false ecumenism, and hence the admission of many ways of salvation; of liturgical reform, and hence of the practical negation of the Sacrifice of the Mass; of the new catechisms with all their errors and heresies, they officially contribute to the revolution within the Church and to its destruction!

The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity, through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.

One single thing is necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church: fully Catholic bishops, who make no compromise with error, who found Catholic seminaries, where young candidates for the priesthood can nourish themselves with the milk of true doctrine, placing Our Lord Jesus Christ at the center of their intellects, of their wills, of their hearts; who have a living faith, profound charity, a devotion without bounds, uniting them to Our Lord. They will ask, as did St. Paul, that we pray for them, that they advance in understanding and wisdom of the Mysterium Christi, of the mystery of Christ, where they will discover all of the divine treasures.”


Graces vs. No Graces in the Newmass

Below are some direct quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Hesse, Pope Leo XIII, and Saint Thomas Aquinas who all state their claim that God is NOT in the Rite of the novus ordo, nor in grace by its desecration.

Graces vs. No Graces in the Newmass
Bishop Richard Williamson said:
"There have been Eucharistic Miracles in the Novus Ordo Mass" [6:50]... Therefore, there are cases that even at the Novus Ordo Mass, one can attend it with the effect of building the faith instead of destroying" [8:58] If you watch and pray even there you can find god's grace" [10:00]. (Conference in New York, July 2015)

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said:
"It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it." (In his 1986 book: Open Letter to Confused Catholics Ch. III pg. 19.)


There are more statements from Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Hesse which corroborate with this same line of thought:

Archbishop Lefebvre:
  • “The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divines)
  • “We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
  • And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith..." (Sermon of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the Ordination Mass on the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, Ecône, Switzerland, 29 June 1976.)
  • And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith..." (Sermon of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the Ordination Mass on the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, Ecône, Switzerland, 29 June 1976.)
  • "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." (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1990)
Fr. Gregory Hesse also agrees the Newmass is schismatic.
"Based on what has been stated by Archbishop Lefebvre, namely that the Newmass is a "schismatic rite", we would like to quote Pope Leo XIII and Saint Thomas Aquinas to prove that even though a schismatic sacrament may be valid, it does not have the guarantee of the graces and fruits that normally would flow from them, and also that they are like an amputated member of body (Church):

"From this it follows also that they cannot promise themselves any 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." (Serm. LXXI, in Matth., 32)
Pope Leo XIII Eximia Leatitia, July 19, 1893, to the bishops of Poitiers

The form of the branch may still be visible, even apart from the wine, but the invisible life of the root can be preserved only in union with the stock. That is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there anymore than feeling can remain in an amputated member." (
Sermon of St. Augustine on the Gospel of St. Matthew). So there's no grace that flows from their sacraments.

"And since the conservation 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, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice." St. Thomas Aquinas [IIIa q. 82 art. 7, c]

"The priest, in reciting the prayers of the Mass, speaks in the person of the church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks in the person of Christ, whose place he holds by the power of his Orders. Consequently, a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass, not having lost the power of Order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy. St. Thomas Aquinas [IIIa q. 82 art. 7, ad 3um]

On both ends of the spectrum, the false resistance shows they wish to be the enabler for error.

Source used

Last edited by a moderator:


Excellent article, Machabees, really excellent.

Archbishop Lefebvre said: "One single thing is necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church: fully Catholic bishops, who make no compromise with error, who found Catholic seminaries, where young candidates for the priesthood can nourish themselves with the milk of true doctrine, placing Our Lord Jesus Christ at the center of their intellects, of their wills, of their hearts; who have a living faith, profound charity, a devotion without bounds, uniting them to Our Lord. They will ask, as did St. Paul, that we pray for them, that they advance in understanding and wisdom of the Mysterium Christi, of the mystery of Christ, where they will discover all of the divine treasures.”
These words of the Archbishop ring so true. What, in these days of crisis, is necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church...'fully' Catholic bishops and priests - who make no compromise with error.

+ABL truly lit a path for our feet to follow in these days where confusion has been sown among Catholics of good will. We must hold fast to his words. They will not lead us into error. All the writings and words of other prelates and priests must be compared to his good teachings. And if they do not echo his words, they must be rejected.


... we contend that this “Catechetical Refutation" is only lipstick on error condemned by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Church herself. While Mr. Hugh Akins wishes to put a glorified post of seanjohnson as a pay-for “booklet”, the false-resistance holds it as a “banner” to protect and shield error while purposely, yes purposely, deceiving others in hype to join their distilled corruption. Like anything that is not of Christ, it burns on its own being the accelerant as it is.
Very adroitly said - the false Resistance is upholding this work of SJ's as the new answer to all objections/concerns/scandals associated with the false advice the Bishop promulgated in the Mahopac conference and subsequently in his blog.

But as was so well researched and presented by Machabees, the whole of SJ's work was based on false notions and calculated deceit to create the illusion that the Bishop was somehow correct. But the Refutation fails miserably at this.


Well-Known Member
The posts over the last couple of days HAVE been Great......so well-researched and informative. And done, as expected, with Charity and sincere and honest love of our Lord, Who is the source of All Truth. Thank you Machabees, Admin, and all the other wonderful posters here, old and new members, who help in maintaining a truly Catholic forum, not just in Doctrine, but in Charity. The beautiful hymn "UBI CARITAS" reminds us that 'where charity and love are, there is God'. I pray that our fellow catholics on other forums (abl3)who spend much of their postings being sarcastic, deceptive and insulting to their readers for defending the Faith, may find it helpful to stop and reflect on these words below:

Latin Text
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor.
Exsultemus, et in ipso jucundemur.
Timeamus, et amemus Deum vivum.
Et ex corde diligamus nos sincero.

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Simul ergo cum in unum congregamur:
Ne nos mente dividamur, caveamus.
Cessent iurgia maligna, cessent lites.
Et in medio nostri sit Christus Deus.

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Simul quoque cum beatis videamus,
Glorianter vultum tuum, Christe Deus:
Gaudium quod est immensum, atque probum,
Saecula per infinita saeculorum. Amen.

English Translation
Where charity and love are, God is there.
Love of Christ has gathered us into one.
Let us rejoice in Him and be glad.
Let us fear, and let us love the living God.
And from a sincere heart let us love one.

Where charity and love are, God is there.
At the same time, therefore, are gathered into one:
Lest we be divided in mind, let us beware.
Let evil impulses stop, let controversy cease.
And in the midst of us be Christ our God.

Where charity and love are, God is there.
At the same time we see that with the saints also,
Thy face in glory, O Christ our God:
The joy that is immense and good, Unto the
World without end. Amen.


It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13)


Well-Known Member
The thing that should stand out and hit people between the eyes is this book "A Catechetical Refutation" by Sean Johnson that Hugh Atkins is peddling.

SAY WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why in the world, especially the Catholic World would we ever need a layperson to explain to us what a bishop has said? People should realize there is something wrong, seriously wrong. Bishops are consecrated to teach the Word of God in such a manner that it is clear and concise with zero confusion. Ironically Bp. Williamson is teaching modernist heresy clearly and concisely with zero confusion..

Maybe Pope Francis could get Sean to translate his dribble into Catechetical Fact.


Well-Known Member
Here is an example of a bishop teaching the law and faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Plus it concerns a subject so often confused especially of late.

From Volume I - The Sincere Christian - Bishop George Hay - Chapter XIX - Of The Sacraments in General

Q. 15. Why do you say that the sacraments are sacred signs, ordained by Jesus Christ?

A. Because the sacraments do not, of their own nature, signify the grace they contain, neither do they do so from the institution of men, much less can any outward action of itself confer the grace of God on our souls. This is wholly owing to the good will and pleasure of Almighty God; for He alone can bestow His grace upon us, and He alone can ordain by what means He pleases to do so; and seeing He has ordained these determined actions which we call sacraments, and no other, as the means of bestowing His grace on man, by these alone, and no other, can we obtain it. Hence it follows that no power upon earth can change what was ordained by Jesus Christ in the outward forms of the sacraments without destroying them entirely; for if any change be made in what He ordained to be done, it is no more the same form to which His grace was annexed, and consequently ceases to be a sacrament at all.

Deleted member 149

Here is a very good response and public reply from Greg Taylor, the editor of The Recusant, to Sean Johnson.

From the recent The Recusant Issue #36, page 38.


[Mr. Johnson’s article, though not a direct attack on this newsletter, is important insofar as it seeks to rehabilitate the ‘Williamsonist’ view of the New Mass. Our concern is that this confused thinking will spread if not addressed. Mr. Johnson’s article runs to 34 pages and, were we to reprint it here, would truly tax the patience of the reader, to say nothing of the fact that the postage costs alone would bankrupt us. To make up for this, we wanted to give the source where the reader might find it for himself, but at present it appears only to exist online at Cathinfo.com, a website which I most heartily encourage everyone to give a very wide berth. The reader who is very keen, if he really must visit that website, should do so with adverts blocked on his web browser, so as not to give the website’s owner any financial reward for his narcissistic gossiping. Mr. Johnson seems to like long-winded titles, so...]

“A Refutation Refuted”
A Brief Examination
Of some of the more obvious
Mistakes, Misunderstandings,
Mis-readings and Misrepresentations
Contained in
Mr. Sean Johnson’s so-called
“Catechetical Refutation”

September 2016​


I have never met Sean Johnson in person. Without giving too much away, it might help the reader to understand the following. Mr. Johnson is known in the internet-sphere as being a loquacious if somewhat intemperate defender of what he calls “the internal Resistance” – which seems to involve continuing to attend the local SSPX chapel every week, even when there is a Resistance Mass in your area, and publicly pouring scorn and barely-disguised contempt on anyone foolish enough to no longer attend the SSPX. These days Mr. Johnson seems to spend an improbable amount of time writing on internet forums, though at one time he had his own website (entitled, rather amusingly, SeanJohnson.com). He has corresponded with me on and off since the early days of the Resistance, always at his initiative and invaria-bly with him in the role of interrogator. The last such occasion was in September 2015, when he contacted me regarding Fr. Stephen Abraham and what I had written about him, which he clearly considered to be still open to doubt, questioning my motives, and informing me that he would be writing personally to Bishop Williamson to find out “if your accusations can be sustained.” After two weeks of deafening silence, I wrote back asking him what the Bishop had said, to which his response was: “I do not consider myself at liberty to divulge the nature of the response, or my impressions regarding it.” My reply of: “I bet that if the his response had been ‘Greg Taylor is a liar, it's all untrue, don't listen to him!’ you wouldn't have quite so many scruples!” seems to have ended the correspondence between us and to have been the last contact I had with him.

That was almost a year ago, and to this day I have heard nothing more from Mr. Johnson on the matter, in public or in private, neither to denounce the “dishonesty” of my “accusations,” nor to grudgingly admit that I might just have been telling the truth. I mention this merely as evidence of the sort of spirit we are dealing with. But we must not be too hard on him. Per-haps if Mr. Johnson lived in London, he might have a different view of Bishop Williamson by now, and would have turned his not inconsiderable talents to some more worthy cause. At any rate, I would like to think so.


Let me begin with saying that the problem with the document is with the content. Mr. John-son is clearly a man possessed of intelligence and wit, who expresses himself articulately and has a better-than-usual English prose style, though personally I find it at times a little condescending and aloof. All in all, it is therefore a great shame that so much talent should be wasted in so unworthy a cause. His aim is unmistakably to defend Bishop Williamson, a man he clearly holds in esteem. Such an aim is either worthy or unworthy, depending on the extent to which Bishop Williamson deserves defending. That he should need to be defended at all is itself something of an astonishing admission, and one which ought to give Mr. John-son, and everyone else, serious pause for thought. Bishop Williamson ought not to need defending a whole year after his public controversy. He could at any point have cleared up this whole business with a simple statement retracting his ideas and re-stating the Traditional Catholic position as constantly taught by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. That he has not done so but, rather, has entrenched these ideas more deeply with five Eleison Comments, is a matter of recorded historical fact, available for anyone who takes the trouble to see. But one would not be aware of that from reading all of Mr. Johnson’s 34 pages. Because of this, one of my main criticisms Mr. Johnson’s ‘Catechism’ is that he ‘sins by omission’ since, whilst some comments or sentences or phrases can be placed in such a contrived and improbable “context” that they can be made to look not so bad, the majority, which cannot, must simply be ignored. And ignore them is precisely what he does. He is rather like Mr. Akins in that way: it is all about Mahopac, New York, (and even there, he says some very silly things); nothing at all about the five Eleison Comments, about the false evidence of the Canadian grandfather cited as “proof” that one can still keep the Faith at the New Mass (the man himself, when asked, totally contradicted everything Bishop Williamson had said about him!); nothing about the “danger” of separating oneself from the conciliar church, nor about dropping the very term “conciliar church” for “mainstream Church”; nothing at all about Valtorta, nothing about God wanting no structure or seminaries from now on, and so much else besides. And, of course, not a word about the priest whom the bishop put back into ac-tive service, despite the fact that Mr. Johnson himself is sitting on some first hand testimony concerning that very case which he refuses to share.

This article does not claim to be comprehensive. Its aim is not to create an entire and com-plete case against Mr. Johnson’s “Catechism” and to list every single thing wrong with it. Pointing out the problems in a text usually takes twice as much writing if not more, and having forced myself through all 34 pages (No mean feat! I wonder how many other people alive in the world can honestly say the same? Honestly?!), I have no intention of asking any-one to read sixty-eight A4 pages of response! More to the point, it is not necessary to point out every single thing wrong with it. A few of the more obvious problems ought to be enough to show, inter alia, that it is unreliable, cannot be taken seriously; that poor Mr. Hugh Akins’ almost total reliance on the sense of moral or intellectual security which that document lends him is wholly unjustified; and that, consequently, his criticisms of us based upon it are misplaced and that he would have done far better to look into the matter himself.

Using Trent to defend the New Mass

The most obvious howler which stands out a country mile, is the attempt by Sean Johnson to use the Council of Trent to defend the New Mass. The very idea alone should immediately set alarm bells ringing for any but the least well-informed Traditional Catholic. The reason that the Tridentine Mass is called “the Tridentine Mass,” is that there is a small town in the Austrian Sud Tirol (now Northern Italy) which today goes by the Italian name of “Trento.” Just as the Council which was held there, not quite 500 years ago, is known to us as the ‘Concilium Tridentinum,’ or ‘Council of Trent,’ so also the rite codified by that Council is known as the ‘Missa Tridentina,’ or ‘Mass of Trent,’ - more often called the ‘Tridentine Mass’ or the ‘Traditional Mass.’

In fact, what we usually mean when we talk of the Tridentine Mass is the Roman Rite of Mass, codified by the Council of Trent but existing as far back as records go (and further). By that point in time many different cities and countries had their own rite of Mass, similar to, though distinct from, the Roman Rite, and a significant number of religious orders. All rites which had existed for more than 200 years at that point were allowed to remain in use, the others being suppressed. The Roman Rite is so called because is was the rite used in the city of Rome, but went on to gain a far more widespread usage and greater prominence. One way (though not the only one) in which the Roman rite was spread was that at precisely that moment in time, the native rite of Mass in England, the Sarum Rite, was dying out under the brutally anti-Catholic reign of Queen Elizabeth I which made the training of Sarum Rite priests impossible. The new missionary priests who entered England illegally, having been trained in exile on the European continent, used the Roman Rite. England thus became a de facto Roman Rite land and, as a result, so did the parts of the world later influenced by her (Australia, India, North America, large parts of Africa and so on). By the 20th century, those places which did not use the Roman Rite were the exceptions to the rule.

To those interested in learning more on the subject, I can do no better than recommend the little booklet on the subject by the late Michael Davies, entitled simply: “The Tridentine Mass.” The point is more than just interesting, however. There is a reason why Pope St. Pius V, acting on behalf of the Council of Trent, suppressed every rite of Mass which could not be proven to be at least 200 years old. The thinking shown at Trent and evident throughout the whole history of the Church, is not merely an abhorrence of novelty. It is that novelty has no legitimacy whatever. The Holy Ghost is the author of every legitimate rite of Mass, and as usual with such things, its development through His agency can be observed at a range of centuries, but not from one day to the next or even one year to the next. The Roman Rite grew imperceptibly over the course of centuries, with the tiniest of minor changes happening at any one time, and even then not in a deliberate or conscious way. Perhaps one more ‘Amen’ may have found its way in here, another genuflection there, for example. It is a process sometimes described as organic development: it takes a very, very long time and no individual or group of people can ever be said to be responsible; indeed nobody is even conscious of it as it happens.

Compare this with the “New Rite of Mass” and the contrast could not be more stark. The whole point about the New Mass is precisely that it is just that: new! “New Mass” - how can those two words possibly coexist? The whole concept is so ridiculous that prior generations, in times of greater sanity and common sense, would have laughed it out of town the moment it was suggested. The very idea of a rite of Mass being composed or constructed in an office by a committee sitting around a table (with or without the six Protestant members!), and then introduced from one day to the next, is simply not how the Holy Ghost works. It is amazing that our modern age should need to be reminded of that fact, but in the insanity of the late 1960s even the common sense of Catholics, it seems, went out of the window. In a more sane and healthy age, the people of Milan literally took up arms to defend the Ambrosian Rite, and in Rome, Pope St. Gregory the Great’s life was actually at risk from the people when he added six words to the prayer Hanc Igitur - such was their regard for Tradition.

All of which brings us to the following question: can the Council of Trent be used to defend the New Mass? On the face of it, it would seem that the Council of Trent and the New Mass are in almost perfect antithesis. One could hardly imagine something which contradicts the spirit and thinking (never mind the letter and the law!) of Trent more than the New Mass. When it first appeared, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci condemned the New Mass as being a radical departure from the theology specifically of the Council of Trent. I think one could safely go further and say that the New Mass goes directly against the Council of Trent; it is precisely the sort of thing which that Council sought to prevent and suppress.

Mr. Johnson, however, in his ‘Catechism,’ appeals to the Council of Trent to defend the idea that one can receive grace at the New Mass. We know it with “infallible certainty,” he says! If you say that one does not receive grace at the New Mass, claims he, then you are anathe-matised by Trent! Worse, I gather even that Mr. Johnson does not shrink from publicly accusing Fr. Pfeiffer of heresy on the internet, based solely on his own decidedly “creative” interpretation of the Council of Trent. This fact is so incredible, the ignorance so gaping and embarrassing to behold, that one feels truly ashamed on his behalf. But, amazingly, it seems to have taken in at least one other layman, so it seems we must take a closer look.

In dealing with what he clearly considers to be one of the main objections, namely Bishop Williamson’s suggestion at Mahopac, New York that one can find “spiritual nourishment” at a Novus Ordo Mass, Mr. Johnson has the following to say:

“Presuming we are talking about a valid Novus Ordo Mass, the only way one could deny Bishop Williamson’s comment is to either dispute the validity of the Novus Ordo rite per se (which was not a position held by Archbishop Lefebvre), or, to deny that the transmission of sacramental grace is “spiritual nourishment” (which would be absurd). This is because the Council of Trent (Session 7: On the Sacraments in General) enjoined the following proposi-tions to be held by all Catholics as a matter of faith (i.e., de fide)”

...and he quotes the Council of Trent as follows:

“CANON VI.- If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obsta-cle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not con-ferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.”

...from which Mr. Johnson then draws the following conclusion:

“Therefore, since it is infallibly certain that those who attend a valid Novus Ordo, and receive Communion in the state of grace, have received an increase of sanctifying grace (which is the “spiritual nourishment” par excellence), there can be no question as to the doctrinal correctness of Bishop Williamson’s comment. Rather, the concern is with those who would fall into at least material heresy by denying this dogma of faith.”

Now, St. Thomas teaches us that the first and infallible guide to the truth is our common sense, something which, in this passage at least, appears to have deserted poor Mr. Johnson entirely. Beyond that, to understand what the Council of Trent says one does not need any special knowledge of Theology (or which manuals are “popular”). All Mr. Johnson really needs is a basic English reading comprehension.

Canon VI says that the Sacraments do contain the grace that they signify, that they are not just symbolic or something which we use to distinguish ourselves from unbelievers, as many Protestants would hold; that they do, therefore, really give grace to people and are not “merely outward signs” of a grace which has been received some other way. What is con-demned here (unsurprisingly) are all the Protestant ideas such as ‘Sola Fide’ and Calvinistic ‘Predestination,’ as well as the Protestant idea that the “Lord’s Supper” is only a symbolic memorial and not a real action taking place.

Canon VII condemns the idea that God gives His grace “selectively” and without any regard to the Sacraments or who is receiving them. This idea sounds to me very like John Calvin’s monstrously heretical doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement, according to which a baptised baby can still go to hell because it does not happen to belong to the predestined “elect,” and that may well be what the Council Fathers had in mind.

Canon VIII condemns the idea that grace is obtained by ‘faith alone’ and not through the action performed in the sacraments, something typically Evangelical Protestant. (“I’m saved! I have my own personal relationship with Jesus, I don’t need your sacraments!”)

The reader will notice that in talking about the Sacraments of the New Law, and defending them against Protestant transformation into something totally different, these Canons are not concerned with the question of whether the Sacraments are confected using a Catholic rite or an illegitimate non-Catholic rite, or in a sacrilegious blasphemy. It is taken as read that what is under discussion is a Sacrament confected in a Catholic rite. Hence it is not enough simply to say “the Communion is valid, therefore the Council of Trent’s words must apply to it.” A priest who, for some evil intention, says Mass using only the words of consecration and omits anything else from the rite (for example over the granary loaf on the kitchen table, as he sits there in his dressing gown eating breakfast) might produce a “valid communion.” But will I receive grace by attending such a sacrilegious Mass and receiving such a sacrilegious communion, even if I myself am in a state of grace? The 18th century Parisian priest who got his own back on a baker, so the story goes, by saying the words of consecration over the bakery may well have produced “valid communion,” but I very much doubt that anyone could have received grace at that particular event or benefitted by it. And then, of course, there are plenty of valid Masses and communions outside the Church (the Eastern Orthodox, for example). We know that one will not be receiving grace there either, despite it being a valid “sacrament of the new law” and despite the fact that the priest is using a legitimate rite of the Church, because it is taking place outside the Church. But the Canons quoted by Mr. Johnson say nothing about the need for a Sacrament to be inside the Church, just as they say nothing about the need for it to be a Catholic Rite and not a bogus, man-made Masonic/Protestant travesty. Clearly, then, it is not enough for a Sacrament only to be valid.

What Mr. Johnson appears to be reading is a Canon which says: “If anyone saith that there can be circumstances in which a valid Sacrament will not be a source of grace, let him be anathema.” But that is not what the Council of Trent says, and I can do no better than to advise Mr. Johnson to polish his best pair of reading glasses and try reading it again to see what it actually does say, and not what he thinks it says or wants it to say. Mr. Johnson would have us believe that Fr. Pfeiffer is uttering heresy and stands condemned as a heretic by the Council of Trent, worse, that he is in denial of a dogma of the Faith, despite the fact that Fr. Pfeiffer has not said anywhere that God gives His grace only sometimes and to some people, without regard for the sacraments; or that “faith alone” is enough. Nor, for that mat-ter, do I remember Fr. Pfeiffer ever suggesting or even hinting at the possibility that the Sac-raments are only symbolic and do not really contain the grace they signify.

Mr. Johnson must surely realise that it not enough that a Sacrament be valid. If validity alone were all that mattered, then there would probably be no rites, as his common sense ought really to tell him. The disposition or conscience of the priest performing the rite does not matter when availing oneself of a sacrament; what does matter if one is to receive grace from it, however, is that the sacrament should be performed by the Church, in the Church and in the manner prescribed by the Church. That is doubtless why the Novus Ordo Mass has such an impressive track record of doing exactly the opposite of what it ought to do if Mr. John-son were correct. It is not a rite of the Church, it is a Sacrament done not only in a manner not prescribed by the Church, which is quite bad enough, but worse: in a manner which goes against and contrary to the manner prescribed by the Church. And it goes contrary to it on the very points upheld by the Council of Trent!

For example, the Council of Trent reaffirms the Catholic teaching that the Mass is a sacrifice and condemns the idea that the Mass is a supper or meal. And yet the authors of the New Mass took great care to root-out any prayers suggestive of a sacrifice (principally the Offertory), and to introduce prayers and practices suggestive of communal meal. And, whereas the Council of Trent condemns the idea that it is ‘the faith of the people’ which makes the sacrament happen, this very same idea is precisely what the Novus Ordo Mass lends itself to and suggests. That is why, as a general rule, a Novus Ordo priest will not say Mass privately, believing that they need someone present.

That the Canons quoted by Mr. Johnson are concerned only with sacraments confected in a Catholic Rite (such as the Tridentine Mass), and not those made to take place in a bogus, sacrilegious, non-Catholic “rite,” (such as the Novus Ordo) is further demonstrated by Canon XIII from the same Council of Trent (Session VII), which Mr. Johnson seems to have forgotten to quote anywhere during the course of his 34 pages, but which runs thus:

“If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be despised, or without sin omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed into other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever he be, let him be anathema.”

Is the Novus Ordo a “received and approved rite of the Church,” or is it rather something in which large and important parts are “omitted” and the thing as a whole “changed” so that it is now “something new”..? Does not this Canon fit the Novus Ordo like a glove? If anything, the Novus Ordo is perhaps worse than anything imagined by the Fathers of Trent!

Whilst I have no doubt that the Catholic common sense and sensus fidei of most people will have told them that there is something wrong with all this, that same instinct might make them wary of accepting the opinion of a mere layman (quite right too). Fr. Paul Kramer and the late Fr. Gregory Hesse are two examples of priests whose talks and writings on the sub-ject of the New Mass have always been popular in the Resistance, though neither priest has ever been charged with “error” or “heresy,” though one suspects that if Fr. Pfeiffer or Fr. Hewko were to say today what either of those two said in years past, they would swiftly be anathematised by Mr. Johnson and his friends in internet-land, and doubtless Mr. Akins would print a booklet with a glossy cover warning the world about their heresy and pride. Fr. Kramer gave a talk at the 2013 Resistance conference in London about the New Mass being an illegitimate, schismatic rite. Of all the talks at that conference, it was perhaps the most popular on the internet. The original videos disappeared long ago (the SSPX pressur-ised their owner to remove them) but one copy of it which is still there currently has more than 17,000 views. Oddly enough, I do not remember anyone ever criticising or disagreeing with Fr. Kramer, much less condemning him as a heretical denier of dogma, or a “Pharisaical extremist” who “prefers his own opinion to the Magisterium.” Why might that be, I wonder? Fr. Hesse said the same and much more besides. It is a schismatic rite. You don’t get grace from going there. No one should ever attend it. I don’t remember him being condemned as a denier of Trent either - he would have something to say about that! If only he were still alive he could have answered Mr. Johnson’s nonsense far more ably, though perhaps he would not have had the patience: he never struck me as the type to suffer fools gladly… But we digress.

Thinly Disguised Sophisms

Remember that Bishop Williamson’s opinion of his own words at Mahopac New York was that they amounted to “almost heresy within Tradition” and that it was not very wise for him to have spoken them in public. Mr. Johnson’s view is quite otherwise, however. He demands that we all bow before the “doctrinally correctness of Bishop Williamson’s comment.” In order to achieve this, he has to resort to some of the worst sort of sophisms and word games. He starts by pointing out all of the bad things which Bishop Williamson said about the New Mass:

“Were we watching the same conference? I count 12 distinct warnings in response to the woman’s question about new Mass attendance, repeated in a span of only 11.5 minutes.”​

This is, of course, pure sophistry. It doesn’t matter how many bad or negative things you say about the New Mass during your answer if your conclusion is that one can attend it. The bad things only serve as cover for the concessions towards the New Mass, as we shall see shortly.

Then comes a row of Bishop Williamson quotes, each followed by its own trite and facile “conclusion” of Mr. Johnson’s own device:

‘Archbishop Lefebvre, in public, would say stay away. Keep away from the new Mass." Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.

Wrong. Conclusion: Although Archbishop Lefebvre appeared to the outside world to tell people not to attend, his real opinion, which he said in private, was that you can go to the New Mass. Conclusion: you can go to the New Mass.

“ ‘In certain circumstances, like those you mentioned, exceptionally, if you're not going to scandalize anybody…’ Conclusion: The new Mass is dangerous.”

No, conclusion: the New Mass is not intrinsically evil, it is only bad according to the “circumstances”. For example, one reason for not going is that you might scandalise people. Conclusion: you can go to the New Mass.

“ ‘The principles are clear, and the wrongness of the Novus Ordo Mass is clear.’
Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.”

In fact, though he talks about “principles,” Bishop Williamson never properly spells them out during his answer. And saying they are “clear” doesn’t mean you have exposed them clearly.

“ ‘But I hope its clear that I don't therefore say that the Novus Ordo Mass or Novus Or-do religion are good; that's obviously not the case.’ Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.

Saying that something is “obvious” doesn’t make it so - in the bishop’s answer, plenty of things are anything but obvious! And why does this sentence need to begin with the word “but”..? Because it qualifies what was said before (that you can go to the New Mass). Final-ly, that “the New Mass is not good” is not the same as saying “The New Mass is bad.” Fortu-nately, however, we don’t need to take my word for it or Mr. Johnson’s word for it: Bishop Williamson himself has explained his thinking on this very point, in Eleison Comments #447. Had Mr. Johnson had been reading his Eleison Comments, he would be aware that:

“The Novus Ordo Mass can be what you make of it.”
“A priest can celebrate it decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.”

Conclusion: The New Mass can be good!​

Many of the other statements which Mr. Johnson reads as “Conclusion: The New Mass is bad” are things which might have meant only that, had they been said in isolation. But given the context, they are so just much window dressing to sugar-coat the idea that, despite all of that, you can go to the New Mass if you want. What is the use, for example, of telling some-one that the New Mass, “does harm in itself” and that “it is a rite designed to undermine the Catholic Faith…” if you then follow those words with: “But, exceptionally…” and you leave the person thinking that they can go to it? It is a tactic beloved of our dishonest politician caste: uttering a phrase which on its own sounds strong, but then qualifying it virtually out of existence. “Abortion is terrible, it’s wrong, it’s barbaric. But, exceptionally, if the mother’s life is in danger, or in the case of rape…” Bishop Williamson’s “tough” utterances about the New Mass are qualified with so many “ifs” and “buts” and “whiles” and “exceptionallys” that they are as good as valueless: not worth the paper they were never written on!

The finest example of this, one which also shows Mr. Johnson being somewhat selective in
his quotation, is as follows. Quoting Bishop Williamson, Mr. Johnson says:

“ ‘ The new religion is false, and it strangles grace.’ Conclusion: the new Mass is bad.”​

...Whereas, in fact, here is the entire quote, including the bits which Mr. Johnson left out. Have a look and see for yourself:

“While the new religion is false, it’s dangerous, it strangles grace and it’s helping many people to lose the Faith: at the same time, there are still cases where it can be used and is used still to build the Faith.”

I would be truly amazed if any Novus Ordo layman, who having asked whether they could attend the New Mass was given such as a reply, would interpret it as anything other than an affirmative permission. I certainly cannot imagine anyone for one coming away from such an answer with: “Conclusion, the new Mass is bad.” Perhaps the most important word in the whole sentence is the first one: “While...”, which might equally be “Although…” or “Whereas...” The phrase “at the same time…”, which divides the sentence in two, might equally be “but…” or “yet…” The first half of the sentence, about the New Mass being bad, is clearly subordinated to the second half, which says that one can increase one’s faith by attending the New Mass. What Bishop Williamson in fact says is that the badness, the danger and the strangling of grace associated with the New Mass are not such big problems after all that they do not mean that you can’t attend it; and that hence the overall answer is: yes, you can attend it, and indeed it can be a good thing to attend it. And that is without even delving into the implications of saying that “the new religion” (as opposed to just the new Mass) can build your faith Bishop Williamson’s words have an unavoidable meaning, like it or not, and for all his 34 pages and 13,700 words, Mr. Johnson cannot wriggle out of it.

Contentious Claims, Fatuous Arguments, Laughable Proof

In the wonderful world inhabited by Mr. Johnson, the issue of Bishop Williamson’s Novus Ordo teaching is just a “tempest in a teacup,” and everyone is really quite satisfied and happy with the “doctrinal correctness” of Bishop Williamson’s utterances concerning the New Mass, the only exceptions being those few souls “poisoned” by Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko.

“Actually, for the most part, this whole “tempest in a teacup” is only an issue for that small segment of the Resistance under the poisoned influence of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko (or those having some loose affiliation with him, such as the sedevacantist Fr. Cardozo).

We will not dwell on the wholly unsubstantiated claim that Fr. Cardozo is a sedevacantist, although Mr. Johnson does not produce a single sermon, talk or article to show this. Perhaps that is because he cannot. I have not heard or read anything from Fr. Cardozo suggesting sedevacantism, so if he is one then he hides it well. Mr. Johnson later says that Fr. Cardozo, “despite calling himself Resistance, omits the Pope’s name in the Canon etc.” and I cannot help wondering what the “etc.” is supposed to denote? Or is it just wholly suggestive and without substance? And how can Mr. Johnson possibly know whether this priest says the Pope’s name in the Canon, did he bug one of his chapels with a very sensitive microphone hidden on the altar? The attitude on show here speaks volumes. This is how a layman who does not even attend Resistance Masses in his area condescendingly dismisses the priest who founded the majority of Resistance chapels in Latin America (there are quite a few!) and was the first SSPX priest to raise the alarm there in 2012, as being not really “Resistance”..! Likewise, we note the equally unsubstantiated claim that it is Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko who are the proverbial flies in the ointment, exercising an evil influence which is likened to poison. Such an accusation alone needs at least some form of substantiation; the more so if Mr. John-son wishes to employ it as part of his argument. But I can see no evidence, nor even anything approaching the merest hint of evidence of deliberate wrongdoing on the part of Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko or a conscious effort on their part to exert a “poisoned” influence. Hence, not only does Mr. Johnson’s main contention fall, deprived of this non-fact upon which it rests, but he also needs to think very carefully about how he should speak of priests in public, particularly when he can provide no evidence for what he says. The need for Mr. Johnson to provide serious evidence or clerical wrongdoing is perhaps more important than ever now that his friend Mr. Akins has accused The Recusant and those same two priests of doing ex-actly what Mr. Johnson is here seen doing himself. When Mr. Johnson tries to offer the read-er what he calls “proof” for what he says, things start to get very silly :

The proof of this becomes evident upon a reconnaissance of the world’s various Re-sistance blogs, and even more evident in the opinions of the Resistance clergy them-selves. Regarding the blogs, it is conspicuous that only those in English-speaking coun-tries (i.e., Mission territory for Fr. Pfeiffer/Fr. Hewko) are straining to keep the matter alive, obviously for reasons more political than doctrinal (despite their claims to the contrary).”

One of the reasons for not dealing with everything that Sean Johnson says is that so much of what he has written is fatuous and without merit, and a lot of it reflects nothing more than his own peculiar way of viewing the world. We quote the above passage to illustrate just one example of this, for the reader. Mr. Johnson’s “proof” is to say that if one looks at Resistance websites, the uproar is confined to the English speaking ones. This is such an incredibly silly thing to say, and yet he seems to offer it as a serious response delivered with a straight face!

First of all, need we point out the gap between the internet and reality? Or the fact that there are so few Resistance websites that one can hardly learn things by polling the percentages of them to look for trends…? Let us take England as an example. There is The Recusant website. Although it might be taken to represent or speak for perhaps a hundred or so souls in the Southern half of the country itself, very little of its content can be said to belong to or be aimed at specifically England (only really the Mass times and occasional reminders of the dates and times of other events, pilgrimages, adoration, etc.). Almost all the content is for people throughout the world and deals with worldwide problems, and not issues relating only to England. Then there is a rather odd website called ‘Respice Sterile’ or something similar, which quotes Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration, but which makes no mention of the Resistance or anything that one might expect to see in relation to it (the crisis in the SSPX, or Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration for example). It represents a grand total of two Mass centres attended by a tiny number, a fraction of the rest of us (barring the occasional and increasingly rare crowd-pulling jamboree, such as lectures on Charles Dickens or 75th birth-day parties where the skinheads can present the bishop with a bunch of flowers…). It lists Fr. King’s Masses, though it has no connection to him. The large and growing apostolate of Fr. King in the north of the country to this day has no website and no presence on the internet at all. Is there, therefore, any way that Mr. Johnson can gauge the level of “uproar” (read “opposition”) amongst these Resistance Catholics of England just by looking at websites? To give just one more parallel example, Fr. Ribas, the only Resistance priest in Spain, has no
website. Does that mean that there is no Resistance in Spain? Yet the Chilean priest Fr. Rene Trincado has control over two parallel websites (“Non Possumus” and “Syllabus”) - does that mean that he can double-represent the Resistance? Clearly the internet cannot be taken to be in any way representative of what is really afoot in the real world.

And then there is Mr. Johnson’s claim that:

“If one tunes in to the French, German, or most Spanish-speaking blogs, this matter has NEVER been an issue, despite all the publicity the English-speaking blogs have generated.”

This is not true, although even if it were, it would hardly as long as the internet is so far re-moved from real life. Many people may be forced to accept such totally gratuitous claims not knowing any better, but, being a man who has spent time living in the “home countries” of the three languages mentioned, and who speaks all three of them to varying degrees, I am perhaps more well aware than most that Mr. Johnson is talking through his hat.

The first thing to note is that far fewer people, far few priests and far fewer websites are openly opposing Bishop Williamson’s novel teaching than ought to, due to the iniquitous way in which secret pressure, blackmail and refusal of the Sacraments is being used as a weapon to silence dissenting voices. Who wants to have their children refused confirmation? Which priest wants to be the next to be refused Holy Oils? But let us not dwell on that. Even without that secret pressure, what Mr. Johnson says is demonstrably false. We have already noted above the case of Fr. Ribas in Spain, not represented online. On the other hand, there are some Spanish-speaking websites (“Apostolado Eucaristico” for example, or “Epiphanius de Salamis”) and some Portuguese ones (“Pale Ideas” or “Missao Cristo Rei”), which have probably generated more articles against the Fake Resistance and the Williamson/New Mass novelty in the past year than The Recusant and Catholic Candle combined.

The German-speaking Resistance chapels (Aigen, Pinzgau, Munich…) are served by Fr. Fuchs. Not one of them has its own website, not even a basic one-page web address giving Mass times, and neither does Fr. Fuchs. There is a German language website called “Custos Sancto,” run by a lady who lives in another country, a good thousand or so miles away. I gather that she lives all on her own and without any real contact with the Resistance faithful in Germany. She just happens to speak German and has decided to put together a website in that language. That is all I can think of, so if Mr. Johnson cannot find German Resistance websites which are up in arms about Bishop Williamson, then I can only suggest that that is because there are no websites to be up in arms! Or perhaps it is I who am overlooking some-thing? Either way, I would be fascinated to know exactly where one can find these German Resistance websites which Mr. Johnson has been tuning into…

In the case of France, there are two prominent websites claiming to represent the Resistance, “France Fidele” and “Reconquista.” The former is run by a priest and claims to be in some way “official,” though it has only been around for not much more than two years; the latter is run by a layman under the direction of a priest (the same priest, one suspects. But one of the main characteristics of the French Resistance is that they are very secretive. How many “Letters” from France have we seen which were unsigned?). The point here is that it looks suspiciously like another case of two-websites-for-the-price-of-one, though I may be mistak-en there. Both websites are both bound up with Bishop Faure’s seminary, and give a suitably
sanitised view of the Resistance, as one might expect. The Avrillé Dominicans said in a dec-laration last year that they do not consider themselves part of the Resistance, and yet even they felt it necessary to issue an article condemning the New Mass and forbidding attendance at it, in the summer of 2015 (now why might that be, what happened around that time..?).

In the early days of the Resistance, before the two different websites were prominent in the Resistance. “La Sapiniere” began life as “Anti-Modernisme.info” and was very good indeed for the first year or so, before declining at a rate which had to be seen to be believed. It turns out that this happened almost at exactly the same time that the priest behind it became a sed-evacantist. And by that I don’t mean a Sean Johnson imaginary “sedevacantist,” but a real sedevacantist, one who tells the faithful that Francis isn’t the Pope and they shouldn’t go to the Mass of any priest who says that he is. The other website was called “Avec l’Immaculée” and it was anti- Bishop Williamson in a way which makes The Recusant look positively tame by comparison! It no longer exists. People who are anti-Bishop Williamson have a very rough time at the hands of their “friends” and need to have a very thick skin indeed. Finally, there is a French-speaking Canadian website “Fili Mariae” which seems to be against Bishop Williamson’s Novus Ordo teaching and carries sermons from Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko. But being Canadian, perhaps it is “poisoned” by those two priests, and can be discounted on that score…? Like the other priests already mentioned who have no website, the Resistance priest in France who is treated very shabbily by Bishop Williamson and his friends, Fr. Roland de Merode, does not have a website of his own either.

And if it happens that I have overlooked something or am not aware of everything, that doesn’t matter: I am still confident that it will not alter overall the picture. The whole thing shows that Mr. Johnson is quite prepared to make very bold claims about matters with which he is not very well acquainted, and it is only another example of just how little his “Catechism” deserves to be taken seriously.

Archbishop Lefebvre held hostage

Where Sean Johnson’s writing reaches its absolute nadir, in my opinion, is when he tries to recruit Archbishop Lefebvre to his unworthy cause. This is something which “devotees” of the Archbishop, those of us who read and who recommend his writings and sermons, those who really have an understanding and appreciation for what he stood for and managed to achieve, will find particularly difficult to forgive. It is also, from what I can gather, the sole and very flimsy basis upon which Mr. Akins so boldly accuses us “rigorists” of going against Archbishop Lefebvre. Mr. Johnson quotes the Archbishop as follows:

“They commit an objective sin, but not a subjective sin. I think that people who are accustomed to utter profanities or repeat blasphemies without realizing that it is blas-phemy do not know it. They repeat what they hear in their environment, vulgar things to which is associated the name of God, and they are not aware of it - well, one can point it out. They can understand it, but then they could be committing an objectively serious offense but subjectively not be guilty. Therefore you should not judge all peo-ple. You must know how to examine each case. It's precisely the role of the confessor; he must examine, he must be informed... Sometimes, in certain cases, we might even think that it is not always very pastoral to point it out to some people ... If for example we are aware that these people, if we point out the error that they are committing, these people will continue to do it [attend the New Mass-translator] ... it is sometimes necessary to proceed prudently in order to open their eyes to tell them what to do and not always be harsh in the way we act regarding souls. Souls are delicate objects that we cannot mistreat. When we say “you commit a grave sin”, “you will go to hell”, etc., we take a chance of doing more damage to a soul by mistreating it than by making it understand things gently. Rather than making one understand, explain it to them, open their eyes about the error being committed. It is a pastoral question, I would say, but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these people as well and not condemn them immediately.”

Once again, it is largely Mr. Johnson’s reading comprehension which is at fault, though it may well be that wishful thinking has made matters worse, and his common sense does appear to have entirely deserted him, once again, at the critical moment. Not only is what Archbishop Lefebvre says in this quote not similar to Bishop Williamson disastrous “advice” to that poor woman (let alone “nearly identical,” as Mr, Johnson laughably claims!) - it is not a bit like it at all! Not only does Archbishop Lefebvre not say the same thing, he is not even talking about the same thing!

I cannot be sure exactly where or when these words were spoken because Mr. Johnson does not give a source for the quote. In his footnotes he lists a blog, but gives no web address except the main homepage, no indication of which page it is within that website (good luck trawling through the entire site looking for one quote!). And besides, the website in question must have got the quote from somewhere themselves, so what he should really have given is the original source (as a minimum, the time and place at which the words were spoken, or the page number and title of the book in which they first appeared). I find it more than a little odd that such a relatively long quote which Mr. Johnson clearly thinks is so important, should not be sourced. What is the point of having fancy looking footnotes if they don’t con-tain any useful information? Are they just for show? Or to overawe the easily impressed..?

It is for that same reason that one cannot verify for oneself that the Archbishop was, in fact, talking about the New Mass. The only time that the New Mass is referred to at all in the quote is when the “translator” interpolates it into the text. From what I can see, Archbishop Lefebvre appears to be talking about people who curse or swear or utter blasphemies, and it is only the “translator” who is attempting a comparison with the New Mass (a comparison which not only “limps,” it is pretty much wheelchair bound!) Is the “translator” the owner of the blog cited in the footnote? One cannot be sure, but it doesn’t really matter anyway.

Nevertheless, and despite the lack of transparency about the source and context of the quote, just from reading the Archbishop’s words alone one can gather a few things with the aid of a bit of common sense and an ability to read English.

He is clearly talking about how a priest should proceed in the confessional (“You must know how to examine each case. That’s precisely the role of a confessor.”) , and since he addresses his audience as “you” and tells them to do things (“explain it to them…”), we can gather that his audience whom he is addressing are priests. He says that some people utter blasphemy because they hear it so often in their environment that they repeat it, not realising what they are saying. He says that the way to get them to stop must be approached on a case-by-case basis: some people will react the opposite way if simply threatened with mortal sin and hell. He also makes clear that the goal is to “open their eyes,” and to get them to stop, even if one must be “prudent” in assessing which approach will work best.

This is, of course, very sound advice. Some people tend to be more “sensitive” and will react the opposite way against what they perceive to be as too “harsh” or “authoritarian.” Equally there are, on the other hand, people who seem to be incapable of taking a hint and for whom the only way to get through to them is to be almost offensively blunt!

Even if we are generous beyond reason, and concede that this quote is really about souls who attend the New Mass - and it certainly does not appear to be - even then, the words seem rather to contradict than to support Bishop Williamson’s inexcusable actions. If our goal is to do whatever it takes to stop someone going to the New Mass, then, according to what the Archbishop says, we must be aware that different approaches will work with different people. But whatever the approach, the goal is still clear. Stop them going. Even if they may “subjectively not be guilty,” they are nevertheless still “committing an objectively serious offence” (to say nothing of the danger to them inherent in the New Mass, whether they real-ise it or not and whether they are “subjectively guilty” or not.) Anyone who has ever gone to serious lengths to rescue others from the Novus Ordo will recognise that instantly. Some people have to be worked on over time. Some need lots of reading material before they will be convinced. Others do not have the patience but will react well to having it spelled out for them in the simplest terms without further ado. Either way, what all cases have in common is the assumption, taken for granted, that they should leave. Advice that one should try different approaches to achieve a given goal only makes sense if that goal remains the same whatever the approach. That is clear beyond question in what Archbishop Lefebvre says in the quote. Nowhere is there any suggestion by him that: “Sometimes, cursing can be done with the effect of building one’s faith not diminishing it,” or that: “Swearing is designed to be bad and strangle grace. But, exceptionally, if you’re not going to scandalise anyone…”

But Mr. Johnson informs us that,

“This quotation, representing a nearly identical pastoral approach between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson, ought to end the discussion, and would seemingly pre-empt the need for such a work as this.”

...to which he magisterially adds: “And in fact it does.” Well that’s that then! Why am I even bothering?! Sean Johnson locuta, causa finita! No need for him to bother showing his reader how or why that is the case… No need to actually examine the quote and show what it says and how that is the same as what Bishop Williamson said! But that does not stop him from pretending that he has done, later on, referring to this one quote constantly throughout his 34 pages as though he had shown that it means everything he needs it to mean. For example, he says at one point that Bishop Williamson is “perfectly in line with the teaching and example of Archbishop Lefebvre (as has been shown above).” But he hasn’t shown anything above! His comment that his Archbishop Lefebvre quote should “end the discussion” and “pre-empt” (does he mean ‘preclude’?) the need for the rest of his document, and his final remark “And in fact it does” - that, and nothing more, is the entire extent of Mr. Johnson’s explana-tion of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words; it is all he says, from beginning to end, about what the quote means. Therefore everything else which he later goes on to say, based on his own wildly optimistic interpretation of the Archbishop’s words in one obscure quote, is as good as meaningless and his repeated pronouncements of Bishop Williamson’s “fidelity to the pastoral approach of Archbishop Lefebvre,” that Bishop Williamson “was simply applying the pastoral approach of Archbishop Lefebvre” and so on, all falls flat on its face.

Well, just in case there are any doubters out there, for whom Sean Johnson’s opinion on its own is not enough (yes, I am reliably informed that such people do actually exist!), let us now have a look at some of those “nearly identical” similarities between Archbishop Lefebvre’s obscure (and unattributed) words, and the words which the whole world heard from the mouth of Bishop Williamson.
  • The Archbishop was talking to priests; Bishop Williamson was talking to a layman in a room full of laymen and to the internet in general, via a video camera;
  • The Archbishop was advising his audience on how to deal with the penitent in the confessional; Bishop Williamson was not even speaking to “the penitent,” since he was questioned by her not in the confessional but openly, in front of many other people;
  • The Archbishop’s concern was how to stop someone doing what is objectively wrong, the most effective way of making them aware of the wrong and stopping them from doing it; Bishop Williamson not only did not try to stop the lady going to the New Mass, he even called into question whether it was wrong at all, and concluded that it can be good and faith-nourishing for the her to continue doing an “objectively wrong” thing;
  • The Archbishop was not even talking about the New Mass anyway, but is clearly talking about people cursing and taking God’s name in vain - two things of such a vastly differ-ent order of magnitude that they cannot really be compared to begin with;
Finally, we cannot fail to point out the masses of missing material from Mr. Johnson’s dis-cussion. On the one hand, there are the many detailed and explicitly anti- New Mass things said by Archbishop Lefebvre, things which would swiftly earn a whole dictionary of unflat-tering labels from Mr. Akins if said by a Resistance priest today. And on the other hand, there are Bishop Williamson’s many written statements in Eleison Comments in which his thinking on the New Mass and conciliar church is as explicit as it is unsound. This is another reason why it has to be a Mahopac-only defence. Ignoring the many “hard-line” words of Lefebvre and ignoring the many liberal statements of Williamson; and applying the only quote from Lefebvre which he can find to the only Williamson scandal which he feels capa-ble of defending: this is what Mr. Johnson must do, hoping that if he can stretch both ends towards each other, they will somehow meet in the middle and can be presented to the world as “the same position”. That is the only way that he can say, with a straight face, that:

“No reasonable Catholic could conclude, in light of this explicit rebuke of the Novus Ordo, that Bishop Williamson was “promoting Novus Ordo Mass attendance.”

In fact, even if there were some doubt over the Mahopac scandal (and there is not), after reading the three Eleison Comments entitled “Novus Ordo Missae” (that’s right, the clue’s in the name..!) none but the most wilfully blind could conclude anything else!

The reason for Eleison Comments being ignored and airbrushed out of history is plain and obvious. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Akins, and the one or two other people out there who wish to defend Bishop Williamson, must either re-interpret that man’s words or hide them from their audience. They can only afford to selectively quote the man whom they wish to defend. Once his own words enter the discussion, they are done for. It must not be allowed happen.

That our hands are not bound in this way give us “Pharisees” an important advantage over men like Mr. Johnson. It is also an important difference in our approach. We at least take Bishop Williamson at his word and do him the courtesy of believing him when he says he thinks something. We assume that Bishop Williamson’s words mean what they say. He really does think that the new religion can be used to build your faith, that the New Mass is ambiguous and can be what you make of it, that not every priest or every faithful should leave the Novus Ordo, that it is dangerous to distance yourself from the conciliar church, and so forth. Others have claimed that the bishop “was awkward in expressing himself” or that he made “a few awkward comments.” The not-very-amusing irony here is that, in their attempt to empty his words of their obvious meaning, these would-be defenders of Bishop William-son are reduced to painting him as some sort of prattling, senile buffoon who cannot be relied on to make himself clear, who is continually having mishaps and always ends up being misunderstood and misrepresented. It is Bishop Williamson’s critics who are treating him with the respect he deserves by assuming that he meant to say what he in fact said.

Mr. Johnson, by contrast, cannot see anything “awkward” or in any way potentially mislead-ing in Bishop Williamson’s words and, as mentioned before, presumes to lecture the rest of the world about their “doctrinal correctness.” Throughout his ‘Catechism’ he makes such amusing claims as:

“Bishop Williamson opposes the Novus Ordo Missae every bit as much in 2016 as he (or Archbishop Lefebvre) did in 1988.”


“That at worst, Bishop Williamson could be charged with a minor imprudence in choos-ing to tackle a complex issue publicly, which was sure to be capitalized upon (and dis-torted) by his adversaries, and misunderstood or confused by the simple faithful.”

Again, this seems for all the world to be being said with a straight face. Ought we, perhaps, in charity, to assume that, like Mr. Akins, Mr. Johnson has not been reading his Eleison Comments either? Useless to point out that it is Bishop Williamson himself who succeeded in creating “adversaries” out of people who not long ago were his friends and allies, by saying things with which they cannot in conscience agree.


A great deal more could be said, but it is painful reading it, let alone writing about it. The witticism that “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” has never seemed more apt. Mr. Johnson’s ‘Catechism’ is a fine example of a layman trying his hand at a question which many priests and bishops have wrestled with, and managing to get totally the wrong end of the proverbial stick. It is also a fine example of what happens when a layman significantly overestimates his own importance or capabilities, and finally of what happens when “Bishop Williamson is right” goes from being the conclusion to being the premise. Every layman ought to realise, especially those Traditional Catholics who enjoy writing on internet forums: laymen should not try their hand at dabbling in Theology, Canon Law and so on, and should seek the advice and defer to the judgement of priests first. Now, before anyone jumps in, let me say that I apply all this talk of “laymen” to myself first of all: it is why I am so painfully aware of it! And let me further point out that the security of being able to ask a trusted priest is one of the many tragic casualties of the latest depths of the crisis; that even if we have the world’s most reliable, intelligent and holy priest to ask, we should still keep our eyes open and our brain switched on and seek to understand for ourselves rather than letting others do the thinking for us; and that this entire ghastly episode is brought about by the fall of a bish-op whom so many thought they could trust, but who has departed from the clear path laid out by his spiritual father, Archbishop Lefebvre. Thus Mr. Johnson is not entirely the one at fault when he tries his hand at a spot of Theology. He is a casualty of Bishop Williamson, to that extent, as are we all in one way or another. Every time I produce another issue of The Recu-sant, I am appalled that a layman should feel the need to write these things; but I only write when I perceive a need to be filled and cannot see any writing by a priest to fill it.

What I do blame Mr. Johnson for is his apparent guile and lack of candour. If you are going to make an argument, make it properly. Quote the whole sentence. Draw your conclusions from what the quote actually says, not what you have imagined it to say. And even if you think that you have understood the Council of Trent correctly, at least hold back a little from publicly condemning priests as heretics, just in case you’ve got it wrong somewhere. What I hold against Mr. Johnson is the painful absence of shame in his approach. His confidence would be terrifying to behold even if it were justified.

“Know Thyself!”

Let us finish on a good laugh. Towards the end of his 34 pages, Mr. Johnson pretends to “refute” the following objection (which one suspects is true):

“‘You are just one of Bishop Williamson’s defenders, and your whole article is motivat-ed by human respect for a bishop who is obviously in error. You are just towing the party line!’

...to which his modest response is:

If you will consider the matter, it should occur to you that my article has been, from the first to last, based completely on doctrine. Nowhere in 34 pages of argument will you find an appeal to arguments suggestive of human respect (e.g., Appeals to authority; outrage at the subversion and division the erroneous arguments of Bishop Williamson’s opponents are creating within the Resistance; ad hominems against His Excellency’s opponents; appealing for gratitude for all His Excellency has done in the past; etc.).”

Ad hominems against His Excellency’s opponents? Never! Whatever might give one that idea? Here are the closing words of his entire article:

“Where Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko have travelled outside the Anglo-Saxon world, the seeds of division they have tried to sow have not born the fruit they hoped to harvest. But in the Anglo-Saxon world, ahh….what fertile soil!”

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, 8/11/1979)



[To many of our readers, the late Fr. Gregory Hesse needs no introduction. An Austrian by birth, he held doctorates in both Theology and Canon Law and was secretary of Cardinal Stickler before becoming a priest-friend of the SSPX. He died in 2006. Requiescat in pace. The many videos of his talks available on Youtube are highly recommended.]

Fr. Gregory Hesse on attending the New Mass
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaGLel1_uXY (33m ff.)​

Interviewer: If I as a Catholic go to the New Mass from Vatican II, and I receive Holy Communion and stay for the New Mass and go home, I had said my confession in a proper manner and received Holy Communion in the New Mass –was that a valid sacrifice in turn-ing bread and wine into the body and blood…?

Fr. Hesse: The question is not if it was valid or not, that doesn’t even concern us in a certain sense. The point is, in the Council of Trent, the 7th session, Canon XIII on the Sacra-ments in general, it says: whosoever says that the Traditionally handed down rites, used in the solemn administration of the sacraments can be either held in disdain or can be shortened or can be changed into new rites by any one of the pastors whomsoever, anathema sit. Mind you, in those days, the Council Fathers still knew Latin. At Vatican II they didn’t know Lat-in. At Trent the knew Latin very well. They did not make a mistake when they used the word quicumque in the literal sense, “...aut in novos alios per quemcumque Ecclesiarum Pastorem mutari posse, anathema sit.” “quemcumque” [whosoever] allows no exception, it includes the Pope. And yet Paul VI came up with a new Protestant rite that was also written by six Protestant pastors who were present, but the point is that he did it, and the point is that this way he committed a schismatic act because that’s an act against the unity of the Church.

Now, publishing a schismatic rite is bad enough in itself. Don’t forget that until Vatican II you were not allowed to satisfy your Sunday duty attending a Russian Orthodox or Greek orthodox Mass. Now, ever since the Great Schism in 1054 the Church has recognised the validity all the seven sacraments in both the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Ortho-dox Church. So the Church has recognised ever since the Great Schism that every single Russian Orthodox Mass presumably is valid. But you are still not allowed to satisfy your Sunday duty there, for a simple reason. The Russian Orthodox deny the Papal Infallibility, they deny the authority of the Pope, they deny the Immaculate Conception, they deny the Assumption. They deny all the Councils except seven or four; they fight each other [over whether to] accept the first seven or the first four Ecumenical Councils. They are heretics and schismatics, so you can’t go there. How can you fulfil your Sunday duty by attending an act that’s not pleasing to God? It’s absurd!

Now the new Mass, the so-called “New Mass” of Paul VI, not only is schismatic, as you can see from the Council of Trent and what else I’ve said, it is also doubtful because of the trans-lation of the words [for] the consecration of the wine. It is a doubtful sacrament. Blessed Pope Innocent XI - you can check that in DS.2101, I remember that because a famous Viennese street car’s got the same number! - anyway, in that sentence Pope Innocent XI con-demns the theory that for pastoral reasons you could go to doubtful sacraments. So you can’t go there because it’s schismatic. You also can’t go there because it is doubtful. And that’s why, as Archbishop Lefebvre of blessed memory said you’d rather stay home than go to the New Mass.

What does the third commandment say? Does it say: “Go to Mass!”..? No, it says: “Sanctify Sunday.” The Church determines that you have to go to Mass, therefore the Church has to provide. Wherever the Church doesn’t provide, you’re excused. You’re not excused from the Sunday duty, you’ve got to something, say a special rosary, read the Sunday Missal. What about somebody who does research in Antarctica? There aint no chapel in there. And once he’s there for the winter, he’s stuck there for six months. Is he in mortal sin because he doesn’t go to Mass? No, of course not. He can still sanctify Sunday.

* * * * *​

The Roman Missal cannot be considered a mere disciplinary law. It is much more than that, it is way above any discipline. The Roman Missal is the number one law of what has to be prayed, because Holy Mass is the number one prayer. Therefore, when Pius V said “This Missal cannot be changed and this decree confirming that is irreformable,” he did in fact bind his successors. I ask you, is this my interpretation or is that the Popes’? Well I showed you, that is the Papal interpretation because even John XXIII did not dare to take out Quo Primum, or the decree followed by Clement VIII or the decree by Urban VIII. He did not dare to replace these documents. That means that even John XXIII visibly thought that he was bound by his predecessor’s decrees. That makes 400 years of Popes who “felt” that they were bound. Of course the Popes didn’t just have a “feeling” about it - leave the “feelings” in California! In the Vatican you have theologians to discuss things like that. Every single Pope, before he writes a decree, will ask his Cardinals and his theologians on how to write it. Very few Popes were ever proud enough to think that they could single-handedly write decrees.

That shows you why the new rite which Paul VI himself called: “Novus Ordo Missae,” the “New Order of Mass,” is not a work of the Church. And it cannot be considered the Latin Roman Rite, because the Latin Roman Rite is bound in the old Roman Missal. So what do you call it? Well I call it a schismatic new rite. What does schism mean? Schisma in Greek means a cut. You cut yourself off from the Church. You do not split the Church as John-Paul II says or wants you to believe. You cut yourself off from the Church, you leave the Chruch in short. A “schismatic act” is not necessarily a formal schismatic act by declaration, so that you can be considered a schismatic, but it is something that cuts off something with the Church. Now against Church Tradition and against the Council of Trent, against Quo Primum and against the interpretation of 400 years of Papacy, Paul VI wrote up a new rite. Therefore, that has to be considered a schismatic rite. If it is a schismatic rite, it cannot be considered the Roman Rite.


[Transcribed from an excellent talk given at the Resistance conference in London, 2nd June 2013, a video of which can be found at the link below. The whole talks is well worth a lesson, though for reasons of space we have been able to include only part of it…]

Fr. Paul Kramer on the New Mass

It is the teaching of the Popes and it has been the constant teaching of the Church that the legitimate growth of the liturgical rites, the legitimate development of the rites - because from the time of the Apostles up until the Middle Ages and down through the centuries and down through the millennia, there has been a development, a growth of the liturgy, like the acorn that grows into the tree - it is an organic development. And the Popes have taught that this kind of organic development is the only legitimate development of liturgy, so that the rite is preserved, it grows as one organism: as the sapling grows into a great tree, it is the self-same organism. Even the Second Vatican Council, speaking on liturgy, spoke of the neces-sity of organic development.

But when the lunatics took over the asylum, it’s like they wanted to hatch a test-tube baby and let it grow to adulthood. But the only problem with that is it takes too long, because the Revolution called for instant change. So they threw away the test-tube and they built a robot. And they called that an ‘organic development.’

The men who created the Novus Ordo of Mass, the members of that commission called the ‘Concilium’ set up by Pope Paul VI to fabricate the new liturgy - and fabricate they did! - one of the principal fabricators of the new rite of Mass was a man by the name of Gelineau, Fr. Joseph Gelineau. And he wrote quite explicitly: “The Roman Rite has been destroyed!” Of course, he knew. Who could know better than one of the men who destroyed it himself? It is not the Roman Rite. There is some vestige of it left, but the say the truth, “the Roman Rite no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

Pope Paul VI, on 19th November 1969 announced that there would be introduced into the liturgy of the Latin Church a new rite of Mass. No, this would not be some organic, fine-tuned revision or adaptation of the Roman Rite. No. It is a new rite of Mass. It is no longer the Roman Rite of Mass. And there is a problem there, because the dogma of the Faith infal-libly teaches that this cannot be done.

The Modernist objection I always hear is: “No, that’s discipline, not dogma. Liturgy is disci-pline, not dogma.” Well, the discipline of the Church must be conducted according to the guidelines of dogma insofar as dogma lays down those guidelines concerning the liturgy. So we see already, from the time of Pope St. Agatho, the Popes taking a solemn oath to preserve the liturgy of the Church, undiminished, unaltered. And that became even more solemnly formalised in the Profession to be made by the Pope prescribed by the Ecumenical Council of Constance in Session XXXIX. And Session XXXIX explains that, since the Pope has so great a power over the faithful, he must solemnly profess that he’s going to keep the Faith unaltered and the liturgical rites to be preserved unaltered. That the Church is bound to the received and approved rites, the Traditional Rites. The whole Church: not just the priests, not just the faithful, not just the bishops, the Cardinals, the Pope - the whole Church is bound, by the law of God defined by the Church infallibly, to the Traditional Rites. That’s why the Popes for so many centuries swore that they would not dilute or change the Sacred Liturgy. And the Council of Constance declared infallibly declared that the Church is bound to the Traditional Rites. They cannot be done away with, they cannot be reformed into new rites. If anyone says that they can be reformed into new rites, or that they can be dispensed with, or that they can be despised, that is declared by the Church to be a heresy.

“Receptos quoque et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in supradictorum omnium Sacramentorum solemni administratione recipio et admitto. “
[“I also receive and admit the accepted and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.”]​

That is the Tridentine Profession of Faith. This is the Profession of Fatih of 13th November, 1564, a solemn Profession of Faith issued by Pope Pius IV in the Bull Iunctum Nobis where the adherence to the Traditional Rites is solemnly professed. On this dogmatic, doctrinal basis therefore, we have the formulation of the dogmatic Canon, in Session VII, Canon XIII of the Council of Trent:

“Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in sollemni sacra-mentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari pos-se: anathema sit!”

So what the solemn anathema declares to be a heresy is for anyone to say “that the Tradition-al Rites, the received and approved Rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be despised” - well, the Rites are certainly despised in our own time! - “or that they can be freely omitted by the ministers,” as if it becomes a matter of preference: The Novus Ordo is alright! We prefer the Old Rite, but we’ll consider the Novus Ordo legiti-mate; it’s been legitimately promulgated, so it’s alright, we have no objection to it. Let the rest of the Church use the New Rite, but we have our emotional attachment to the old Rite so we want to keep to that… Anyone who says that, according to this dogmatic Canon of the Church, falls into heresy.

“...aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse.” ‘Or if any eccle-siastical pastor, whosoever’ - and considering that the Church has already defined that the entire Church, including the Pope, is bound to the Traditional Rites, the Council of Trent’s decree is to be understood according to the dogmatic pronouncements of the past, the constant dogmatic teaching of the Church, that “any pastor of churches whosoever” is to be understood as including the Pope himself, because of the profession of the Council of Constance.

Whenever I quote this Canon, I’m always told by some Modernist who thinks himself to be enlightened: “Well, that’s just you’re interpretation. That just refers to the hierarchy under the Pope. Since the Pope has the authority to regulate the liturgy, it doesn’t apply to him.” Well no, sorry dear Modernist, but the Church has already defined that the Pope principally, more than anybody else the Pope is bound to the Traditional Rites. That’s the Council of Constance. And so this is the Council of Trent saying that if anyone says that the Traditional Rites can be changed into New Rites, that proposition is heresy. And so it has constantly been taught in the Church, in the most approved teaching of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church, men like Juan de Torquemada, who was the Papal theologian of Pope Eugenius IV and he was officially the theologian of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and Fransico Suarez after him, the excellent and pious doctor, explained that those who would carry out in practice that heretical proposition of changing the Rites, that if the Pope were to change the Rites, then the Pope himself would fall into schism. It is essentially a schismatic act. And it is rooted in heresy, the solemnly declared heresy that it is permissible to change the Traditional Rites into new rites: that is heresy. And what did Pope Paul VI declare in 1969? “In November of this year, there will be introduced into the Latin liturgy of the Church a New Rite of Mass.”

So then the Modernist will point out: “Well, it is the grace of office that would preserve the Pope from promulgating for the whole Church an illicit rite. It cannot be!” But one who would say this is either dishonest or has not carefully read the document Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI. Because in Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, we see I the title “promulgation” - promulgation. What is the essence of law? Promulgation is one of the es-sential characteristics of what constitutes a law. If there’s no promulgation, there’s no law. The document is lacking the form and substance of promulgation. The Missal of Paul VI was never promulgated by Paul VI.

You had the solemn promulgation of the Roman Missal by St. Pius V, and there it is explicit-ly stated that this Missal is to be used by these subjects, with those exceptions and all other Missals are to be utterly discarded. So: who is subject to the law, what exactly is being bound in conscience, with statutory force of law: that is all spelled out explicitly in the most tersely worded, clear legal Latin imaginable. That is promulgation. It’s not a law if it’s not percep-tive in its wording. If the law does not command something under obligation and penalty, it does not have the force of law. It’s simply not a law. And without that having been formal-ised and the very substance of the law enacted as binding, you do not have the promulgation of law. You do not have the substance and the form of law, it is lacking.

So Paul VI used the word “promulgation” in the title of a document of a title that doesn’t promulgate anything! Read it carefully. Just imagine if Pope Pius XII had been forgetful when he solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption. If you were to have the Papal Bull, setting out to solemnly define the dogma of the Assumption, if you had the entire document from beginning to end exactly as it is worded. But if just that one sentence were left out, where he says: “By our Apostolic Authority we define and declare that the Blessed Virgin Mary was body and soul assumed into Heaven.” If that line had been left out, it wouldn’t be a defined dogma of the Faith. Even if the title at the top of the page says that this is a dogmatic definition, there’s no dogmatic definition in the document if that line is left out. The critical line has to be there! Without it, there is just no definition, and likewise with the promulgation, that clause which says: “By Our Apostolic Authority, we establish and decree that this Missal is henceforth to be used in the churches of the Roman Rite” - something like that does not appear at all.

What Paul VI did was, he used a deceptive formula. He did something. “What we have decreed in this document is given the force of law…” What we have decreed - well, what did he decree? Ask the question. “What we have decreed…” What have you decreed, Pope Montini? Well, he decreed two things. He decreed that three new Eucharistic Prayers are to be added to this Missal. And he decreed that there is one formula of Consecration which is to be the same for all four Eucharistic Prayers. So what he decreed simply refered to what was to be published in the Missal. The document is not the promulgation of a rite, it is a publica-tion of a missal. That’s all Missale Romanum ever was. He gave force of law to the publish-ing of the missal of his New Rite of Mass. How does this affect the discipline of the Church? In no way at all.

Were they aware of this defect? Oh yes they were! Because there’s something very anoma-lous. You open up the Novus Ordo missal and there you see, very proudly displayed, Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, “promulgation,” there’s the document, it doesn’t promulgate anything, it just publishes the missal. It authorised the publication of the missal, that’s all. Turn the page and what do you see? A decree signed by [Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship] Cardinal Gut: “Promulgation…” How is it that the Missal had to be prom-ulgated twice? Well, because the first promulgation was ‘colour of law,’ it had no form or substance, it was nothing, it was not a promulgation. So even from the formalistic legal sense, it was entirely illegal for anyone to use Paul VI’s Missal. Even if it were not against the dogma of the Faith, Session VII, Canon XIII of the Council of Trent, even if that were not a dogma of the Faith - let’s say that it’s morally and dogmatically permissible to abolish the rites and create new rites, and that all you need is the legal formality of promulgation. Well, still it was not promulgated.

So Cardinal Gut had to sign a decree promulgating the New Missal. But there’s a problem with that too, because in law, a solemn decree of a Pope cannot be overruled by a Cardinal of the Curia. Even if he is explicitly authorised by the Pope. It has to be a decree of equal so-lemnity to overrule the solemn decree of a Pope. So you have the very solemn decree of Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum, promulgating the Roman Missal, codifying the Rite for the Latin Patriarchate with a few exceptions. And then you have Pope Paul VI telling his Cardinal to overrule Pope St. Pius V’s decree. It cannot be done. […] The principle of law is: inferior non potest tollerelegem superioris. The inferior, the subject, cannot nullify the law of the superior. Cardinal Gut did not possess the authority to overrule the solemn decree of Pope St. Pius V. So the two promulgations of the rite are both invalid. Number one, Pope Paul VI’s promulgation is invalid because it doesn’t promulgate anything. And Cardinal Gut’s promul-gation is invalid because he does not possess the power to overrule the solemn decree of a Pope: even if Pope Paul VI told him to do it, he didn’t have the power to do it.

So, if anyone were to say that the missal and sacramental rites of Paul VI were “legitimately promulgated” - well, it is strictly, according to the teaching of the Church, violating the dogmatic canon, and therefore it is heretical in its very nature to say that these things are legitimate or that they were legitimately promulgated. First of all, they were not promulgat-ed. Secondly, it can never be legitimate to promulgate a rite that changes the Traditional and received rites into other and new rites. This is declared by the Council of Trent to be anathe-ma! And this anathema is exactly what Paul VI carried out into action and forced on the Church, falsely claiming that it had the force of law, when it did not.


Is the Novus Ordo a Catholic Rite
or a Non-Catholic Rite?

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, author of the New Mass:
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from our Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

Max Thurian, Protestant Minister and member of the Commission which created the New Mass:
“With the new liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to separate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.”

Cardinal Ottaviani, former Prefect of the Holy Office:
“The Novus Ordo Mass...represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in session XXII of the Council of Trent.”

Fr. Joseph Gelineau SJ, modernist ‘peritus’ at Vatican II and mem-ber of the Commission which created the New Mass:
“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

Pope Paul VI, introducing the New Mass at a General Audience Address, 26th November 1969:
“Our Dear Sons and Daughters, we ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass … A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries … This novelty is no small thing.”

Archbishop Lefebvre, (8th November 1979):
“These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.”


Whether Protestant or Catholic, Traditionalist or Modernist, in favour of the New Mass or against it - the men who witnessed its birth all agree on one essential point. The New Mass is without precedent and is not Traditional. It is a non-Catholic rite.