traditionalcatholic.net
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition...Flock.html
Letter to his Flock - Saint Athanasius
2 minutes

Letter of Saint Athanasius to his flock:

May God console you! ...What saddens you ...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises-but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.

For those who think Bishop Williamson no longer holds or preaches grave errors, that he might have changed his position, or that most of his material is good, his interview on Friends of Aquinas, with E. Michael, Jones, this month of August, 2022, should be enough to confirm that His Excellency has fallen into further and more grave errors and that, for the love of his soul and those who are influenced by him, we must pray and sacrifice for him and for the fake resistance more than ever. I have heard it said that, perhaps, Bishop Williamson "does not mean to be in error or does not mean what he says" which is to promote the same errors of subjectivism and modernism that he promotes. Whether he means to be in error or not, the fact is that he IS in grave error and must be opposed. He cannot claim ignorance, as he had Archbishop Lefebvre as his teacher and spiritual father whose very reason for founding the SSPX was to oppose what Bishop Williamson now promotes. He also has Fr. Hewko, Fr. Ruiz, Fr. Rafael and several other true Resistant priests who, out of love for his soul, continually remind him of the Truth and his duty to preach it in season and out of season.

For those who say we do not know what Bishop Zendejas is thinking because he is silent, remember that the enemy who keeps his hand hidden is the most dangerous. Furthermore, not to condemn error is to condone it. One can readily see the two bishops working in union together, along with Bishops Faure and Aquinas, who do not tolerate criticism of Bishop Williamson. They ordain priests for the same monasteries and for their fake resistance, and they work together. They allow a discussion forum, filled with slander, calumnies and detraction against clergy, to call itself their official mouthpiece.  We left the SSPX in order not to work with those who are leading us back to apostate Rome through the front door. The fake resistance, through Bishop Williamson, leads souls back to error through a back door. Bishop Williamson, in this very interview, encourages the interviewer to go to his local SSPX priest who will certainly know who the "conservative Novus Ordo priests" are within the diocese in order to make a referral. Bishop Zendejas, to my own knowledge, has told a priest that his brother (also a priest) should remain in the SSPX.  Until he makes known his position and separates himself from the errors of Bishop Williamson, he is equally to be avoided. 

The above mentioned interview can be found here:
Note:  The most grave errors, and there are many, are found in the second hour. My timestamps are not exact, but I have marked the time when said errors begin. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=casxXTtQFPs



1:00:45 - Life is not black and white and, in the Novus Ordo, you've got a measure of black and white. There are a number of decent priests working as such inside the Novus Ordo. Because you've had a bad experience in the Novus Ordo doesn't mean everything is "black". If you look for one somewhere in your area, you'll find a decent Novus Ordo priest who is just waiting to hear properly a young man's confession.

There's a bunch of garbage inside the head of Benedict XVI, but at the same time there's some good will, there always has been and, to this day, there still is in the heart of Benedict XVI good will.

1:05:50 - If you look in your diocese, you'll find a network of at least a handful of young priests looking to say the old Mass. (At this point, the interviewer is appalled and asks if we are to put our souls in danger sifting through the Novus Ordo, hoping to find a decent Novus Ordo priest ....he also questions how this can be possible since the new rite of ordination is doubtful to begin with. He mentions "Mystici Corporis" of Pius XII wherein it is proclaimed that the Faith must be held entire and inviolate, which is not the case with the Novus Ordo. Bishop Williamson says we are in different times! He says that is "objectively" true, but at the time that was written, there was not today's raging subjectivism. Souls of goodwill cannot understand dogma now. How can they profess what they don't know and have never been taught? A lot of Novus Ordo priests have never known tradition. (This is making a totally subjective and impossible judgement as to the state of each priest's goodwill and state of soul.) This is PURE MODERNISM by Bishop Williamson! What he is saying, in so many words, is that TIMES HAVE CHANGED and that THE CONSTANT PRACTICE OF HOLY MOTHER CHURCH NO LONGER APPLIES! It is exactly for times like these that the Church has developed its praxis and admonished the flock never to depart from the received and approved traditions.

1:12:40 - Bishop Williamson's analysis of the validity of the Novus Ordo rites of ordination of priests and consecration of bishops is a further disaster. First off, let us dispose of his discussion of the "intention" of the minister. Pope Leo XIII, in his declaration concerning Anglican ordinations, clearly enunciated the traditional teaching of the Church, which is that the sacraments operate "ex opera operato." That means the sacraments operate independently of the intentions or desires of the minister, so long as the minister performs the sacrament according to the valid formula and ritual. The Church does not, because it cannot, judge the intention, except if a contrary intention is manifested outwardly by. It does not matter whether the bishop in his heart of hearts is Catholic, a heretic, in the state of mortal sin, or a future canonized saint.. So long as he employs proper matter and form, his actions are valid, and to believe or state otherwise is the heresy of Donatism. All of this straining by Bishop Williamson, the fake resistance and the SSPX to determine whether a bishop is orthodox (and, therefore, has Catholic "intentions"), so as to decide whether a priest has been validly ordained, similarly smacks of Donatism.

Bishop Williamson also fails to distinguish that the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration gravely departs from the formula in Sacramentum Ordinis and, therefore, renders those bishops consecrated by said rite as doubtfully valid. Bishop Williamson admits the rite is ambiguous and "dancing on the edge of invalidity", but then says the immediate context can settle ambiguity.

1:19:20 - The interviewer states he will only receive sacraments from certainly valid priests who are also not imposing any heresy. Bishop Williamson says again that you can look for an older priest in your diocese and that you'll also find a network of young priests who, in private, will tell you what they really think...they want tradition.

1:23 - The poor interviewer objects again that Vatican II is a protestant religion where people believe abortion and homosexuality are okay in some circumstances...and you're telling me to wade in this cesspool to maybe find a priest to hear my confession? This Church is fake, protestant, communist!

1:29:00 - Bishop Williamson says the Novus Ordo is a half poisoned cake. But if it's only half poisoned, that means there's a half that's not poisoned and, if you use your mind, you can distinguish what is poison and what is not. (Yes, he really said that. What happened to one tiny drop of poison in a glass of water is enough to kill?)

1:30 - This begins a discussion of his firm believe in Novus Ordo Eucharistic "miracles". Bishop Williamson adamantly defends them as true, which leads to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is certainly valid and that "there is grace in the Novus Ordo". It was always the practice of the Church to put these miracles through a rigid test and research, and only the legitimate Church authorities (prior to Vatican II, of course) could rule on them. The devil also has been given power to work miracles, and could it not be possible that he is using this means to lead souls into error? 

1:36 - Does one have to stay absolutely away from the Novus Ordo? Bishop Williamson answers, "no". You can drive around your diocese and look for a priest. He then says your local SSPX priest will probably know conservative Novus Ordo priests and recommends you ask him!

1:43 - He states that the spirit of God is still at work inside of the rotten Church.
He prromotes Garabandal, another questionable and unapproved apparition.

1:43 - The spirit of God is still at work inside of the rotten church

The Psychology of Totalitarianism

Quote:“In the beginning of the Corona crisis, back in February 2020, I started to study the statistics on the mortality rates of the virus, the infection fatality rates, the case fatality rate and so on, and immediately, I got the impression — and with me, several world-famous statisticians, such as John Ioannidis of Stanford, for instance — that the statistics and mathematical models used dramatically overrated the danger of the virus.

Immediately, I wrote an opinion paper trying to bring some of the mistakes to people’s attention. But, I noticed immediately that people just didn’t want to know. It was as if they didn’t see even the most blatant mistakes at the level of the statistics that were used. People just were not capable of seeing it.”

Quote:“Another very specific characteristic is that this process of mass formation makes people willing to radically sacrifice everything that is important to them — even their health, their wealth, the health of their children, the future of their children.

When someone is in the grip of a process of mass formation, he becomes radically willing to sacrifice all his individual interest. A third characteristic, to name only a few, is that once people are in the grip of a process of mass formation, they typically show a tendency of cruelty towards people who do not buy into the narrative, or do not go along with the narrative. They typically do so as if it is an ethical duty.

In the end, they are typically inclined, first, to stigmatize, and then, to eliminate, to destroy, the people who do not go along with the masses.

And that’s why it is so extremely important to understand the psychological mechanisms at work, because if you understand the mechanisms at work, you can avoid the mass formation to become so deep that people reach this critical point in which they really are fanatically convinced that they should destroy everyone that does not go along with them.

So, it’s extremely important to understand the mechanism. If you understand it, you can make sure that the crowd, the mass, will first destroy itself, or will exhaust itself, before it starts to destroy the people that do not go along with the mass.

So, it’s of crucial importance, and that’s what my book describes. It describes how a mass, a crowd, emerges in a society, under which conditions it emerges, what the mechanisms of the process of mass formation are, and what you can do about it. That’s extremely important. I will mention this from the beginning.

Usually, it is impossible to wake up the masses. Once a process of mass formation emerges in a society, it’s extremely difficult to wake the masses up. But, [waking them up is] important, [because] you can avoid the masses and their leaders becoming so fanatically convinced of their narrative that they start to destroy the people who do not go along with them.”

Quote:“Even while I know the mechanisms at work, I’m still baffled every time it happens,” Desmet says. “I almost can’t believe what I see. I know someone whose husband died a few days after the vaccine, during his sleep, from a heart attack.

And I thought, ‘Now she will open her eyes and wake up.’ Not at all. She just continued in the same fanatic way — even more fanatic — talking about how happy we should be because we have this vaccine. Unbelievable, yes.”

1. Widespread loneliness and lack of social bonding, which leads to:
   
2. Experiencing life as meaningless, purposeless and senseless, and/or being faced with persistent circumstances that don’t make rational sense, which leads to:
   
3. Widespread free-floating anxiety and discontent (anxiety/discontent that has no apparent or distinct cause), which leads to:
   
4. Widespread free-floating frustration and aggression (frustration and aggression have no discernible cause), which results in feeling out of control
   

Quote:“Social isolation, lack of meaning, free floating anxiety, frustration and aggression are highly aversive because if people feel anxious, without knowing what they feel anxious for, they typically feel out of control. They feel they cannot protect themselves from their anxiety.

And, if under these conditions a narrative is distributed through the mass media, indicating an object of anxiety, and at the same time, providing a strategy to deal with the object of anxiety, then all this free-floating anxiety might connect to the object of anxiety.

And, there might be a huge willingness to participate in a strategy to deal with the object of anxiety, no matter how absurd the strategy is. So, even if it is clear from the beginning — for everyone who wants to see it — that the strategy to deal with the object of anxiety might claim many more victims than the object of anxiety itself … even then, there might be this huge willingness to participate in a strategy to deal with the object of anxiety.

That is the first step of every major mechanism of mass formation. Whether it concerned the Crusades, or the witch hunts, or the French Revolution, or the beginning of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, we see the same mechanism, time and time again.

There is a lot of free-floating anxiety. Someone provides a narrative that indicates an object of anxiety and a strategy to deal with it. And then all the anxiety connects to the [proposed] object of anxiety.

People participate in a strategy to deal with the object of anxiety that yields a first important psychological advantage, and from then on people have the impression that they can control their anxiety. It’s connected to an object and they have a strategy to deal with it.”

Quote:“This explains, for instance, why during the Corona crisis, everybody was talking about solidarity, but people accepted that if someone got into an accident on the street, you were no longer allowed to help that person unless you had a surgical mask and gloves at your disposal.

That also explains why, while everybody was talking about solidarity, people accepted that if their father or mother was dying, they were not allowed to visit them,” Desmet says.

Quote:“So, that’s the problem with mass formation,” Desmet says. “It’s solidarity of the individual with the collective, and never with other individuals. That explains what happened during the revolution in Iran, for instance. I talked with a woman who lived in Iran during the revolution, which was actually the beginning of a totalitarian regime in Iran.

She witnessed, with her own eyes, how a mother reported her son to the government, and how she hung the rope around his neck just before he died, and how she claimed to be a heroine for doing so. That’s the dramatic effects of mass formation.”

Quote:“The first and foremost principle the resistance has to stick to during a process of mass formation and emerging totalitarianism, is that people who do not go along with the masses have to continue to speak out. That’s the most crucial thing.

As totalitarianism is based on mass formation, and mass formation is a kind of hypnosis, the mass formation is always provoked by the voice of the leader, which keeps the population in a process of hypnosis. And when dissonant voices continue to speak out, they will not be able to wake the masses up, but they will constantly disturb the process of mass formation.

They will constantly interfere with the hypnosis. If there are people who continue to speak out, the mass formation will usually not become so deep that there is a willingness in the population to destroy the people who do not go along with the masses. That’s crucial.

Historically speaking, if you look at what happened in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany, it’s clear that it was exactly at the moment when the opposition stopped to speak out in public that the totalitarian system started to become cruel.

In 1930, in the Soviet Union, the opposition stopped to speak out, and within six to eight months, Stalin started his large purges, which claimed tens of millions of victims. And then, in 1935, exactly the same happened in Nazi Germany.

The opposition was silenced, or stopped to speak out. They preferred to go underground. They were thinking that they were dealing with a classical dictatorship, but they were not. They were dealing with something completely different. They were dealing with a totalitarian state.

And by deciding to go underground, it was a fatal decision for themselves. So, also in Nazi Germany, within a period of one year after the opposition stopped to speak out in public, the cruelty started and the system started to destroy first its opponents. That’s always the same.

In the first stage, totalitarian systems or the masses start to attack those who do not go along with them. But, after a while, they just start to attack and to destroy everyone, group after group.

And, in the Soviet Union, where the process of mass formation went very far, much further than in Nazi Germany, Stalin started to eliminate the aristocracy, the small farmers, the large farmers, the goldsmiths, the Jews, all people who according to him would never become good communists.

But after a while, he just started to eliminate group after group without any logic. Just everyone. So, that’s why Hannah Arendt said that a totalitarian state is always a monster that devours its own children. And that destructive process starts when people stop to speak out.

That’s probably the reason why, in the beginning of the 20th century, there were several countries where there was mass formation, but where there was never a full-fledged totalitarian state.

Probably, there were enough people who didn’t shut up, who continued to speak out. That’s something that is so crucial to understand. When mass formation emerges, people typically feel that it doesn’t make sense to speak out because people don’t wake up. People don’t seem sensitive to their rational counter arguments.

But, we should never forget that speaking out has an immediate effect. Maybe not that it wakes the masses up, but that it disturbs the process of mass formation and the hypnosis. And in that way, prevents the masses from becoming highly destructive towards the people who do not go along with them.

Something else also happens. The masses start to exhaust themselves. They start to destroy themselves before they start to destroy the people who do not go along with them. So, that’s the strategy to be used for internal resistance towards totalitarian regimes.”

Quote:“In the end, the ultimate challenge is not so much to show people that the coronavirus was not as dangerous as we expected, or that the COVID narrative is wrong, but rather that this ideology is problematic — this transhumanist and this technocratic ideology is a disaster for humanity; this mechanistic thinking, this belief that the universe and man is a kind of material mechanistic system, which should be steered and manipulated in a mechanistic technocratic transhumanist way.

That’s the ultimate challenge: to show people that in the end, a transhumanist view on man and the world will entail radical dehumanization of our society. So, I think that’s the real challenge we are facing. Showing people, ‘Look, forget for a moment about the Corona narrative.

What we are heading for if we continue in the same way, is a radically, technologically controlled transhumanist society, which will leave no space whatsoever for life for a human being.”

Quote:“Then, if we want to succeed, we will have to think about parallel structures which can allow us to be a little bit self sufficient. We can try to make sure that we don’t need the system too much anymore. But, even these parallel structures would be destroyed in a moment if the people do not continue to speak out. So, that’s the crucial.

I try to bring this to the attention of everyone. We can build parallel structures as much as we want, but if the system becomes too destructive and decides to use it’s full aggressive potential, then the parallel structures will be destroyed. But, the system will never reach this level of depth of the hypnosis if there are dissonant voices that continue to speak out. So, I’m very dedicated myself to continue to speak out.”