<![CDATA[The Catacombs - True vs. False Resistance]]> https://thecatacombs.org/ Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:47:54 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[The Recusant: Fr. Joseph Onuorah Joins the Resistance!]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7846 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 19:43:15 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7846 The Recusant, Issue #65 - Epiphany 2026:

Divine Providence leads a priest out of the Fake Resistance to the real thing, Deo Gratias!


Fr. Joseph Onuorah Joins the Resistance!

Dear Editor,

My name is Rev. Fr Joseph Onuorah. I am a Nigerian Traditional Latin Mass Priest of SSPX Resistance. I was ordained a Catholic priest in Onitsha Archdiocesan novus ordo diocese in Nigeria on 16th July 2016, the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. It was two years after my ordination that I discovered the Traditional Latin Mass and I wrote to my novus ordo bishop that having discovered this Mass of all time that I would like to join them. He actually did not want me to join Traditional Latin Mass because according to him and the diocesan Chancellor, Traditional Latin Mass groups have splinter units and they are outside the Church according to the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Pope John Paul II after the 1988 consecration of 4 bishops. However I insisted in joining Traditional Latin Mass group and he said that he gave me time to think about it and pray over it. I thought about it and prayed over it before the Blessed Sacrament, saying my Rosaries and Masses and after about 40 days prayers, my heart was still at peace remaining with Traditional Latin Mass group. So I officially left novus ordo in December 2018 and in June 2019 they published my name in the diocesan newspaper and some national dailies.

Meanwhile, by that time I did not know the differences between mainstream SSPX, SSPX Resistance/Marian Corps, FSSP, Sedevacantists, etc. In the initial stage I thought that they were all one under the umbrella of Traditional Latin Mass of the Catholic Church. I discovered the differences when I joined SSPX Resistance. I tried to join mainstream SSPX in Nigeria in 2017 but the priest I met told me that they do not accept novus ordo priests as at that time.

Then a priest referred me to SSPX Resistance, and I came in contact with Fr Juan Ortiz and Bishop Williamson. Fr Juan Ortiz lectured me in moral theology and other courses for almost two years. He helped provide the vestments and books for Traditional Latin Mass. After our lectures, he wrote to Bishop Williamson to give me conditional ordination and Bishop Williamson sent me to Bishop Tomas Aquinas de Ferreira in Brazil and I received my conditional ordination on 31st May 2021 at Holy Cross Monastery Brazil. We were three priests who received the conditional ordination but on coming back to Nigeria, one left and went back to novus ordo after about two months. So that is how I remained with Bishop Williamson’s group of SSPX Resistance.

On the issue of the positions of bishop Williamson on the new Mass, Vatican II council, etc, I was totally disappointed when I heard it. It didn’t go down well with me at all. Fr Juan Ortiz had given us many Traditional books including the Biography of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier. I read the Archbishop Lefebvre’s biography, and his stand about the new Mass, the new ordination rites and how all the Sacraments were changed, the essence being removed and not just the accidence, Vatican II council and others major doctrines of the Catholic Church heavily affected, just heart breaking. I have also listened to his conferences and his
stand is very clear and firm. So I am fully standing firmly, shoulder to shoulder with the teachings of our beloved Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre which is the perennial teachings of the Traditional Catholic Church. And that is exactly what I am teaching here in my mission in Nigeria.

In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam per Mariam]]> The Recusant, Issue #65 - Epiphany 2026:

Divine Providence leads a priest out of the Fake Resistance to the real thing, Deo Gratias!


Fr. Joseph Onuorah Joins the Resistance!

Dear Editor,

My name is Rev. Fr Joseph Onuorah. I am a Nigerian Traditional Latin Mass Priest of SSPX Resistance. I was ordained a Catholic priest in Onitsha Archdiocesan novus ordo diocese in Nigeria on 16th July 2016, the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. It was two years after my ordination that I discovered the Traditional Latin Mass and I wrote to my novus ordo bishop that having discovered this Mass of all time that I would like to join them. He actually did not want me to join Traditional Latin Mass because according to him and the diocesan Chancellor, Traditional Latin Mass groups have splinter units and they are outside the Church according to the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Pope John Paul II after the 1988 consecration of 4 bishops. However I insisted in joining Traditional Latin Mass group and he said that he gave me time to think about it and pray over it. I thought about it and prayed over it before the Blessed Sacrament, saying my Rosaries and Masses and after about 40 days prayers, my heart was still at peace remaining with Traditional Latin Mass group. So I officially left novus ordo in December 2018 and in June 2019 they published my name in the diocesan newspaper and some national dailies.

Meanwhile, by that time I did not know the differences between mainstream SSPX, SSPX Resistance/Marian Corps, FSSP, Sedevacantists, etc. In the initial stage I thought that they were all one under the umbrella of Traditional Latin Mass of the Catholic Church. I discovered the differences when I joined SSPX Resistance. I tried to join mainstream SSPX in Nigeria in 2017 but the priest I met told me that they do not accept novus ordo priests as at that time.

Then a priest referred me to SSPX Resistance, and I came in contact with Fr Juan Ortiz and Bishop Williamson. Fr Juan Ortiz lectured me in moral theology and other courses for almost two years. He helped provide the vestments and books for Traditional Latin Mass. After our lectures, he wrote to Bishop Williamson to give me conditional ordination and Bishop Williamson sent me to Bishop Tomas Aquinas de Ferreira in Brazil and I received my conditional ordination on 31st May 2021 at Holy Cross Monastery Brazil. We were three priests who received the conditional ordination but on coming back to Nigeria, one left and went back to novus ordo after about two months. So that is how I remained with Bishop Williamson’s group of SSPX Resistance.

On the issue of the positions of bishop Williamson on the new Mass, Vatican II council, etc, I was totally disappointed when I heard it. It didn’t go down well with me at all. Fr Juan Ortiz had given us many Traditional books including the Biography of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier. I read the Archbishop Lefebvre’s biography, and his stand about the new Mass, the new ordination rites and how all the Sacraments were changed, the essence being removed and not just the accidence, Vatican II council and others major doctrines of the Catholic Church heavily affected, just heart breaking. I have also listened to his conferences and his
stand is very clear and firm. So I am fully standing firmly, shoulder to shoulder with the teachings of our beloved Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre which is the perennial teachings of the Traditional Catholic Church. And that is exactly what I am teaching here in my mission in Nigeria.

In Jesus, Mary and Joseph,

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam per Mariam]]> <![CDATA[Selling Out the Faith for a 1988 Big Wheel]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7676 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:18:44 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7676 Selling Out the Faith for a 1988 Big Wheel
How Burke and Trad Inc are trading twenty years of silence for the privilege of parking the old Mass back in the bishop’s garage

Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile | Nov 14, 2025


The Day the Resistance Threw a Party

Michael Matt logged on today to tell us the good news.

Latin Mass on side altars in St Peter’s. Rumors of Leo “allowing bishops to decide for themselves” about the TLM. The Remnant followed up with an editorial trumpeting the return of the Mass to “the Pope’s basilica” as the beginning of a glorious loosening of restrictions. Keep praying. Keep hoping. The Mass will not be denied.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1080.jpeg]

If you just woke up from a coma that started in 1970, you might think you were reading The Remnant circa 1988. Rome grants a carefully controlled indult, keeps all the doctrinal novelties, and the house journal of conservative resistance declares a step in the right direction.

The only problem is that it is not 1988. It is 2025, Fran­cis is canonized and enthroned as Leo’s patron saint, Amoris and Fiducia are in force, Tucho runs doctrine, and bishops who bless sodomy and toy with women’s ordination are promoted while traditional communities are expelled from dioceses.

And in that context, the “traditional” media class is preparing to sell the last of its credibility for the same miserable indult it once denounced.


The Big Wheel From 1988

Back in the day, Ecclesia Dei gave us what traditionalists now remember as the 1988 indult. In reality it was not a sports car, it was a plastic Big Wheel. Bishops could, at their discretion, let you pedal the old rite in carefully fenced-off corners of the diocese, so long as you rang your little bell and promised fidelity to the Council and the new ecclesiology. SSPX Superior General, Fr Davide Pagliarani, has explained the deal with brutal clarity: the old Mass was tolerated as a kind of homeopathic dose of tradition, administered precisely in order to reconcile dissenters to the postconciliar project. The “privilege” was instrumental.

Summorum Pontificum briefly upgraded the vehicle. Instead of begging the local ordinary, priests could simply offer the Mass of their ordination and watch as young families flocked in. For a moment it felt as if the Ferrari had finally rolled into the driveway. The old rite looked like it might actually be treated as the family car again, not a toy dragged out for special occasions.

Then Traditionis Custodes and Roche’s letters slammed that garage door shut. They told us in plain language what was always true in principle: the Tridentine Mass cannot be celebrated as an expression of a different ecclesiology or a different faith. If you are allowed to use it, it is only on the condition that you accept Vatican II, the new theology, and the Novus Ordo as the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite.

Now, after this entire drama, we are supposed to cheer because Leo may graciously hand us back the 1988 Big Wheel. Under Benedict you finally had the Ferrari in the driveway: the old Mass acknowledged in law, keys in the ignition. Francis and Leo confiscated it and locked the garage. Now, if you promise to zip it for 20 years, Leo hints he might rummage in the Vatican attic, drag out the sun-faded Big Wheel, dust it off, wrap it up, and roll it out with a ribbon on the handlebars.

And Michael Matt is telling you this is a Christmas miracle.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...4x1536.png]


The Script They Are Now Acting Out

On June 14 I wrote that Leo would probably “take a middle road and reinstate the 1988 indult, leaving permission for the TLM entirely up to the local bishop since that is basically what is happening in practice anyway.”

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x895.jpeg]

It was not prophecy. It was reading the room. Leo wants continuity with Francis without looking like Francis’s prison warden. Left-wing bishops want the TLM dead. “Conservative” cardinals want a fig leaf so they can tell their flocks they “saved the Latin Mass” while leaving Bergoglian theology intact.

So you craft a middle way.

Side altars in St Peter’s. Some permissions in safe dioceses. A new framework that looks like mercy and decentralization but leaves everything in the hands of the same bishops who have already shown what they intend to do.

In September I said out loud what everyone with a pulse could see. The Fatima centennial novena pushed by Cardinal Burke, complete with nine weeks of carefully branded prayers, looked very much like stage-setting. You prime traditional Catholics for a big “answer” from Our Lady. You line up the conservative media to explain the miracle when the answer arrives. Then Leo grants an indult-style loosening and the talking points write themselves:

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1454.jpeg]

Our Lady heard us. Leo listened. The good cardinals were prudent. See? Silence works.

It is liturgical theater used to sanctify a political bargain.


From Bashing Benedict to Loving Leo

Michael Matt’s new editorial reads like self-parody if you remember the actual history of his own newspaper. We do not have to infer what he once thought about the very arrangement he is now begging Leo to resurrect. He wrote it down. At length.

Go back to 2006. Benedict is on the throne. John Paul’s Ecclesia Dei indult is still fully in force. The FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, diocesan indult Masses: the whole 1988 regime Matt now treats as a lost paradise is not theoretical, it is the air he is breathing.

And in that world, Michael Matt co-authors a blistering joint statement with John Vennari: “On Rome and the Society of St. Pius X.”

What do they say?

They say Benedict’s “first allegiance has always been to the modernist New Theology.” They say he is the same Ratzinger who praised Vatican II as a “counter-Syllabus,” who insisted “there must be no return to the Syllabus,” and whose December 22 speech is “nothing on which to pin much hope” because it doubles down on conciliar religious liberty and “healthy secularity.”

They say Rome has given “no clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday,” no actions that show “there must be no innovations outside of Tradition.” They say the crisis is “beyond” anything the Church has seen, that Vatican II is “largely a pile of flawed documents” drawn up by revolutionaries, and that nothing short of divine intervention will fix the wreckage.

Most importantly, they warn the SSPX in plain language that any deal with “present-day Rome” would be suicidal. The phrase they use for a regularization under Benedict’s Vatican is “the devil’s tail.” They speak of a “juridical trap.” They compare the whole thing to Ostpolitik: just as John XXIII agreed not to condemn Communism in exchange for a few observers at the Council, so modern Rome will happily give traditionalists canonical papers and an indult niche, provided they shut up about Vatican II and the new Mass.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x2031.jpeg]

They point to Campos and the Fraternity of Saint Peter as cautionary tales. The pattern, they say, is always the same. Bring a traditional group inside. Keep the 1988 framework. Give them just enough canonical status and just enough access to the old rite to keep them grateful and nervous. Then lean on them. Tell them they must “show unity” by concelebrating the new rite. Forbid public criticism of the Council. Punish any “spirit of rebellion.” Let them keep their Latin as long as they stop attacking the revolution.

And they call that bargain immoral. Trading silence on the central errors of the age for a safe little apostolate is described as a betrayal of the Church’s militant duty. They mock the idea that priests could be allowed to celebrate the old Mass as long as they never mention the elephant in the sanctuary: the Council, the new theology, the false ecumenism.

Remember the context. Benedict, for all his defects, is still a hundred times more friendly to tradition than Leo. The 1988 indult is intact. Rome tolerates traditional institutes. Some bishops grant Latin Masses precisely out of fear of the SSPX. The situation, bad as it is, is miles better than the scorched-earth regime Leo inherited from Francis and chose to keep.

And in that relatively softer landscape, Michael Matt’s Remnant is telling the SSPX: do not touch this with a ten-foot pole. The indult system is a trap. The regularization is a trap. Being folded into the “ecclesial reality of today” under Vatican II is a trap. Better to remain on the margins, canonically “irregular,” than to sell your voice for a place at the table.

Now fast-forward to 2025.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1562.jpeg]

Bergoglian moral theology has been written into the Catechism. Amoris and Fiducia are in the bloodstream. The TLM has been expelled from parish churches by decree. Traditional communities have been slapped, gutted, or exiled. Leo praises Francis, canonizes his program, and sprinkles a few side-altar permissions like birdseed before the cameras.

And this is the moment when the same Michael Matt who once told the SSPX that the 1988–Ecclesia Dei arrangement was the “devil’s tail” suddenly starts pining for… the 1988–Ecclesia Dei arrangement.

Back then, the indult was a dangerous pacifier for those willing to trade their tongue for a niche. Today, the indult is the prize. Back then, Benedict’s Rome was too modernist to be trusted even with an already-existing, relatively generous framework. Today, Leo’s Rome is somehow trustworthy enough that we are supposed to pray, stay quiet, and hope he restores that same framework on even worse terms.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1000.webp]

Yesterday’s Michael Matt told you that taking an indult deal under a Council-loyal pope would neuter the resistance. Today’s Michael Matt tells you that not taking an indult deal under a worse Council-loyal pope is ungrateful and shortsighted.

The theology of the Council has not improved. The moral landscape has not improved. The treatment of tradition has not improved. The only thing that has changed is who is riding the Big Wheel and who is cheering from the curb.


What the Bargain Really Buys: Silence as the New Obedience

Back in September I wrote that the new strategy being sold to traditional families is simple enough to summarize on a bumper sticker.

Stop criticizing Leo. Stop naming the errors. Tone down the public opposition.

In return, you will get more stable access to the old rite.

It is, as I put it, truth on the shelf in exchange for Mass on the calendar.

The unwritten enforcement mechanism is fear. If a priest under the shiny new indult ever preaches directly against Fiducia, Amoris, synodality, the Abu Dhabi mindset, or Leo’s ecumenical theatrics, the bishop can pull his permission in a single afternoon. The same bishops who already shut down Masses in Charlotte, Knoxville, Detroit, and a dozen other dioceses will not suddenly grow brave once Rome tells them TLM policy is “up to you.”

So the sermons will become soft. The homilies will become “balanced.” The hardest truths will be expressed in euphemisms or not at all. Young families will drive an hour for the old rite and hear the same bromides about accompaniment, conscience, and journeying together they would have heard at the 9am guitar Mass, just wrapped in lace.

After twenty years of that regime, the young adults in those pews will have never once heard a priest denounce Amoris by name or explain why Fiducia is an insult to the martyrs of purity. They will never have heard a serious critique of Vatican II’s ecumenism or the new understanding of religious liberty. The external form will be traditional. The internal formation will be Bergoglian.

That is the real price tag of this indult. It is not just a piece of paper from Rome. It is the gradual silencing of an entire generation of priests and laity by the constant threat of losing the only Mass they have left.


Pagliarani’s Inconvenient Truth

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1080.jpeg]

You do not need to agree with every position the SSPX takes to acknowledge that Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani told the truth about the structure of the indult game.

He reminded everyone that Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum were built on a false premise: that the old rite and the new rite are simply “two forms of the one Roman Rite,” happily coexisting as different styles within the same theological framework. That premise requires you to accept religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, the new anthropology, and the whole apparatus of “living Tradition.”

When Benedict tried to let both rites sit side by side, hoping the traditional liturgy would slowly “enrich” the reformed one, history proved him wrong. The doctrinal machine behind the new rite kept grinding forward, and once Francis got tired of the experiment he tore up the motu proprio and reinstated the original deal: you may have the old Mass only if you explicitly accept the Council and the legitimacy of the reform.

Roche wrote it down in black and white. If you want the 1962 books, you must embrace the 1970 theology.

Any new indult will only reinforce that premise. It does not matter whether the permission is managed from Rome or devolved to bishops’ conferences. The structure is the same: the old Mass is a tolerated exception within a new religion that treats its own novelties as binding.

Pagliarani’s point is simply that you cannot win by operating inside that framework. You cannot “out-indult” the revolution. You either reject the underlying error or you will be digested by it.


What Kind of Faith Does an Indult Buy?

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...8x512.jpeg]

Suppose the bargain goes through.

Your diocese, if you are lucky, gets a Sunday TLM at 2:30pm in a former broom closet. The priest wears Roman vestments, uses the old calendar, and puts out a Latin-English missalette printed by the same people who told you to “keep praying” and “stay hopeful.”

Can he preach that Amoris is objectively in contradiction with the perennial discipline of the Church?

Can he tell his flock that Fiducia is a blasphemous attempt to cloak sin in liturgical language?

Can he explain from the pulpit why Leo is wrong to praise schismatics as saints and to act as if doctrine can be rewritten once “attitudes” are softened?

Can he tell the teenagers in the front pew that the new synodal process is a weapon designed to ratify whatever the world demands next?

Everyone knows the answer. He might hint. He might allude. But the day he names it clearly, a chancery official will remind him who holds the leash.

That is why I said in September that this bargain turns the old rite into a museum exhibit attached to the new theology. It gives you the externals of tradition strapped onto the engine of modernism. The vestments are Tridentine. The ecclesiology is Abu Dhabi.

What good is it to gain the whole external world of traditional rites and lose the faith in the process?


The Forgotten Flock: Places the Indult Will Not Reach

There is another obscenity lurking in this arrangement.

Even if Leo restores a full 1988-style regime, it will do nothing for the dioceses that have already used every available weapon to crush the old Mass. The bishops of Charlotte, Knoxville, Johnson City, Chattanooga, Detroit, and a growing list of other sees have already made their position plain. Given the choice between having the TLM and not having it, they choose not.

Handing decisions back to them is not mercy. It is abdication.

So while Remnant editors and Fatima novena organizers toast the “return” of the Latin Mass to St Peter’s side altars, entire regions will remain sacramentally exiled. Families expelled from dioceses by bishops drunk on Traditionis Custodes will watch the same men keep the ban in place while Rome and Trad Inc declare victory.

Their suffering is the down payment on this bargain. Their abandonment is the price paid so that others can enjoy carefully managed pockets of nostalgia.

And the most galling part is that the very people celebrating the deal are the ones who loudly told those families that “Rome watches” Catholic media, so we all must keep quiet and trust the process. They are negotiating our silence and our exile without ever asking our consent.


Refusing to Sign the Death Warrant

Here is the point.

If Michael Matt and company want to cash in their own history of resistance for a Big Wheel from 1988, they are free to do so. They can rebrand their decades of warnings about the Council and the new Mass as a kind of youthful excess. They can pretend that getting back to the status quo under John Paul II is a miracle, even as Leo pushes beyond Francis in canonizing the revolution.

What they cannot do is sign the rest of us up for their deal.

Some of us remember why the indult system was never enough. Some of us still believe that doctrine is more important than access, that the faith of our children is more important than an approved Sunday schedule. Some of us are not interested in helping Leo stabilize Bergoglian theology by providing him with a quiet, well-behaved Latin-Mass wing that will never again say publicly what it actually believes.

If that means fewer Masses in official diocesan structures, so be it. God has preserved the Church in far worse circumstances than this. Japanese Catholics survived centuries without priests by clinging to baptism and the catechism. Our forefathers in penal times risked their lives for clandestine Masses rather than attend state-approved liturgies that came with poisoned doctrine.

We are being asked to do the opposite: attend state-approved old rites while pretending not to notice that the doctrine preached from Rome contradicts the faith of our fathers.

No thank you.

Better to endure hardship now, to support priests and communities willing to speak clearly, to seek out chapels and missions where the pulpit is not muzzled, than to sign away twenty years of truth for the privilege of hearing the old Mass in a basilica whose authorities bless sin outside the sanctuary.

Trad Inc may sell their birthright for a 1988 bowl of soup. They may call their surrender “prudence” and their silence “strategy.”

But do not let them tell you this is victory. It is not an olive branch. It is a death warrant written in Latin.]]> Selling Out the Faith for a 1988 Big Wheel
How Burke and Trad Inc are trading twenty years of silence for the privilege of parking the old Mass back in the bishop’s garage

Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile | Nov 14, 2025


The Day the Resistance Threw a Party

Michael Matt logged on today to tell us the good news.

Latin Mass on side altars in St Peter’s. Rumors of Leo “allowing bishops to decide for themselves” about the TLM. The Remnant followed up with an editorial trumpeting the return of the Mass to “the Pope’s basilica” as the beginning of a glorious loosening of restrictions. Keep praying. Keep hoping. The Mass will not be denied.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1080.jpeg]

If you just woke up from a coma that started in 1970, you might think you were reading The Remnant circa 1988. Rome grants a carefully controlled indult, keeps all the doctrinal novelties, and the house journal of conservative resistance declares a step in the right direction.

The only problem is that it is not 1988. It is 2025, Fran­cis is canonized and enthroned as Leo’s patron saint, Amoris and Fiducia are in force, Tucho runs doctrine, and bishops who bless sodomy and toy with women’s ordination are promoted while traditional communities are expelled from dioceses.

And in that context, the “traditional” media class is preparing to sell the last of its credibility for the same miserable indult it once denounced.


The Big Wheel From 1988

Back in the day, Ecclesia Dei gave us what traditionalists now remember as the 1988 indult. In reality it was not a sports car, it was a plastic Big Wheel. Bishops could, at their discretion, let you pedal the old rite in carefully fenced-off corners of the diocese, so long as you rang your little bell and promised fidelity to the Council and the new ecclesiology. SSPX Superior General, Fr Davide Pagliarani, has explained the deal with brutal clarity: the old Mass was tolerated as a kind of homeopathic dose of tradition, administered precisely in order to reconcile dissenters to the postconciliar project. The “privilege” was instrumental.

Summorum Pontificum briefly upgraded the vehicle. Instead of begging the local ordinary, priests could simply offer the Mass of their ordination and watch as young families flocked in. For a moment it felt as if the Ferrari had finally rolled into the driveway. The old rite looked like it might actually be treated as the family car again, not a toy dragged out for special occasions.

Then Traditionis Custodes and Roche’s letters slammed that garage door shut. They told us in plain language what was always true in principle: the Tridentine Mass cannot be celebrated as an expression of a different ecclesiology or a different faith. If you are allowed to use it, it is only on the condition that you accept Vatican II, the new theology, and the Novus Ordo as the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite.

Now, after this entire drama, we are supposed to cheer because Leo may graciously hand us back the 1988 Big Wheel. Under Benedict you finally had the Ferrari in the driveway: the old Mass acknowledged in law, keys in the ignition. Francis and Leo confiscated it and locked the garage. Now, if you promise to zip it for 20 years, Leo hints he might rummage in the Vatican attic, drag out the sun-faded Big Wheel, dust it off, wrap it up, and roll it out with a ribbon on the handlebars.

And Michael Matt is telling you this is a Christmas miracle.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...4x1536.png]


The Script They Are Now Acting Out

On June 14 I wrote that Leo would probably “take a middle road and reinstate the 1988 indult, leaving permission for the TLM entirely up to the local bishop since that is basically what is happening in practice anyway.”

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x895.jpeg]

It was not prophecy. It was reading the room. Leo wants continuity with Francis without looking like Francis’s prison warden. Left-wing bishops want the TLM dead. “Conservative” cardinals want a fig leaf so they can tell their flocks they “saved the Latin Mass” while leaving Bergoglian theology intact.

So you craft a middle way.

Side altars in St Peter’s. Some permissions in safe dioceses. A new framework that looks like mercy and decentralization but leaves everything in the hands of the same bishops who have already shown what they intend to do.

In September I said out loud what everyone with a pulse could see. The Fatima centennial novena pushed by Cardinal Burke, complete with nine weeks of carefully branded prayers, looked very much like stage-setting. You prime traditional Catholics for a big “answer” from Our Lady. You line up the conservative media to explain the miracle when the answer arrives. Then Leo grants an indult-style loosening and the talking points write themselves:

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1454.jpeg]

Our Lady heard us. Leo listened. The good cardinals were prudent. See? Silence works.

It is liturgical theater used to sanctify a political bargain.


From Bashing Benedict to Loving Leo

Michael Matt’s new editorial reads like self-parody if you remember the actual history of his own newspaper. We do not have to infer what he once thought about the very arrangement he is now begging Leo to resurrect. He wrote it down. At length.

Go back to 2006. Benedict is on the throne. John Paul’s Ecclesia Dei indult is still fully in force. The FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, diocesan indult Masses: the whole 1988 regime Matt now treats as a lost paradise is not theoretical, it is the air he is breathing.

And in that world, Michael Matt co-authors a blistering joint statement with John Vennari: “On Rome and the Society of St. Pius X.”

What do they say?

They say Benedict’s “first allegiance has always been to the modernist New Theology.” They say he is the same Ratzinger who praised Vatican II as a “counter-Syllabus,” who insisted “there must be no return to the Syllabus,” and whose December 22 speech is “nothing on which to pin much hope” because it doubles down on conciliar religious liberty and “healthy secularity.”

They say Rome has given “no clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday,” no actions that show “there must be no innovations outside of Tradition.” They say the crisis is “beyond” anything the Church has seen, that Vatican II is “largely a pile of flawed documents” drawn up by revolutionaries, and that nothing short of divine intervention will fix the wreckage.

Most importantly, they warn the SSPX in plain language that any deal with “present-day Rome” would be suicidal. The phrase they use for a regularization under Benedict’s Vatican is “the devil’s tail.” They speak of a “juridical trap.” They compare the whole thing to Ostpolitik: just as John XXIII agreed not to condemn Communism in exchange for a few observers at the Council, so modern Rome will happily give traditionalists canonical papers and an indult niche, provided they shut up about Vatican II and the new Mass.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x2031.jpeg]

They point to Campos and the Fraternity of Saint Peter as cautionary tales. The pattern, they say, is always the same. Bring a traditional group inside. Keep the 1988 framework. Give them just enough canonical status and just enough access to the old rite to keep them grateful and nervous. Then lean on them. Tell them they must “show unity” by concelebrating the new rite. Forbid public criticism of the Council. Punish any “spirit of rebellion.” Let them keep their Latin as long as they stop attacking the revolution.

And they call that bargain immoral. Trading silence on the central errors of the age for a safe little apostolate is described as a betrayal of the Church’s militant duty. They mock the idea that priests could be allowed to celebrate the old Mass as long as they never mention the elephant in the sanctuary: the Council, the new theology, the false ecumenism.

Remember the context. Benedict, for all his defects, is still a hundred times more friendly to tradition than Leo. The 1988 indult is intact. Rome tolerates traditional institutes. Some bishops grant Latin Masses precisely out of fear of the SSPX. The situation, bad as it is, is miles better than the scorched-earth regime Leo inherited from Francis and chose to keep.

And in that relatively softer landscape, Michael Matt’s Remnant is telling the SSPX: do not touch this with a ten-foot pole. The indult system is a trap. The regularization is a trap. Being folded into the “ecclesial reality of today” under Vatican II is a trap. Better to remain on the margins, canonically “irregular,” than to sell your voice for a place at the table.

Now fast-forward to 2025.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1562.jpeg]

Bergoglian moral theology has been written into the Catechism. Amoris and Fiducia are in the bloodstream. The TLM has been expelled from parish churches by decree. Traditional communities have been slapped, gutted, or exiled. Leo praises Francis, canonizes his program, and sprinkles a few side-altar permissions like birdseed before the cameras.

And this is the moment when the same Michael Matt who once told the SSPX that the 1988–Ecclesia Dei arrangement was the “devil’s tail” suddenly starts pining for… the 1988–Ecclesia Dei arrangement.

Back then, the indult was a dangerous pacifier for those willing to trade their tongue for a niche. Today, the indult is the prize. Back then, Benedict’s Rome was too modernist to be trusted even with an already-existing, relatively generous framework. Today, Leo’s Rome is somehow trustworthy enough that we are supposed to pray, stay quiet, and hope he restores that same framework on even worse terms.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1000.webp]

Yesterday’s Michael Matt told you that taking an indult deal under a Council-loyal pope would neuter the resistance. Today’s Michael Matt tells you that not taking an indult deal under a worse Council-loyal pope is ungrateful and shortsighted.

The theology of the Council has not improved. The moral landscape has not improved. The treatment of tradition has not improved. The only thing that has changed is who is riding the Big Wheel and who is cheering from the curb.


What the Bargain Really Buys: Silence as the New Obedience

Back in September I wrote that the new strategy being sold to traditional families is simple enough to summarize on a bumper sticker.

Stop criticizing Leo. Stop naming the errors. Tone down the public opposition.

In return, you will get more stable access to the old rite.

It is, as I put it, truth on the shelf in exchange for Mass on the calendar.

The unwritten enforcement mechanism is fear. If a priest under the shiny new indult ever preaches directly against Fiducia, Amoris, synodality, the Abu Dhabi mindset, or Leo’s ecumenical theatrics, the bishop can pull his permission in a single afternoon. The same bishops who already shut down Masses in Charlotte, Knoxville, Detroit, and a dozen other dioceses will not suddenly grow brave once Rome tells them TLM policy is “up to you.”

So the sermons will become soft. The homilies will become “balanced.” The hardest truths will be expressed in euphemisms or not at all. Young families will drive an hour for the old rite and hear the same bromides about accompaniment, conscience, and journeying together they would have heard at the 9am guitar Mass, just wrapped in lace.

After twenty years of that regime, the young adults in those pews will have never once heard a priest denounce Amoris by name or explain why Fiducia is an insult to the martyrs of purity. They will never have heard a serious critique of Vatican II’s ecumenism or the new understanding of religious liberty. The external form will be traditional. The internal formation will be Bergoglian.

That is the real price tag of this indult. It is not just a piece of paper from Rome. It is the gradual silencing of an entire generation of priests and laity by the constant threat of losing the only Mass they have left.


Pagliarani’s Inconvenient Truth

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1080.jpeg]

You do not need to agree with every position the SSPX takes to acknowledge that Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani told the truth about the structure of the indult game.

He reminded everyone that Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum were built on a false premise: that the old rite and the new rite are simply “two forms of the one Roman Rite,” happily coexisting as different styles within the same theological framework. That premise requires you to accept religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, the new anthropology, and the whole apparatus of “living Tradition.”

When Benedict tried to let both rites sit side by side, hoping the traditional liturgy would slowly “enrich” the reformed one, history proved him wrong. The doctrinal machine behind the new rite kept grinding forward, and once Francis got tired of the experiment he tore up the motu proprio and reinstated the original deal: you may have the old Mass only if you explicitly accept the Council and the legitimacy of the reform.

Roche wrote it down in black and white. If you want the 1962 books, you must embrace the 1970 theology.

Any new indult will only reinforce that premise. It does not matter whether the permission is managed from Rome or devolved to bishops’ conferences. The structure is the same: the old Mass is a tolerated exception within a new religion that treats its own novelties as binding.

Pagliarani’s point is simply that you cannot win by operating inside that framework. You cannot “out-indult” the revolution. You either reject the underlying error or you will be digested by it.


What Kind of Faith Does an Indult Buy?

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...8x512.jpeg]

Suppose the bargain goes through.

Your diocese, if you are lucky, gets a Sunday TLM at 2:30pm in a former broom closet. The priest wears Roman vestments, uses the old calendar, and puts out a Latin-English missalette printed by the same people who told you to “keep praying” and “stay hopeful.”

Can he preach that Amoris is objectively in contradiction with the perennial discipline of the Church?

Can he tell his flock that Fiducia is a blasphemous attempt to cloak sin in liturgical language?

Can he explain from the pulpit why Leo is wrong to praise schismatics as saints and to act as if doctrine can be rewritten once “attitudes” are softened?

Can he tell the teenagers in the front pew that the new synodal process is a weapon designed to ratify whatever the world demands next?

Everyone knows the answer. He might hint. He might allude. But the day he names it clearly, a chancery official will remind him who holds the leash.

That is why I said in September that this bargain turns the old rite into a museum exhibit attached to the new theology. It gives you the externals of tradition strapped onto the engine of modernism. The vestments are Tridentine. The ecclesiology is Abu Dhabi.

What good is it to gain the whole external world of traditional rites and lose the faith in the process?


The Forgotten Flock: Places the Indult Will Not Reach

There is another obscenity lurking in this arrangement.

Even if Leo restores a full 1988-style regime, it will do nothing for the dioceses that have already used every available weapon to crush the old Mass. The bishops of Charlotte, Knoxville, Johnson City, Chattanooga, Detroit, and a growing list of other sees have already made their position plain. Given the choice between having the TLM and not having it, they choose not.

Handing decisions back to them is not mercy. It is abdication.

So while Remnant editors and Fatima novena organizers toast the “return” of the Latin Mass to St Peter’s side altars, entire regions will remain sacramentally exiled. Families expelled from dioceses by bishops drunk on Traditionis Custodes will watch the same men keep the ban in place while Rome and Trad Inc declare victory.

Their suffering is the down payment on this bargain. Their abandonment is the price paid so that others can enjoy carefully managed pockets of nostalgia.

And the most galling part is that the very people celebrating the deal are the ones who loudly told those families that “Rome watches” Catholic media, so we all must keep quiet and trust the process. They are negotiating our silence and our exile without ever asking our consent.


Refusing to Sign the Death Warrant

Here is the point.

If Michael Matt and company want to cash in their own history of resistance for a Big Wheel from 1988, they are free to do so. They can rebrand their decades of warnings about the Council and the new Mass as a kind of youthful excess. They can pretend that getting back to the status quo under John Paul II is a miracle, even as Leo pushes beyond Francis in canonizing the revolution.

What they cannot do is sign the rest of us up for their deal.

Some of us remember why the indult system was never enough. Some of us still believe that doctrine is more important than access, that the faith of our children is more important than an approved Sunday schedule. Some of us are not interested in helping Leo stabilize Bergoglian theology by providing him with a quiet, well-behaved Latin-Mass wing that will never again say publicly what it actually believes.

If that means fewer Masses in official diocesan structures, so be it. God has preserved the Church in far worse circumstances than this. Japanese Catholics survived centuries without priests by clinging to baptism and the catechism. Our forefathers in penal times risked their lives for clandestine Masses rather than attend state-approved liturgies that came with poisoned doctrine.

We are being asked to do the opposite: attend state-approved old rites while pretending not to notice that the doctrine preached from Rome contradicts the faith of our fathers.

No thank you.

Better to endure hardship now, to support priests and communities willing to speak clearly, to seek out chapels and missions where the pulpit is not muzzled, than to sign away twenty years of truth for the privilege of hearing the old Mass in a basilica whose authorities bless sin outside the sanctuary.

Trad Inc may sell their birthright for a 1988 bowl of soup. They may call their surrender “prudence” and their silence “strategy.”

But do not let them tell you this is victory. It is not an olive branch. It is a death warrant written in Latin.]]> <![CDATA[Debunked Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6998 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:18:03 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6998 another forum shares an article showing how a supposed Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle is in fact, a false 'miracle' and has been debunked by the local diocese itself. The poster rightly points out its similarities of circumstances in this 'miracle' in Indiana and the Polish 'Eucharistic Miracles' heavily promoted by the Fake Resistance:
Quote:So here's one that US scientists have debunked, and you'll notice the uncanny similarity betweeh this one and BOTH the alleged Polish ones.  In ALL 3 CASES, the "Host" had been dropped onto the floor, and then later placed in a little container of water to dissolve. ...

So the one from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis was actually tested, and they found that the red marks were caused by bacteria.  That's actually what the colleagues of that female "scientist" in Poland suggested for those "miracles" as well ... but they were drowned out by those who "want to believe".



Indianapolis Archdiocese: Lab results indicate discolored host was ‘not miraculous’

[Image: Communion_hosts_Credit_LA_Faille_Shutter...=670&h=447]

Communion hosts Credit LA Faille Shutterstock CNA


CNA Staff | Mar 24, 2025

Following an investigation into a possible Eucharistic miracle at a local parish, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis announced Monday that scientific analysis indicated that the cause was natural, not miraculous.

Last month, a post on X drew attention to what the post called a “‘potential’ Eucharistic miracle” after a parish in southern Indiana discovered a host with red spots on it, which the parish sacristan thought could be blood.

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis said in a statement shared with CNA that laboratory analysis of common bacteria had caused the discoloration.

“A biochemical analysis of a host from St. Anthony Catholic Church in Morris, Indiana, that was displaying red discoloration revealed the presence of a common bacteria found on all humans,” the statement read. “No presence of human blood was discovered.”

The host had fallen and was later discovered with red spots, and biochemical analysis found that the discoloration was due to common bacteria and fungus.

“The host had fallen out of a Mass kit used at the parish, and when it was discovered, red spots were present,” the archdiocese stated. “Following policy established by the Holy See, the host was submitted for professional, biochemical analysis at a local laboratory. The results indicate the presence of fungus and three different species of bacteria, all of which are commonly found on human hands.”

The archdiocese noted that there have been many carefully-reviewed miracles in the history of the Church.

“Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, there have been well-documented miracles and apparitions, and each has been thoroughly and carefully reviewed,” the statement read.

Last year, the Vatican developed its practice regarding potential supernatural events, issuing new guidelines that give the Disastery for the Doctrine of the Faith the final say.

Previous norms established by Pope Paul VI in 1978 left the discernment process for possible miraculous occurrences to local bishops. Under the new guidance, the task remains with the local bishop, but the dicastery must be consulted throughout the process.]]> another forum shares an article showing how a supposed Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracle is in fact, a false 'miracle' and has been debunked by the local diocese itself. The poster rightly points out its similarities of circumstances in this 'miracle' in Indiana and the Polish 'Eucharistic Miracles' heavily promoted by the Fake Resistance:
Quote:So here's one that US scientists have debunked, and you'll notice the uncanny similarity betweeh this one and BOTH the alleged Polish ones.  In ALL 3 CASES, the "Host" had been dropped onto the floor, and then later placed in a little container of water to dissolve. ...

So the one from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis was actually tested, and they found that the red marks were caused by bacteria.  That's actually what the colleagues of that female "scientist" in Poland suggested for those "miracles" as well ... but they were drowned out by those who "want to believe".



Indianapolis Archdiocese: Lab results indicate discolored host was ‘not miraculous’

[Image: Communion_hosts_Credit_LA_Faille_Shutter...=670&h=447]

Communion hosts Credit LA Faille Shutterstock CNA


CNA Staff | Mar 24, 2025

Following an investigation into a possible Eucharistic miracle at a local parish, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis announced Monday that scientific analysis indicated that the cause was natural, not miraculous.

Last month, a post on X drew attention to what the post called a “‘potential’ Eucharistic miracle” after a parish in southern Indiana discovered a host with red spots on it, which the parish sacristan thought could be blood.

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis said in a statement shared with CNA that laboratory analysis of common bacteria had caused the discoloration.

“A biochemical analysis of a host from St. Anthony Catholic Church in Morris, Indiana, that was displaying red discoloration revealed the presence of a common bacteria found on all humans,” the statement read. “No presence of human blood was discovered.”

The host had fallen and was later discovered with red spots, and biochemical analysis found that the discoloration was due to common bacteria and fungus.

“The host had fallen out of a Mass kit used at the parish, and when it was discovered, red spots were present,” the archdiocese stated. “Following policy established by the Holy See, the host was submitted for professional, biochemical analysis at a local laboratory. The results indicate the presence of fungus and three different species of bacteria, all of which are commonly found on human hands.”

The archdiocese noted that there have been many carefully-reviewed miracles in the history of the Church.

“Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, there have been well-documented miracles and apparitions, and each has been thoroughly and carefully reviewed,” the statement read.

Last year, the Vatican developed its practice regarding potential supernatural events, issuing new guidelines that give the Disastery for the Doctrine of the Faith the final say.

Previous norms established by Pope Paul VI in 1978 left the discernment process for possible miraculous occurrences to local bishops. Under the new guidance, the task remains with the local bishop, but the dicastery must be consulted throughout the process.]]> <![CDATA[The Recusant: Bp. Williamson promotes Novus Ordo Divine Mercy ‘Messages from Heaven’]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6440 Thu, 05 Sep 2024 09:35:22 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6440 The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:


Before you ask, same answer as before. We’ll stop pointing it out when he stops doing it. In the meantime, here is the latest scandal from the Great One. Expect no response from the Fake Resistance except total silence in public, and a weasel-worded defence in private.


Bishop Williamson promotes Novus Ordo Divine Mercy ‘Messages from Heaven’

Yes, you are reading that right.

In a series of four Eleison Comments spanning late April and early May 2024, (“Remarkable Messages” I, II, III & IV) the bishop effectively promotes some “revelations” given to a Novus Ordo nun who belongs to “the Mission of Divine Mercy,” a community dedicated to spreading the bogus, condemned “Divine Mercy” message.

The first of these three begins by informing the reader that:
Quote:“When it comes to apparitions and messages supposedly coming from Heaven, to be prudent is certainly wise…” (https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-i/)

...but then proceeds immediately to warn:
Quote:“But one can be excessively prudent, especially when the normal Church Authority is itself in confusion.” (Ibid.)

So when it comes to crazy old ladies or Novus Ordo nuns telling everyone that Our Lord Himself is personally appearing to them with messages for the whole world, to be prudent is certainly wise, but on the other hand one ought not to be “excessively prudent”..? Have I understood that correctly?

Prudence is of course one of the four cardinal virtues and the idea that one can have an excess of any virtue is so ridiculous on its surface that we need not spend too long on it. Ought one also to avoid being “excessively just,” perhaps? If applied also to the theological virtues, can one also be guilty of “excessive” Faith, Hope and Charity? The idea is absurd.

In reality, this apparently contradictory and foolish opening statement is merely a rather clumsy attempt to prime the reader for what is to follow. “Yes, we should be wary of false apparitions, but just not in this case!” is in effect what he is seeking to say. He then proceeds to throw caution to the wind:
Quote:“Let us give to a series of recent Messages coming from backwoods Texas, USA, a hearing. The series began with an introductory Message supposedly from Our Lady – let the “supposedly” be taken for granted and not repeated in everything quoted henceforth in these ‘Eleison Comments’ from these Messages.” (Ibid.)

Why would we “give them a hearing” when no evidence has yet been given for their being authentic? (In fact, there are grounds for being very suspicious - read on!) He then says that he has: “no authority to guarantee the Texas Messages’ authenticity,” but that he is going to quote them at length for his readers anyway, adding, rather dishonestly: “Let readers judge on their own.”

The trouble that by quoting this supposed “message from Heaven”, Bishop Williamson has already put his finger in the scale and signalled to his readership that he thinks they are, or might well be, genuine. Most people would not expect Bishop Williamson to be quoting the message at length if he doubted its authenticity, nor would he dedicate four weeks in a row to quoting and discussing them.

We will not quote it at length. The gist is as follows. Generic end-of-the-world talk, the devil is doing battle with God, blah blah. An affirmation that the message itself is a crucial means of fighting back (in other words, the message talks about “these words” - itself in other words.

The claim that “there is no shepherd” - so, sedevacantism? Lots of generic talk about how everyone is “wounded” and needs “healing”. Finally, another self-endorsement: “Blessed is he who receives these Words and allows them to bear their fruit” - “these words” being another self-reference.

That was the “first message” as quoted by Bishop Williamson. The next Eleison Comments deals with the second message, which this time “is from God the Father.” Ha ha ha! Well, well. We won’t quote it either. Like the first message, it is all generic stuff which people will be able to “read into” - light vs darkness, truth vs falsehood, priests are being deceived and need to wake up, bishops aren’t doing their job properly, and so forth.

As with the first message, there is nothing about Vatican II, the New Mass, or any of it, in fact there is no specific detail about anything. Why might that be, do you think? To me at least it seems clear: specific details are easier to debunk that generic “truth and light” talk. By giving maximum generic fluff and minimum specific detail, the author of the “messages” makes it as easy as possible for the reader to “interpret” the meaning and thus find that it agrees with whatever he already thinks. Bishop Williamson sort of (almost!) does this at one point where there is a reference to “small battalions” of God’s army which remain spread across the world. He says:
Quote:“In the “small battalions” can anyone not recognise the scattered remnants of the so-called ‘Resistance’? ” (https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-ii/)

Interesting words from one who has claimed consistently since 2014 (at least in public: earlier in private) that he doesn’t believe in the Resistance. Even here he has to use speech marks and “so-called” before he can bring himself to utter the dreaded R word..! But leaving that aside, notice how he says that it “could” mean the Resistance. Yes, but it also “could” mean the proponents of “Saint” Faustina and her condemned “Divine Mercy” devotion. It “could” mean conservative novus ordo or indulty types who don’t like Pope Francis and long for the halcyon days of Pope Benedict, or “Saint John Paul the Great”..! It could mean so many things. Why does Garabandal come to mind? These bogus messages always sound alarming at first glance, but on closer inspection one notices that the language is actually quite vague, rather like a tabloid horoscope - there’s plenty of room for the reader to fill in his own “interpretation”. Like Garabandal too, one is left with the impression that the messages are basically “preaching to the choir” and telling people what they want to hear.


A Dubious Provenance

But enough of the bogus contents. It is nothing more or less than one would expect after all. If the messages don’t mention Vatican II or the New Mass that can hardly be a surprise, indeed it would be surprising if they did condemn the New Mass given that they come from a Novus Ordo community!

And who knows - given his continual promotion of the New Mass, perhaps Bishop Williamson wouldn’t be so keen on these messages either!

What else can one gather? The community calls itself “The Mission of Divine Mercy” and is located in rural Texas. What a curious name. Could it just be a coincidence? Not at all. The whole purpose of this community is to spread “Saint” Faustina’s condemned devotion and bogus “revelations”. Their website, curiously enough, does not say anything about the Divine Mercy devotion, but the newsletters are full of it. A quick look at some of the pictures on the website tells the same story.

The founder is one Father John Mary Foster, a priest who used to be a member of the Community of St John, a somewhat “conservative”-looking Novus Ordo religious order founded in 1978 and heavily pushed by John-Paul II during the 1980s and 90s. Following the death of its founder it emerged that it had been the seat of all kinds of sexual abuse and that its founder had been a monster, a manipulative cult leader who took sexual advantage of a great many young women over several decades.

But we digress. Fr John Mary Foster, according to his own website, joined the Community of St John in 1981 and studied in Fribourg, meaning that, whilst not a founder-member, he was one of the early members and would almost certainly have known personally Fr. Marie Dominique Philippe, the founder who also taught at Fribourg, and may even have been one of his inner circle. Yet if there is a story there, it has yet to be told. As far as we are aware, there is no further connection between the two. Foster presumably left the Community of St John back in 2001, when the then- bishop of San Antonio, Texas gave his approval for the current “community” (the Mission of Divine Mercy) to be founded within his diocese.

The community is small and eclectic, as the website makes clear. It comprises a priest, a brother, two nuns, a layman and a lay woman. Notice that the idea of mixing up lay and religious, male and female, is itself something very Novus Ordo. What is also worth noting is
that the “community” seems to have started out about this size and seems not really to have grown in the last twenty-odd years. Doubtless the “messages” from heaven will have given them new hope that all that might be about to change. A cynic might suggest that the new community had not been the success its members had hoped and that these divine “messages” smack of a desperation - but far be it from us to suggest such things!

[Image: Screenshot-2024-09-05-045926.png]


What is the Story Behind The Community of St John?

The history of the Community of St John is something of a rabbit-hole itself. Well-known in France, though less so in English-speaking countries, it was founded in 1978 by Fr Marie Dominique Philippe, OP. Conservative Novus Ordo, its members venerated their founder as something of a living Saint, right up to his death in 2006. In the last ten years it emerged that the founder had in fact been a serious sexual predator (young women, not boys). The male congregation still exists and has taken serious steps to erase the founder and all his influences from their constitution, reading and daily life. The congregation of nuns was dissolved by Benedict XVI, and Rome told reporters that the sisters had suffered manipulation which amounted to “sexual slavery” at the hands of senior priests of the order. The new male superiors commissioned an independent inquiry into what had really been going on. What came out was more horrific and far -reaching than anyone had suspected, reaching all the way back to the late 1940s.

Marie-Dominique Philippe had a biological brother, also a Dominican priest, Fr Thomas Philippe OP, who would later co-found “l’Arche” with Jean Vannier. Both priests had a blasphemous and heretical theology, which they taught in secret to an inner-circle and which they used to justify their own damnable conduct. Their uncle, also a Dominican priest, Fr Thomas Dehau OP, and their sister, Mother Cécile Philippe OP, were also part of the scandal. The former was, it seems, the main influence on his niece and two nephews. The latter used her position as superior of the Bouvines convent to supply her brothers with young female novices for sexual acts. When she was deposed, she was also found guilty of having sometimes supplied herself (incest) and of in effect having taken the place of her brothers (homosexuality). When one young woman, Anne de Rosanbo, became pregnant, she had an abortion which Fr Thomas Phillipe arranged for her.

The lurid details (yes, there are more), are horrific; more horrific still is the secret theology, a blasphemous heresy termed by some “porno-mysticism,” according to which, among other things, Our Lord had sexual relations with his Blessed mother. The Philippe brothers, it emerged, had been secretly teaching this to their inner-circle since at least the late 1940s.

When the Holy Office got wind of things in the 1950s, both priests (their uncle was dead by this point) were ordered into seclusion, suspended from any public ministry, and forbidden from any contact with each other or any of their little circle (they called each other the “tout-petits”). They seem to have secretly disobeyed. Fr Marie-Dominique Philippe, future founder of the Community of St John, was also forbidden from contact with any religious communities.

All of this remained largely [unknown] until it all came out around ten years ago. That was back in the 1950s. What happened after that is a familiar story. In the 1960s and 70s Rome turned a blind eye, and the Philippe brothers’ influence began to spread again. In the 1980s and 90s they were promoted enthusiastically by John-Paul II as founders of “new movements” which heralded the “renewal” of the Council. Hmm… why does that all sound so familiar? Why is one suddenly reminded of Legionaries of Christ? ...of the Divine Mercy? Community of St John? L’Arche..? There are so many examples that always seem to follow that pattern.


Further Reading:
https://freres-saint-jean.org/wp-content...n_2023.pdf
(Community of St John, full investigation report, in French)

https://brothers-saint-john.org/wp-conte...EALING.pdf (Summary of the above report in English)

https://commissiondetude-jeanvanier.org/...ex.php/en/
home-english/ (Full investigation report, commissioned by l’Arche, in English translation)


A Novus Bogus vibe...

Even without the condemned “Divine Mercy” permeating everything, the uncomfortable fact remains that this is a Novus Ordo community, whose only priest offers the New Mass. On their FAQ page, one can read the following:

“Do you offer the Traditional Latin Mass?

No. We offer the Novus Ordo Mass.”

Is further proof of Novus Ordo-ness needed? Maybe they’ve become “more Traditional” in recent years..? Well, let us take a look at one further piece of evidence on their own website.

Two years ago was the funeral of Margaret Foster, the mother of Fr John Mary. It has been given its own page on their website. The picture tells its own tale: white vestments and a white pall over the coffin. Beneath the audio file, a summary of the sermon is given thus:

• “John Mary states that without his mother, Margaret Foster, the Mission of Divine Mercy would not be here.
• Father recalls the importance of Purgatory which is a great school of love, where God’s children learn how to love what they were not able to learn during their life on earth.
• Purgatory is where souls are healed, made whole, restored in order to become the living tabernacle of His love and fullness.
• Our own lives, especially at these difficult ends, can be a special union with Jesus in His own suffering.
• Father introduces us to his mother, Margaret Foster.”

Purgatory being a place where souls are “healed” and “restored” - it all just sounds so, well, Novus Ordo, doesn’t it? Of course, there’s a sense in which that is true, but it is an incomplete explanation. Why is there no talk of expiation, of suffering, of paying the debt owed due to sin? Moreover, if she’s in purgatory, why the white vestments? So their theology is also Novus Ordo - meaning that even if they were one day to offer the Traditional Mass, what good would the Traditional liturgy be along side modernist, novus ordo doctrine?

Lifesite News, to their shame, have also been promoting these “messages” both on their own website (See here, for instance: “To view LifeSiteNews’ coverage of the alleged prophecies, click the following links: message one; message two; and message three.” etc. “Meet the Nun who allegedly received messages from heaven” reads another headline...) and via social media. And please, don’t anybody try to point to the word "allegedly” as though that somehow makes everything alright. As with Bishop Williamson, there has to be just enough equivocation to allow them to claim afterwards, should they ever need to, that they in fact never wholeheartedly endorsed these “messages”. But as with Bishop Williamson, is there any way they would be giving these “messages” so much free advertising if they thought they were false? Since they have now been given free publicity by both Bishop Williamson (four weeks in a row) and by LifeSite News, we must hope and pray that not too many otherwise well-meaning souls will be taken in by this.


Conclusion

What is one to conclude from all this? Bogus “messages” from a dubious Novus Ordo source are after all nothing new. What matters here is the response. John Henry Westen, owner of Lifesite News, ought really to know better. It would be wise for Catholics to be a little circumspect in future and take what he says with a pinch of salt. And if you get those begging-letter emails from him, don’t give him a penny, at least not until he has come clean and apologised for promoting this rubbish. In the meantime there are far more deserving causes for you to save your hard earned pennies towards. But he is only a layman, albeit one with rather more influence than most.

Bishop Williamson - let us say it again - is a bishop and therefore the responsibility and culpability are immeasurably greater in his case. Just think of all the souls led astray as a result: Our Lord will know where to place the blame for all of us when we die. It is enough to make one shudder. Anyone inclined to wonder whether we are exaggerating, go and have a look for yourself: the second and third Eleison Comments (https://
stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-ii/ and https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkablemessages-iii/) are about 80% quoting directly from the “messages” without a single word of qualification or criticism. The fourth one is about 90% quotation, the only words by Bishop Williamson himself being the following:
Quote:“This fourth (and last for the moment) Message from Texas is specially appropriate for Catholics today, both by its understanding of their distress, and by its appealing for their trust. It is these ‘Comments’ that have highlighted certain words in black. By all means read the original Messages at mdm.”(https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-iv/)

Tell me that that isn’t promotion. So let’s just add this to the list of why nobody should have anything to do with Bishop Williamson or allow him to influence them in any way (including being influenced by those who are working with him). Pederastic housemates, sending new converts to Tradition back to the new Mass, promoting Valtorta’s “Gospel as revealed to me” - another bogus “revelation” which like the “Divine Mercy” was condemned by the Holy Office in the days before Vatican II but then became widespread after Vatican II. Here we see him promoting not only a bogus revelation - the fact that the messages are certainly fake can be almost taken as read. What matters is that their provenance is a New Mass apostolate dedicated to spreading the condemned “Divine Mercy” messages and devotion. In promoting their messages, Bishop Williamson is promoting them. There is no way around that. So we must add to the list his, in effect, promotion of the condemned “Divine Mercy”. Where will this end?

As usual, don’t hold your breath waiting for any kind of response: a public silence is all we have come to expect. Although Bishop Williamson’s various errors and scandals have been documented here over the past nine years, only one or two of his unfortunate followers (Samuel Loeman, Sean Johnson, Hugh Akins...) have ever tried to defend him, and that was some seven years ago. Since then they seem to have given up and gone home and who can blame them? It is all so obviously wrong. Kyrie Eleison.]]> The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:


Before you ask, same answer as before. We’ll stop pointing it out when he stops doing it. In the meantime, here is the latest scandal from the Great One. Expect no response from the Fake Resistance except total silence in public, and a weasel-worded defence in private.


Bishop Williamson promotes Novus Ordo Divine Mercy ‘Messages from Heaven’

Yes, you are reading that right.

In a series of four Eleison Comments spanning late April and early May 2024, (“Remarkable Messages” I, II, III & IV) the bishop effectively promotes some “revelations” given to a Novus Ordo nun who belongs to “the Mission of Divine Mercy,” a community dedicated to spreading the bogus, condemned “Divine Mercy” message.

The first of these three begins by informing the reader that:
Quote:“When it comes to apparitions and messages supposedly coming from Heaven, to be prudent is certainly wise…” (https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-i/)

...but then proceeds immediately to warn:
Quote:“But one can be excessively prudent, especially when the normal Church Authority is itself in confusion.” (Ibid.)

So when it comes to crazy old ladies or Novus Ordo nuns telling everyone that Our Lord Himself is personally appearing to them with messages for the whole world, to be prudent is certainly wise, but on the other hand one ought not to be “excessively prudent”..? Have I understood that correctly?

Prudence is of course one of the four cardinal virtues and the idea that one can have an excess of any virtue is so ridiculous on its surface that we need not spend too long on it. Ought one also to avoid being “excessively just,” perhaps? If applied also to the theological virtues, can one also be guilty of “excessive” Faith, Hope and Charity? The idea is absurd.

In reality, this apparently contradictory and foolish opening statement is merely a rather clumsy attempt to prime the reader for what is to follow. “Yes, we should be wary of false apparitions, but just not in this case!” is in effect what he is seeking to say. He then proceeds to throw caution to the wind:
Quote:“Let us give to a series of recent Messages coming from backwoods Texas, USA, a hearing. The series began with an introductory Message supposedly from Our Lady – let the “supposedly” be taken for granted and not repeated in everything quoted henceforth in these ‘Eleison Comments’ from these Messages.” (Ibid.)

Why would we “give them a hearing” when no evidence has yet been given for their being authentic? (In fact, there are grounds for being very suspicious - read on!) He then says that he has: “no authority to guarantee the Texas Messages’ authenticity,” but that he is going to quote them at length for his readers anyway, adding, rather dishonestly: “Let readers judge on their own.”

The trouble that by quoting this supposed “message from Heaven”, Bishop Williamson has already put his finger in the scale and signalled to his readership that he thinks they are, or might well be, genuine. Most people would not expect Bishop Williamson to be quoting the message at length if he doubted its authenticity, nor would he dedicate four weeks in a row to quoting and discussing them.

We will not quote it at length. The gist is as follows. Generic end-of-the-world talk, the devil is doing battle with God, blah blah. An affirmation that the message itself is a crucial means of fighting back (in other words, the message talks about “these words” - itself in other words.

The claim that “there is no shepherd” - so, sedevacantism? Lots of generic talk about how everyone is “wounded” and needs “healing”. Finally, another self-endorsement: “Blessed is he who receives these Words and allows them to bear their fruit” - “these words” being another self-reference.

That was the “first message” as quoted by Bishop Williamson. The next Eleison Comments deals with the second message, which this time “is from God the Father.” Ha ha ha! Well, well. We won’t quote it either. Like the first message, it is all generic stuff which people will be able to “read into” - light vs darkness, truth vs falsehood, priests are being deceived and need to wake up, bishops aren’t doing their job properly, and so forth.

As with the first message, there is nothing about Vatican II, the New Mass, or any of it, in fact there is no specific detail about anything. Why might that be, do you think? To me at least it seems clear: specific details are easier to debunk that generic “truth and light” talk. By giving maximum generic fluff and minimum specific detail, the author of the “messages” makes it as easy as possible for the reader to “interpret” the meaning and thus find that it agrees with whatever he already thinks. Bishop Williamson sort of (almost!) does this at one point where there is a reference to “small battalions” of God’s army which remain spread across the world. He says:
Quote:“In the “small battalions” can anyone not recognise the scattered remnants of the so-called ‘Resistance’? ” (https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-ii/)

Interesting words from one who has claimed consistently since 2014 (at least in public: earlier in private) that he doesn’t believe in the Resistance. Even here he has to use speech marks and “so-called” before he can bring himself to utter the dreaded R word..! But leaving that aside, notice how he says that it “could” mean the Resistance. Yes, but it also “could” mean the proponents of “Saint” Faustina and her condemned “Divine Mercy” devotion. It “could” mean conservative novus ordo or indulty types who don’t like Pope Francis and long for the halcyon days of Pope Benedict, or “Saint John Paul the Great”..! It could mean so many things. Why does Garabandal come to mind? These bogus messages always sound alarming at first glance, but on closer inspection one notices that the language is actually quite vague, rather like a tabloid horoscope - there’s plenty of room for the reader to fill in his own “interpretation”. Like Garabandal too, one is left with the impression that the messages are basically “preaching to the choir” and telling people what they want to hear.


A Dubious Provenance

But enough of the bogus contents. It is nothing more or less than one would expect after all. If the messages don’t mention Vatican II or the New Mass that can hardly be a surprise, indeed it would be surprising if they did condemn the New Mass given that they come from a Novus Ordo community!

And who knows - given his continual promotion of the New Mass, perhaps Bishop Williamson wouldn’t be so keen on these messages either!

What else can one gather? The community calls itself “The Mission of Divine Mercy” and is located in rural Texas. What a curious name. Could it just be a coincidence? Not at all. The whole purpose of this community is to spread “Saint” Faustina’s condemned devotion and bogus “revelations”. Their website, curiously enough, does not say anything about the Divine Mercy devotion, but the newsletters are full of it. A quick look at some of the pictures on the website tells the same story.

The founder is one Father John Mary Foster, a priest who used to be a member of the Community of St John, a somewhat “conservative”-looking Novus Ordo religious order founded in 1978 and heavily pushed by John-Paul II during the 1980s and 90s. Following the death of its founder it emerged that it had been the seat of all kinds of sexual abuse and that its founder had been a monster, a manipulative cult leader who took sexual advantage of a great many young women over several decades.

But we digress. Fr John Mary Foster, according to his own website, joined the Community of St John in 1981 and studied in Fribourg, meaning that, whilst not a founder-member, he was one of the early members and would almost certainly have known personally Fr. Marie Dominique Philippe, the founder who also taught at Fribourg, and may even have been one of his inner circle. Yet if there is a story there, it has yet to be told. As far as we are aware, there is no further connection between the two. Foster presumably left the Community of St John back in 2001, when the then- bishop of San Antonio, Texas gave his approval for the current “community” (the Mission of Divine Mercy) to be founded within his diocese.

The community is small and eclectic, as the website makes clear. It comprises a priest, a brother, two nuns, a layman and a lay woman. Notice that the idea of mixing up lay and religious, male and female, is itself something very Novus Ordo. What is also worth noting is
that the “community” seems to have started out about this size and seems not really to have grown in the last twenty-odd years. Doubtless the “messages” from heaven will have given them new hope that all that might be about to change. A cynic might suggest that the new community had not been the success its members had hoped and that these divine “messages” smack of a desperation - but far be it from us to suggest such things!

[Image: Screenshot-2024-09-05-045926.png]


What is the Story Behind The Community of St John?

The history of the Community of St John is something of a rabbit-hole itself. Well-known in France, though less so in English-speaking countries, it was founded in 1978 by Fr Marie Dominique Philippe, OP. Conservative Novus Ordo, its members venerated their founder as something of a living Saint, right up to his death in 2006. In the last ten years it emerged that the founder had in fact been a serious sexual predator (young women, not boys). The male congregation still exists and has taken serious steps to erase the founder and all his influences from their constitution, reading and daily life. The congregation of nuns was dissolved by Benedict XVI, and Rome told reporters that the sisters had suffered manipulation which amounted to “sexual slavery” at the hands of senior priests of the order. The new male superiors commissioned an independent inquiry into what had really been going on. What came out was more horrific and far -reaching than anyone had suspected, reaching all the way back to the late 1940s.

Marie-Dominique Philippe had a biological brother, also a Dominican priest, Fr Thomas Philippe OP, who would later co-found “l’Arche” with Jean Vannier. Both priests had a blasphemous and heretical theology, which they taught in secret to an inner-circle and which they used to justify their own damnable conduct. Their uncle, also a Dominican priest, Fr Thomas Dehau OP, and their sister, Mother Cécile Philippe OP, were also part of the scandal. The former was, it seems, the main influence on his niece and two nephews. The latter used her position as superior of the Bouvines convent to supply her brothers with young female novices for sexual acts. When she was deposed, she was also found guilty of having sometimes supplied herself (incest) and of in effect having taken the place of her brothers (homosexuality). When one young woman, Anne de Rosanbo, became pregnant, she had an abortion which Fr Thomas Phillipe arranged for her.

The lurid details (yes, there are more), are horrific; more horrific still is the secret theology, a blasphemous heresy termed by some “porno-mysticism,” according to which, among other things, Our Lord had sexual relations with his Blessed mother. The Philippe brothers, it emerged, had been secretly teaching this to their inner-circle since at least the late 1940s.

When the Holy Office got wind of things in the 1950s, both priests (their uncle was dead by this point) were ordered into seclusion, suspended from any public ministry, and forbidden from any contact with each other or any of their little circle (they called each other the “tout-petits”). They seem to have secretly disobeyed. Fr Marie-Dominique Philippe, future founder of the Community of St John, was also forbidden from contact with any religious communities.

All of this remained largely [unknown] until it all came out around ten years ago. That was back in the 1950s. What happened after that is a familiar story. In the 1960s and 70s Rome turned a blind eye, and the Philippe brothers’ influence began to spread again. In the 1980s and 90s they were promoted enthusiastically by John-Paul II as founders of “new movements” which heralded the “renewal” of the Council. Hmm… why does that all sound so familiar? Why is one suddenly reminded of Legionaries of Christ? ...of the Divine Mercy? Community of St John? L’Arche..? There are so many examples that always seem to follow that pattern.


Further Reading:
https://freres-saint-jean.org/wp-content...n_2023.pdf
(Community of St John, full investigation report, in French)

https://brothers-saint-john.org/wp-conte...EALING.pdf (Summary of the above report in English)

https://commissiondetude-jeanvanier.org/...ex.php/en/
home-english/ (Full investigation report, commissioned by l’Arche, in English translation)


A Novus Bogus vibe...

Even without the condemned “Divine Mercy” permeating everything, the uncomfortable fact remains that this is a Novus Ordo community, whose only priest offers the New Mass. On their FAQ page, one can read the following:

“Do you offer the Traditional Latin Mass?

No. We offer the Novus Ordo Mass.”

Is further proof of Novus Ordo-ness needed? Maybe they’ve become “more Traditional” in recent years..? Well, let us take a look at one further piece of evidence on their own website.

Two years ago was the funeral of Margaret Foster, the mother of Fr John Mary. It has been given its own page on their website. The picture tells its own tale: white vestments and a white pall over the coffin. Beneath the audio file, a summary of the sermon is given thus:

• “John Mary states that without his mother, Margaret Foster, the Mission of Divine Mercy would not be here.
• Father recalls the importance of Purgatory which is a great school of love, where God’s children learn how to love what they were not able to learn during their life on earth.
• Purgatory is where souls are healed, made whole, restored in order to become the living tabernacle of His love and fullness.
• Our own lives, especially at these difficult ends, can be a special union with Jesus in His own suffering.
• Father introduces us to his mother, Margaret Foster.”

Purgatory being a place where souls are “healed” and “restored” - it all just sounds so, well, Novus Ordo, doesn’t it? Of course, there’s a sense in which that is true, but it is an incomplete explanation. Why is there no talk of expiation, of suffering, of paying the debt owed due to sin? Moreover, if she’s in purgatory, why the white vestments? So their theology is also Novus Ordo - meaning that even if they were one day to offer the Traditional Mass, what good would the Traditional liturgy be along side modernist, novus ordo doctrine?

Lifesite News, to their shame, have also been promoting these “messages” both on their own website (See here, for instance: “To view LifeSiteNews’ coverage of the alleged prophecies, click the following links: message one; message two; and message three.” etc. “Meet the Nun who allegedly received messages from heaven” reads another headline...) and via social media. And please, don’t anybody try to point to the word "allegedly” as though that somehow makes everything alright. As with Bishop Williamson, there has to be just enough equivocation to allow them to claim afterwards, should they ever need to, that they in fact never wholeheartedly endorsed these “messages”. But as with Bishop Williamson, is there any way they would be giving these “messages” so much free advertising if they thought they were false? Since they have now been given free publicity by both Bishop Williamson (four weeks in a row) and by LifeSite News, we must hope and pray that not too many otherwise well-meaning souls will be taken in by this.


Conclusion

What is one to conclude from all this? Bogus “messages” from a dubious Novus Ordo source are after all nothing new. What matters here is the response. John Henry Westen, owner of Lifesite News, ought really to know better. It would be wise for Catholics to be a little circumspect in future and take what he says with a pinch of salt. And if you get those begging-letter emails from him, don’t give him a penny, at least not until he has come clean and apologised for promoting this rubbish. In the meantime there are far more deserving causes for you to save your hard earned pennies towards. But he is only a layman, albeit one with rather more influence than most.

Bishop Williamson - let us say it again - is a bishop and therefore the responsibility and culpability are immeasurably greater in his case. Just think of all the souls led astray as a result: Our Lord will know where to place the blame for all of us when we die. It is enough to make one shudder. Anyone inclined to wonder whether we are exaggerating, go and have a look for yourself: the second and third Eleison Comments (https://
stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-ii/ and https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkablemessages-iii/) are about 80% quoting directly from the “messages” without a single word of qualification or criticism. The fourth one is about 90% quotation, the only words by Bishop Williamson himself being the following:
Quote:“This fourth (and last for the moment) Message from Texas is specially appropriate for Catholics today, both by its understanding of their distress, and by its appealing for their trust. It is these ‘Comments’ that have highlighted certain words in black. By all means read the original Messages at mdm.”(https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-iv/)

Tell me that that isn’t promotion. So let’s just add this to the list of why nobody should have anything to do with Bishop Williamson or allow him to influence them in any way (including being influenced by those who are working with him). Pederastic housemates, sending new converts to Tradition back to the new Mass, promoting Valtorta’s “Gospel as revealed to me” - another bogus “revelation” which like the “Divine Mercy” was condemned by the Holy Office in the days before Vatican II but then became widespread after Vatican II. Here we see him promoting not only a bogus revelation - the fact that the messages are certainly fake can be almost taken as read. What matters is that their provenance is a New Mass apostolate dedicated to spreading the condemned “Divine Mercy” messages and devotion. In promoting their messages, Bishop Williamson is promoting them. There is no way around that. So we must add to the list his, in effect, promotion of the condemned “Divine Mercy”. Where will this end?

As usual, don’t hold your breath waiting for any kind of response: a public silence is all we have come to expect. Although Bishop Williamson’s various errors and scandals have been documented here over the past nine years, only one or two of his unfortunate followers (Samuel Loeman, Sean Johnson, Hugh Akins...) have ever tried to defend him, and that was some seven years ago. Since then they seem to have given up and gone home and who can blame them? It is all so obviously wrong. Kyrie Eleison.]]> <![CDATA[Bishop Williamson: Then Or Now?]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6435 Wed, 04 Sep 2024 12:32:59 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6435 The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:



Of course, as always there will be no public answer to this question. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be asked:

Bishop Williamson: Then Or Now?


If you speak to someone who tells you that he is a supporter of Bishop Williamson, you have the right to probe a little deeper. Try the following question: which Bishop Williamson do you support: the Bishop Williamson of back then or the Bishop Williamson of now?


THEN:

Here is what the old Bishop Williamson used to say concerning the New Mass:
  • “Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it.” (Eleison Comments #387)

  • “The New Mass is in any case illicit. In any case, it’s designed to please Protestants, it’s designed to undo Catholicism. It’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it turned out. … If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I attend? NO! The fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s ok to attend.”  (See The Catacombs; see also audio, here)

That was the old Richard Williamson, the one whom Archbishop Lefebvre chose to become a bishop. Had he spoken back then the way he speaks now, he would not have been chosen and would in all likelihood have been disciplined and, if obstinate, thrown out. The new Richard Williamson contradicts the old Richard Williamson. If you side with the old Richard Williamson, then the cult followers, sycophants and hangers-on of the new Bishop Williamson will attack you for it, including behind your back. If you are a priest who sides with the old Bishop Williamson, then you can expect the new Bishop Williamson to maintain a sacramental blockade against your faithful.

NOW:

What does the new Bishop Williamson teach concerning the same question?
  • “Bishop Williamson: There are a number of decent priests still operating as decent priests inside the Novus Ordo… if you look somewhere in your area within reach of your car’s petrol tank, your gasoline tank, you will find, somewhere, you will find a decent Novus Ordo priest. … I believe there are some who do understand it and who still want to practice as good priests. Now, they’re  forced to celebrate the New Mass. …

    Interviewer: People who go to those [Novus Ordo] Masses, in the vast majority of cases, are of a liberal mindset, they go into the church and come out and answer a survey saying: abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, homosexuality is acceptable, this is acceptable. You, your excellency, are asking me, in this heresy, in this just absolute cesspool of heresy, to try to maybe find some priest which I don’t even think exists, to hear my confession. But to me it is so obvious that this whole thing is fake! How can I participate in it? It’s fake! This has nothing to do with Vatican I, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Pius X, it’s got nothing to do with Pius IX, it has nothing to do with Thomism. It’s Protestantism and Communism. So how can I even approach this as an honest Catholic?

    Bishop Williamson: OK, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand where you’re coming from. I only say, I think there’s a little more white around you and available if you look for it than you believe. … but don’t believe that you’re up against a world in which everything is either black or, well I’m sorry, in which all of the grey is all black. No, if it’s grey, then there’s some white mixed in with the black. It’s your business to sort out the white from the black, to frequent the white as you say, not to frequent the black, not to go along with the black, not to go along with this fake religion as you quite rightly say. The new religion of Vatican II is a fake religion, no question about it, and it’s at war with the true religion. I’m obviously not saying go along with the new religion. What I’m saying is: I do believe in the terrible mixture of grey and black that exists, in this vale of tears, that’s almost everywhere in this vale of tears … Now you say that the Novus Ordo is all completely gone and rotten. I understand and you can’t afford to eat a half-poisoned cake. I understand. But if the cake is half-poisoned then there’s half of it that isn’t poisoned. And if you’re using your mind a point comes when you can begin to distinguish what is poisoned and what isn’t. So when you come to applying - the principles are absolute but their application is - the principles are in black and white, no mixture, but the application is in a world of greys, so when it comes to applying the principles you’ve got to - [talks about Novus Ordo miracles] . . .

    I’m obviously not pushing the new religion. What I'm saying is that there is still part valid in the new religion along side all that is fake. I may well admit readily that in many cases there’s much more fake than there still is validity. That’s not the question. The question is what you should do where you are. And have you got to stay away from every anything that’s got anything to do with the Novus Ordo. My answer to that absolute question is: no. You don’t have to stay absolutely away. I’m not saying follow the new religion. I’m saying you’re young and you’re strong, you can drive around the diocese. That SSPX priest probably knows some conservative priest in the area, probably. Ask him.”  (Youtube interview, 4th August, 2022)
  • “There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s Faith instead of losing it. … Be very careful with 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.”  (Mahopac, New York, 28th June 2015)

  • “I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass.”  (Ibid.)

  • “I don’t say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!'" (St. Catharine’s, Ontario, 5th November 2014)

  • “The Novus Ordo is false, but it’s not only false, it’s part true part false. The false part is very dangerous, but the true part enables souls to keep the Faith.”  (Veneta Oregon, 19th September, 2016)

  • “Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it.”  (Eleison Comments #348)

  • “As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the Novus Ordo Mass can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.”  (Eleison Comments #447)

  • “Question: Then, does it mean that those knowing what they know, such as the souls here could go to that [Novus Ordo Mass] and expect to receive grace?

  • Bishop Williamson: If anybody here who knows what the Novus Ordo means went back to the Novus Ordo - pffff! - then [pause] - why would they want to go back?

    [laughter] Well, it’s, I would - they can receive grace. But they have to judge the priest…”  (Emmett, Kansas, 18th September, 2016)
  • “I’m sure you ask yourselves: ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase.”  (Vienna, Virginia, 20th May 2016)

Summary

Bishop Williamson Then: The New Mass is evil! Don’t go to it!

Bishop Williamson Now: Go to the New Mass! You’ll Get Grace There!


Conclusion:

Catholics who live in contradiction are Catholics who are living a lie. One characteristic of the truth is that it does not change, because God does not change. If someone who used to tell you that the New Mass is evil and must be avoided now says that you can go to it and receive grace there, that person has gone astray and you must not listen to his advice.]]> The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:



Of course, as always there will be no public answer to this question. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be asked:

Bishop Williamson: Then Or Now?


If you speak to someone who tells you that he is a supporter of Bishop Williamson, you have the right to probe a little deeper. Try the following question: which Bishop Williamson do you support: the Bishop Williamson of back then or the Bishop Williamson of now?


THEN:

Here is what the old Bishop Williamson used to say concerning the New Mass:
  • “Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it.” (Eleison Comments #387)

  • “The New Mass is in any case illicit. In any case, it’s designed to please Protestants, it’s designed to undo Catholicism. It’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it turned out. … If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I attend? NO! The fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s ok to attend.”  (See The Catacombs; see also audio, here)

That was the old Richard Williamson, the one whom Archbishop Lefebvre chose to become a bishop. Had he spoken back then the way he speaks now, he would not have been chosen and would in all likelihood have been disciplined and, if obstinate, thrown out. The new Richard Williamson contradicts the old Richard Williamson. If you side with the old Richard Williamson, then the cult followers, sycophants and hangers-on of the new Bishop Williamson will attack you for it, including behind your back. If you are a priest who sides with the old Bishop Williamson, then you can expect the new Bishop Williamson to maintain a sacramental blockade against your faithful.

NOW:

What does the new Bishop Williamson teach concerning the same question?
  • “Bishop Williamson: There are a number of decent priests still operating as decent priests inside the Novus Ordo… if you look somewhere in your area within reach of your car’s petrol tank, your gasoline tank, you will find, somewhere, you will find a decent Novus Ordo priest. … I believe there are some who do understand it and who still want to practice as good priests. Now, they’re  forced to celebrate the New Mass. …

    Interviewer: People who go to those [Novus Ordo] Masses, in the vast majority of cases, are of a liberal mindset, they go into the church and come out and answer a survey saying: abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, homosexuality is acceptable, this is acceptable. You, your excellency, are asking me, in this heresy, in this just absolute cesspool of heresy, to try to maybe find some priest which I don’t even think exists, to hear my confession. But to me it is so obvious that this whole thing is fake! How can I participate in it? It’s fake! This has nothing to do with Vatican I, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Pius X, it’s got nothing to do with Pius IX, it has nothing to do with Thomism. It’s Protestantism and Communism. So how can I even approach this as an honest Catholic?

    Bishop Williamson: OK, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand where you’re coming from. I only say, I think there’s a little more white around you and available if you look for it than you believe. … but don’t believe that you’re up against a world in which everything is either black or, well I’m sorry, in which all of the grey is all black. No, if it’s grey, then there’s some white mixed in with the black. It’s your business to sort out the white from the black, to frequent the white as you say, not to frequent the black, not to go along with the black, not to go along with this fake religion as you quite rightly say. The new religion of Vatican II is a fake religion, no question about it, and it’s at war with the true religion. I’m obviously not saying go along with the new religion. What I’m saying is: I do believe in the terrible mixture of grey and black that exists, in this vale of tears, that’s almost everywhere in this vale of tears … Now you say that the Novus Ordo is all completely gone and rotten. I understand and you can’t afford to eat a half-poisoned cake. I understand. But if the cake is half-poisoned then there’s half of it that isn’t poisoned. And if you’re using your mind a point comes when you can begin to distinguish what is poisoned and what isn’t. So when you come to applying - the principles are absolute but their application is - the principles are in black and white, no mixture, but the application is in a world of greys, so when it comes to applying the principles you’ve got to - [talks about Novus Ordo miracles] . . .

    I’m obviously not pushing the new religion. What I'm saying is that there is still part valid in the new religion along side all that is fake. I may well admit readily that in many cases there’s much more fake than there still is validity. That’s not the question. The question is what you should do where you are. And have you got to stay away from every anything that’s got anything to do with the Novus Ordo. My answer to that absolute question is: no. You don’t have to stay absolutely away. I’m not saying follow the new religion. I’m saying you’re young and you’re strong, you can drive around the diocese. That SSPX priest probably knows some conservative priest in the area, probably. Ask him.”  (Youtube interview, 4th August, 2022)
  • “There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s Faith instead of losing it. … Be very careful with 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.”  (Mahopac, New York, 28th June 2015)

  • “I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass.”  (Ibid.)

  • “I don’t say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!'" (St. Catharine’s, Ontario, 5th November 2014)

  • “The Novus Ordo is false, but it’s not only false, it’s part true part false. The false part is very dangerous, but the true part enables souls to keep the Faith.”  (Veneta Oregon, 19th September, 2016)

  • “Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it.”  (Eleison Comments #348)

  • “As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the Novus Ordo Mass can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.”  (Eleison Comments #447)

  • “Question: Then, does it mean that those knowing what they know, such as the souls here could go to that [Novus Ordo Mass] and expect to receive grace?

  • Bishop Williamson: If anybody here who knows what the Novus Ordo means went back to the Novus Ordo - pffff! - then [pause] - why would they want to go back?

    [laughter] Well, it’s, I would - they can receive grace. But they have to judge the priest…”  (Emmett, Kansas, 18th September, 2016)
  • “I’m sure you ask yourselves: ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase.”  (Vienna, Virginia, 20th May 2016)

Summary

Bishop Williamson Then: The New Mass is evil! Don’t go to it!

Bishop Williamson Now: Go to the New Mass! You’ll Get Grace There!


Conclusion:

Catholics who live in contradiction are Catholics who are living a lie. One characteristic of the truth is that it does not change, because God does not change. If someone who used to tell you that the New Mass is evil and must be avoided now says that you can go to it and receive grace there, that person has gone astray and you must not listen to his advice.]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Altamira 2016: Concerns re Bp. Williamson]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6125 Fri, 03 May 2024 12:04:47 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6125 considered doubtful), the content has been repeated by others over the years regarding the confusion and concerns about what Bp. Williamson publicly writes and speaks of regarding the Conciliar Church and New Mass and New Mass 'Miracles.' 

The Catacombs has repeatedly echoed the good priests who have not been afraid to warn against the errors promoted by Bp. Williamson on these topics as they are an acceptance of error. Indeed, we have quoted the 'traditional' words of Bp. Williamson condemning the New Mass many years ago and compared that to the 'new' Bp. Williamson allowing for it. And this change of orthodoxy has gone so far that Bp. Williamson refuses Holy Oils to priests who do not accept the New Mass 'miracles'. How low things have fallen!

We earnestly pray for a return to true tradition for all the bishops and priests who have compromised and thus have created an environment of confusion for souls.

The following links were forwarded to me by a good friend in Australia.


From TIA [adapted] | February 5, 2016

Editor Note:  ... a reader sent TIA a recent letter by a priest of this split, Fr. Fernando Altamira, addressed to Bishop Jean-Marie Faure, the priest consecrated a bishop by Williamson in March 2015 in Brazil. The letter is self explanatory. It reveals that at least one split is taking place inside of the split. It is not a good sign. Our Lord warned us: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined.” (Mt 12:25)

TIA reproduces this letter as we received it, without any changes, solely to provide information for our readers. We do not agree either with several points of its general lines, such as accepting as normal the “episcopal consecration” of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, or with some particular views, such as accepting sede-vacantism as a well founded hypothesis.


______________________


TIA,

I saw this posted on other forums and thought it would be interesting to share what one R&R [recognize and resist] priest has to say.

C.M.



Letter from Fr. Altamira to Bishop Faure


Dear Bishop Faure (cc. Bp. Williamson), dear Fathers,

Permit me to speak frankly to you: it seems to me that we are not showing ourselves to be honest, either with ourselves or with the faithful.

We are doing what Bishop Fellay does and we will provoke the same consequences. In the current situation of the crisis in the Church and the “crisis in the Resistance,” there is not a lot left and what is left is ill.

What’s more, our comrades who are still in the SSPX (priests and brothers), seeing the way we are, will never join us. One of them said: if we do something (against Bishop Fellay), we won’t come over to the Resistance.

Bishop Fellay and his group continue and will continue to laugh at us. The fact that we are the way we are is the best thing that could have happened to him.

On the subject of Bishop Williamson:

Some (four) have tried to defend Bishop Williamson and his words about the New Mass (USA, Eleison Comments, etc).

I have the impression that we are not showing ourselves to be honest: if Bishop Fellay had said those things, we would have criticised him roundly. But it’s Bishop Williamson who said them: “So let’s not say anything, we have to defend him.” Please excuse me if I speak frankly, but what we’re doing is shameful, we’re the laughing stock of the world.

Bishop Faure defends Bishop Williamson with insistence (in his declarations on his trip to Mexico, in emails, etc.)

Bishop Faure affirms that there is no error in the Eleison Comments, which is debatable.

It is more serious if one takes into consideration the words of Bishop Williamson in the USA (if anyone wants to listen to it again, here’s the link. I don’t approve of the mocking style, but the information is exact) I will merely remark that, from a moral point of view, what Bishop Williamson said to this lady is unacceptable.

Even more serious if one takes equally into consideration the other information concerning Bishop Williamson (the “Nazi” business, the reintegration into the apostolate of Fr. X, his words to several priests of the SSPX, etc.

Another argument of Bishop Faure to try to defend Bishop Williamson’s miracles in the New Mass is the fact that God can work outside the Catholic Church, and that God has made miracles among certain sacrileges.

But that’s a sophism since, if God permits a miracle, for example, in a false religion, from all evidence it doesn’t serve as a guarantee of what is false or evil, but will be against all that.

The same goes for a miracle in the case of a sacrilege, with hosts, it is always against the sacrilege, never in its favour.

However, the “miracles” put forth by Bishop Williamson clearly favour the new Mass, including the “fruits”: thus, the “great” national sanctuary in Poland… at the service of the false religion of the Council.

Dear colleagues: I believe that it is time to cease trying to look for arguments to defend what is indefensible. Otherwise, we could incur a divine curse. “The Eleison Comments and declarations in the USA are only ambiguous”: isn’t that funny: that’s exactly what Bishop Fellay does.

Dom Tomas said more or less the same thing to defend Bishop Williamson.

Fr. Cardozo has already written two articles against this subject of so-called miracles of the New Mass. [Here is one - The Catacombs]

And that’s without even getting to the subject of the risk of invalidity of the modern episcopacy and priesthood. On this subject, and quite logically, Bishop Williamson endorses the thesis of their validity.

And all this without forgetting the other problems which we have (re-read the letter “The same causes will produce the same effects”).

I imagine that you have already seen the abberant video of Francis about his intention for 2016 and the different religions:

Faced with the scandals and heresies of Francis:

1. Surrendering to False Rome. Bp. Fellay: I’m going to Rome. Bp. Williamson: I’m going to Rome. Bishop Faure: I’m going to Rome.

2. Agreement. Bp. Fellay: I want an agreement. Bp. Williamson: A canonical regularisation or a juridical status would be desirable, of course. Bp. Faure:…?

3. Francis. We criticise Bp. Fellay because, publicly, he doesn’t say anything, or almost, about Francis. Bp. Williamson: same thing. Bp. Faure: same thing.

4. We deny the theological and factual possibility of sedevacantism. And this, against good theology which speaks of the possibility. And we evoke the possibility of making sermons against sedevacantism, which is absurd: you can’t make sermons against facts which are possible.

5. Fr. Altamira is a sedevacantist. That’s not true: I pray for Francis, sub conditione. But I do not exclude nor put to one side colleagues who refuse to do so, be they in France or Spanish-speaking America. And even less so after such a video.

Dear colleagues: Permit me to share with you my opinion, in all simplicity: we need to change course. We are acting like Bp. Fellay and his group. He will destroy the SSPX. And we, we are doing the same to the Resistance, almost before it has been born (and the same goes for the USML).

“The interests of the group are more important than the truth, the priests of the Resistance who refuse are put to one side, isolated, marginalised, they find themselves alone.”

If we continue to act thus, the risk is great that God will leave us and withdraw his blessing. Pray God that some of you decide to act in the face of this situation, to resolve it.

I fraternally greet you in Jesus and Mary (Sunday 10th January)

Fr. Altamira]]> considered doubtful), the content has been repeated by others over the years regarding the confusion and concerns about what Bp. Williamson publicly writes and speaks of regarding the Conciliar Church and New Mass and New Mass 'Miracles.' 

The Catacombs has repeatedly echoed the good priests who have not been afraid to warn against the errors promoted by Bp. Williamson on these topics as they are an acceptance of error. Indeed, we have quoted the 'traditional' words of Bp. Williamson condemning the New Mass many years ago and compared that to the 'new' Bp. Williamson allowing for it. And this change of orthodoxy has gone so far that Bp. Williamson refuses Holy Oils to priests who do not accept the New Mass 'miracles'. How low things have fallen!

We earnestly pray for a return to true tradition for all the bishops and priests who have compromised and thus have created an environment of confusion for souls.

The following links were forwarded to me by a good friend in Australia.


From TIA [adapted] | February 5, 2016

Editor Note:  ... a reader sent TIA a recent letter by a priest of this split, Fr. Fernando Altamira, addressed to Bishop Jean-Marie Faure, the priest consecrated a bishop by Williamson in March 2015 in Brazil. The letter is self explanatory. It reveals that at least one split is taking place inside of the split. It is not a good sign. Our Lord warned us: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined.” (Mt 12:25)

TIA reproduces this letter as we received it, without any changes, solely to provide information for our readers. We do not agree either with several points of its general lines, such as accepting as normal the “episcopal consecration” of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, or with some particular views, such as accepting sede-vacantism as a well founded hypothesis.


______________________


TIA,

I saw this posted on other forums and thought it would be interesting to share what one R&R [recognize and resist] priest has to say.

C.M.



Letter from Fr. Altamira to Bishop Faure


Dear Bishop Faure (cc. Bp. Williamson), dear Fathers,

Permit me to speak frankly to you: it seems to me that we are not showing ourselves to be honest, either with ourselves or with the faithful.

We are doing what Bishop Fellay does and we will provoke the same consequences. In the current situation of the crisis in the Church and the “crisis in the Resistance,” there is not a lot left and what is left is ill.

What’s more, our comrades who are still in the SSPX (priests and brothers), seeing the way we are, will never join us. One of them said: if we do something (against Bishop Fellay), we won’t come over to the Resistance.

Bishop Fellay and his group continue and will continue to laugh at us. The fact that we are the way we are is the best thing that could have happened to him.

On the subject of Bishop Williamson:

Some (four) have tried to defend Bishop Williamson and his words about the New Mass (USA, Eleison Comments, etc).

I have the impression that we are not showing ourselves to be honest: if Bishop Fellay had said those things, we would have criticised him roundly. But it’s Bishop Williamson who said them: “So let’s not say anything, we have to defend him.” Please excuse me if I speak frankly, but what we’re doing is shameful, we’re the laughing stock of the world.

Bishop Faure defends Bishop Williamson with insistence (in his declarations on his trip to Mexico, in emails, etc.)

Bishop Faure affirms that there is no error in the Eleison Comments, which is debatable.

It is more serious if one takes into consideration the words of Bishop Williamson in the USA (if anyone wants to listen to it again, here’s the link. I don’t approve of the mocking style, but the information is exact) I will merely remark that, from a moral point of view, what Bishop Williamson said to this lady is unacceptable.

Even more serious if one takes equally into consideration the other information concerning Bishop Williamson (the “Nazi” business, the reintegration into the apostolate of Fr. X, his words to several priests of the SSPX, etc.

Another argument of Bishop Faure to try to defend Bishop Williamson’s miracles in the New Mass is the fact that God can work outside the Catholic Church, and that God has made miracles among certain sacrileges.

But that’s a sophism since, if God permits a miracle, for example, in a false religion, from all evidence it doesn’t serve as a guarantee of what is false or evil, but will be against all that.

The same goes for a miracle in the case of a sacrilege, with hosts, it is always against the sacrilege, never in its favour.

However, the “miracles” put forth by Bishop Williamson clearly favour the new Mass, including the “fruits”: thus, the “great” national sanctuary in Poland… at the service of the false religion of the Council.

Dear colleagues: I believe that it is time to cease trying to look for arguments to defend what is indefensible. Otherwise, we could incur a divine curse. “The Eleison Comments and declarations in the USA are only ambiguous”: isn’t that funny: that’s exactly what Bishop Fellay does.

Dom Tomas said more or less the same thing to defend Bishop Williamson.

Fr. Cardozo has already written two articles against this subject of so-called miracles of the New Mass. [Here is one - The Catacombs]

And that’s without even getting to the subject of the risk of invalidity of the modern episcopacy and priesthood. On this subject, and quite logically, Bishop Williamson endorses the thesis of their validity.

And all this without forgetting the other problems which we have (re-read the letter “The same causes will produce the same effects”).

I imagine that you have already seen the abberant video of Francis about his intention for 2016 and the different religions:

Faced with the scandals and heresies of Francis:

1. Surrendering to False Rome. Bp. Fellay: I’m going to Rome. Bp. Williamson: I’m going to Rome. Bishop Faure: I’m going to Rome.

2. Agreement. Bp. Fellay: I want an agreement. Bp. Williamson: A canonical regularisation or a juridical status would be desirable, of course. Bp. Faure:…?

3. Francis. We criticise Bp. Fellay because, publicly, he doesn’t say anything, or almost, about Francis. Bp. Williamson: same thing. Bp. Faure: same thing.

4. We deny the theological and factual possibility of sedevacantism. And this, against good theology which speaks of the possibility. And we evoke the possibility of making sermons against sedevacantism, which is absurd: you can’t make sermons against facts which are possible.

5. Fr. Altamira is a sedevacantist. That’s not true: I pray for Francis, sub conditione. But I do not exclude nor put to one side colleagues who refuse to do so, be they in France or Spanish-speaking America. And even less so after such a video.

Dear colleagues: Permit me to share with you my opinion, in all simplicity: we need to change course. We are acting like Bp. Fellay and his group. He will destroy the SSPX. And we, we are doing the same to the Resistance, almost before it has been born (and the same goes for the USML).

“The interests of the group are more important than the truth, the priests of the Resistance who refuse are put to one side, isolated, marginalised, they find themselves alone.”

If we continue to act thus, the risk is great that God will leave us and withdraw his blessing. Pray God that some of you decide to act in the face of this situation, to resolve it.

I fraternally greet you in Jesus and Mary (Sunday 10th January)

Fr. Altamira]]> <![CDATA[Bp. Williamson promoting new Novus Ordo "messages" in TX]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6096 Sat, 20 Apr 2024 11:15:43 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6096 Eleison Comments published today [April 20, 2024] entitled Remarkable Messages I, Bp. Williamson continues to elicit astonishment and confusion. 

Here we go again.

After promoting Garabandal (to this day never approved by even the Conciliar Church) and insisting on the belief in various Conciliar Eucharistic 'miracles' we are [shouldn't be?] surprised to find His Excellency promoting another Novus Ordo group, the Mission of Divine Mercy, whose self-proclaimed charism "is the role of prophecy."

And there is no mistaking this group as traditional. On their FAQ page, they answer the question: "DO YOU OFFER THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS? No.  We offer the Novus Ordo  Mass.

Another sign of their firm Novus Ordo adherence is in their description of the Cross on their emblem which they describe as "The Cross of Light:  This signifies the Light of the New Evangelization."

So here we have a group of Novus Ordo religious and laity, named after a condemned devotion (Divine Mercy via Sr. Faustina), functioning as a solely Novus Ordo group - not even a whisper of an indult-esque or traditional orientation, with a self-proclaimed 'charism' of faith via prophecy.

And 'messages' from this group, dear friends, is who a 'traditional' bishop is promoting. Something isn't right here...

And even when reading the 'messages' one is reminded of the usual Novus Ordo style of language. 

But without further ado, Bp. Williamson's Remarkable Messages I:

Quote:ELEISON  COMMENTS  DCCCLXXV  (April 20, 2024) : REMARKABLE  MESSAGES  –  I

When it comes to apparitions and messages supposedly coming from Heaven, to be prudent is certainly wise, because God knows, the Devil has so infiltrated the minds of churchmen with the betrayal of the true Catholic Faith by the devilries of Vatican II that these churchmen can hardly any longer be relied on to make a proper Catholic discernment for us between what is and what is not truly from Heaven, as St Paul calls upon us to do in Scripture – I Thess.V, 19-21. But one can be excessively prudent, especially when the normal Church Authority is itself in confusion. One thing is certain: just as there would be no counterfeit bank-notes if there were no genuine notes in circulation, so there would be no counterfeit Messages from Heaven if there were no genuine ones to imitate.  It is up to ourselves to do our best to discern. Let us give to a series of recent Messages coming from backwoods Texas, USA, a hearing.

The series began with an introductory Message supposedly from Our Lady – let the “supposedly” be taken for granted and not repeated in everything quoted henceforth in these “Eleison Comments” from these Messages. The “Comments” have no authority to guarantee the Texas Messages’ authenticity, but they do take them seriously enough to consider them well worth quoting. Let readers judge on their own. Here for instance are a few extracts from the first Message (last time – supposedly) of Our Lady –

February 8 : Children, the battle looms and you are asleep. I come to awake you; as a good mother who, being vigilant and keeping watch over her children, and seeing the increasing danger, shakes her children so that they may not perish without fighting. Children, these are the times announced from of old, in which the thrice accursed serpent will poison many, and interfere in what is Ours, and will rise to confuse the nations with his puppets, his servants, to destroy all that is of God, and to rule in His place. The Devil’s longing to be adored and his hatred of God have driven him to prepare, over centuries, what is now being unveiled before your eyes…

I have come to you, children, time and time again, year after year, to warn you… but how few of you have understood me, and placed yourselves at my disposal for Me to form My army of light… Children, there is no time left. The battle, Our counter-attack, begins with these Words, which We give to you as Light, Protection, Guidance and Consolation. Do not ignore them… they will give you the guidance that you need, now that My Church is without a shepherd to tend to My sheep, to My children… They want to destroy you, children… receive my Words of love and consolation.

You are wounded, my little children, some more, some less, but all of you carry wounds – from your own decisions, from the hatred of Satan – and all of you need Our healing, all of you need Our help. My children, I give my Jesus to you again, I give Him to you with all my personal Love… as your King… your Saviour and Redeemer… only Him, children. Only He saves. Only He purifies. Only He heals… Do not be confused. Many voices try, and will try, to pass as His. Many say, and will say that they do everything in His name. But look at their works. Look at the fruits, children. DO NOT IGNORE THEM.

And I, your Mother, will prepare you to receive the supreme Gift of luminous Faith in the centre of your soul to be able to face the present and coming times, in which everything that seemed to be stable will crumble down… Blessed is he who receives these Words and allows them to bear their fruit…

The complete text is rather longer, and the selected extracts quoted above do not convey Our Lady’s sense of urgency, as though we are on the very brink of the great battle due to break out. The little Catholic centre in Texas receiving these Messages has its own website – look up “Mission of Divine Mercy”.

Truly,    Kyrie eleison.

The horror coming threatens massive pain,

And that is why She warns, again and again.
]]> Eleison Comments published today [April 20, 2024] entitled Remarkable Messages I, Bp. Williamson continues to elicit astonishment and confusion. 

Here we go again.

After promoting Garabandal (to this day never approved by even the Conciliar Church) and insisting on the belief in various Conciliar Eucharistic 'miracles' we are [shouldn't be?] surprised to find His Excellency promoting another Novus Ordo group, the Mission of Divine Mercy, whose self-proclaimed charism "is the role of prophecy."

And there is no mistaking this group as traditional. On their FAQ page, they answer the question: "DO YOU OFFER THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS? No.  We offer the Novus Ordo  Mass.

Another sign of their firm Novus Ordo adherence is in their description of the Cross on their emblem which they describe as "The Cross of Light:  This signifies the Light of the New Evangelization."

So here we have a group of Novus Ordo religious and laity, named after a condemned devotion (Divine Mercy via Sr. Faustina), functioning as a solely Novus Ordo group - not even a whisper of an indult-esque or traditional orientation, with a self-proclaimed 'charism' of faith via prophecy.

And 'messages' from this group, dear friends, is who a 'traditional' bishop is promoting. Something isn't right here...

And even when reading the 'messages' one is reminded of the usual Novus Ordo style of language. 

But without further ado, Bp. Williamson's Remarkable Messages I:

Quote:ELEISON  COMMENTS  DCCCLXXV  (April 20, 2024) : REMARKABLE  MESSAGES  –  I

When it comes to apparitions and messages supposedly coming from Heaven, to be prudent is certainly wise, because God knows, the Devil has so infiltrated the minds of churchmen with the betrayal of the true Catholic Faith by the devilries of Vatican II that these churchmen can hardly any longer be relied on to make a proper Catholic discernment for us between what is and what is not truly from Heaven, as St Paul calls upon us to do in Scripture – I Thess.V, 19-21. But one can be excessively prudent, especially when the normal Church Authority is itself in confusion. One thing is certain: just as there would be no counterfeit bank-notes if there were no genuine notes in circulation, so there would be no counterfeit Messages from Heaven if there were no genuine ones to imitate.  It is up to ourselves to do our best to discern. Let us give to a series of recent Messages coming from backwoods Texas, USA, a hearing.

The series began with an introductory Message supposedly from Our Lady – let the “supposedly” be taken for granted and not repeated in everything quoted henceforth in these “Eleison Comments” from these Messages. The “Comments” have no authority to guarantee the Texas Messages’ authenticity, but they do take them seriously enough to consider them well worth quoting. Let readers judge on their own. Here for instance are a few extracts from the first Message (last time – supposedly) of Our Lady –

February 8 : Children, the battle looms and you are asleep. I come to awake you; as a good mother who, being vigilant and keeping watch over her children, and seeing the increasing danger, shakes her children so that they may not perish without fighting. Children, these are the times announced from of old, in which the thrice accursed serpent will poison many, and interfere in what is Ours, and will rise to confuse the nations with his puppets, his servants, to destroy all that is of God, and to rule in His place. The Devil’s longing to be adored and his hatred of God have driven him to prepare, over centuries, what is now being unveiled before your eyes…

I have come to you, children, time and time again, year after year, to warn you… but how few of you have understood me, and placed yourselves at my disposal for Me to form My army of light… Children, there is no time left. The battle, Our counter-attack, begins with these Words, which We give to you as Light, Protection, Guidance and Consolation. Do not ignore them… they will give you the guidance that you need, now that My Church is without a shepherd to tend to My sheep, to My children… They want to destroy you, children… receive my Words of love and consolation.

You are wounded, my little children, some more, some less, but all of you carry wounds – from your own decisions, from the hatred of Satan – and all of you need Our healing, all of you need Our help. My children, I give my Jesus to you again, I give Him to you with all my personal Love… as your King… your Saviour and Redeemer… only Him, children. Only He saves. Only He purifies. Only He heals… Do not be confused. Many voices try, and will try, to pass as His. Many say, and will say that they do everything in His name. But look at their works. Look at the fruits, children. DO NOT IGNORE THEM.

And I, your Mother, will prepare you to receive the supreme Gift of luminous Faith in the centre of your soul to be able to face the present and coming times, in which everything that seemed to be stable will crumble down… Blessed is he who receives these Words and allows them to bear their fruit…

The complete text is rather longer, and the selected extracts quoted above do not convey Our Lady’s sense of urgency, as though we are on the very brink of the great battle due to break out. The little Catholic centre in Texas receiving these Messages has its own website – look up “Mission of Divine Mercy”.

Truly,    Kyrie eleison.

The horror coming threatens massive pain,

And that is why She warns, again and again.
]]> <![CDATA["BW's Liberalism Again"]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6006 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 13:55:38 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6006 BW's Liberalism Again."

The email links to a brief Q&A published online regarding a troubling recent Eleison Comments (authored by Bp. Williamson) regarding Novus Ordo Sacraments.

This is important as the accusations of "disgruntled infighting" are often hurled at Frs. Hewko and Ruiz for having said the same things as the more objective 'Traditio Fathers.' Traditio is not part of the Resistance and have 'no skin in the game' as the saying goes. They are simply comparing the words of Bishop Williamson with the teachings of the Church. 


Quote:Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

A well-known traditional (?) Catholic bishop has been scandalizing true Traditional Catholics by suddenly pandering to the "sacraments" of the New Order (Novus Ordo) sect, aka the Newchurch of the New Order. In his most recent writing he answers the question "What about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses (sic)?" by stating: "Perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid." Doesn't that answer flatly contradict Catholic doctrine?


THE TRADITIO FATHERS REPLY:

That statement most certainly does contradict Catholic doctrine. The Sacraments must be certain. There cannot be any moral doubt, or a Catholic is obliged under pain of idolatry, a grave sin against the First Commandment of God, to shun the fakery like the Devil. The idea that a Catholic could receive a doubtful "sacrament" is unconscionable.

There are certainly examples of this doctrine in the history of the Church. After the Church In England revolted and adopted a Protestant Ordinal in 1550, written by the Arch-heretic Thomas Cranmer, the Catholic Church was split. Some Catholics, even some prelates, considered Anglican ordinations valid; most did not. In this situation of doubt, the Catholic Church never allowed Catholics to receive "sacraments" from Anglican presbyter/ministers. The Catholic Church never said "perhaps." No, in the case of moral doubt, a Catholic is strictly bound to shun such spurious "sacraments" entirely.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII settled the issue once and for all when he declared in his 1896 Papal Bull "Apostolicae curae" that all Anglican orders had been and are "absolutely null and utterly void" because the Anglican Ordinal is deficient in intention and form, not intending to ordain a sacrificing priesthood, but merely to install ministers to an ecclesiastical institution that was not Catholic in belief. [..]

What Pope Leo XIII decreed about the Anglicans is a fortiori, i.e., even more, true of the Novus Ordo sect, the Newchurch of the New Order, or whatever you want to call it. That Newchurch, founded in 1964 at the Vatican II Anti-council, eventually rejected, in its official writings, the traditional term "ordination" and uses instead "installation," as of a Protestant minister. It rejected the term "priest" and uses instead "presbyter," an ambiguous term, essentially meaning "elder," much as the Mormons use the term "elder" for their clergy.

Therefore, it is unconscionable that any true Catholic, let alone a supposed traditional Catholic bishop of over thirty years, would ever speak of a sacrament as "perhaps."
[The last sentence promoting sedevacantism is omitted here.]

(Emphasis in the original.)

The brief reply is very accurate. And the Church has spoken very, very clearly on doubtful sacraments and how we are to view them:

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: Thus ... it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means. www.newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm

Once again, we see Bishop Williamson speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 'New Sacraments perhaps should be avoided but go ahead if you are in need.' This is very subjective, to leave it up to people to decided if they are in 'need.' Fr. Felix Sarday Salvany in his book, Liberalism is a Sin, notes that it is "Protestantism [that] naturally begets toleration of error."

The New Sacraments thus 'tolerated' eventually so blur the line for the simple Catholic adhering to such advice that they soon no longer distinguishes or remember why they were 'resisting' the errors of the Novus Ordo in the first place. We see the same tactics employed in the Indult communities and the New-SSPX and also in the False Resistance.

The words of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos [1832] are just important now and they were nearly two hundred years ago:

"6. ... We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

7. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty”[5] and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”

This certainly applied to all things Novus Ordo as everything from the Conciliar Church is indeed a New Order.




The referenced Eleison Comments:

Quote:EMERGENCY ADVICE – I

February 17, 2024
Eleison Comments Issue DCCCLXVI (866)

God asks us not the impossible to do,
But to leave for others the freedom you want for you.

A reader much confused by what is going on inside the Catholic Church sends in a number of practical questions which many Catholic souls must be asking themselves today in connection with the serious duty for any Catholic of attending Mass to fulfil his Sunday obligation. Normally the answers are more or less clear, but circumstances since the 1960s’ revolution of Vatican II inside the Church are no longer normal, and so the answers are no longer so clear. Let us list this reader’s questions in order, going from the general to the particular, to reply with answers offered by these “Comments,” but not imposed.

1 To what extent is the Newchurch of Vatican II Catholic, and to what extent is it counterfeit?

Answer, God alone knows, because He alone knows the secrets of men’s hearts, and the borderline between the true and the false Church often runs through men’s hearts, for instance whether or not they have the Catholic Faith. Since He alone can know for sure, then He does not expect us to know. However, He does give us sufficient means to know what we do need to know, and that is to judge by the fruits (cf. Mt. VII, 15–20). These will infallibly tell the difference, for instance, between true and false shepherds. Real joy and charity will reveal where the true Church still exists, even inside the Newchurch structures.

2 Do we have a Pope?

Answer, if we judge Pope Francis by his fruits, they are disastrous for the true Church, to the point that many serious Catholics argue that he is an anti-pope. God does not require of me to know for sure, one way or the other. Good Catholic theologians can disagree. The wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre for his priests was that they could have their own opinion in private, but in public they should behave as though the apparent Vatican II popes are true Popes, unless and until the evidence is clear that they are not Popes. Even Pope Francis is still serving the Catholic function of providing the structural Church with a visible head, enabling the Church structures to continue functioning until God cleans out the Augean stables. In His own good time God will put the Pope back on his feet. Meanwhile, I may despair of this or that pope, but I must not despair of the Papacy, or of any other institution from the Tradition of Our Lord Himself.

3 What about the Newchurch sacraments?

Answer, like the Newchurch as a whole of which they are product and part, they are still partly good but essentially rotting, like the rotten apples to which they may be compared, because the Newchurch was cleverly designed from the beginning to rot over tens of years until there would be nothing of the true Church left. This was because by the 1960’s when Vatican II happened, many churchmen at the top of the Church had been thoroughly infected by the thinking of Freemasonry, the secret society created in 1717 in London to infiltrate the Catholic Church until it could be destroyed from within, thus enabling the known enemies of God and man to take over the world. Our Lord’s own Church is the great obstacle in their way.

4 What about the “Eucharistic miracles,” supposedly taking place at Novus Ordo “Masses”?

Answer, down all near 2000 years of Church history so far, God has always by such miracles helped Christians to believe in the stupendous miracle of His Presence beneath mere appearances of bread and wine, and these miracles continue today, because the Sacred Heart will not abandon sheep misled by their shepherds. The difference is that today modern science is available to provide truly scientific evidence to prove that the miracles, if they are genuine, are genuine. See for instance the book “A Cardiologist examines Jesus” by Dr. Franco Serafini, with explanations and photographic illustrations from several recent miracles. It is published by Sophia Institute Press, available from SophiaInstitute.com God bless Traditionalists for clinging to the Traditional Latin Mass, but not for refusing scientific evidence provided by the Sacred Heart for the salvation of souls.

5 And what about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses?

Answer, perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid.

Kyrie eleison.
]]> BW's Liberalism Again."

The email links to a brief Q&A published online regarding a troubling recent Eleison Comments (authored by Bp. Williamson) regarding Novus Ordo Sacraments.

This is important as the accusations of "disgruntled infighting" are often hurled at Frs. Hewko and Ruiz for having said the same things as the more objective 'Traditio Fathers.' Traditio is not part of the Resistance and have 'no skin in the game' as the saying goes. They are simply comparing the words of Bishop Williamson with the teachings of the Church. 


Quote:Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

A well-known traditional (?) Catholic bishop has been scandalizing true Traditional Catholics by suddenly pandering to the "sacraments" of the New Order (Novus Ordo) sect, aka the Newchurch of the New Order. In his most recent writing he answers the question "What about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses (sic)?" by stating: "Perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid." Doesn't that answer flatly contradict Catholic doctrine?


THE TRADITIO FATHERS REPLY:

That statement most certainly does contradict Catholic doctrine. The Sacraments must be certain. There cannot be any moral doubt, or a Catholic is obliged under pain of idolatry, a grave sin against the First Commandment of God, to shun the fakery like the Devil. The idea that a Catholic could receive a doubtful "sacrament" is unconscionable.

There are certainly examples of this doctrine in the history of the Church. After the Church In England revolted and adopted a Protestant Ordinal in 1550, written by the Arch-heretic Thomas Cranmer, the Catholic Church was split. Some Catholics, even some prelates, considered Anglican ordinations valid; most did not. In this situation of doubt, the Catholic Church never allowed Catholics to receive "sacraments" from Anglican presbyter/ministers. The Catholic Church never said "perhaps." No, in the case of moral doubt, a Catholic is strictly bound to shun such spurious "sacraments" entirely.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII settled the issue once and for all when he declared in his 1896 Papal Bull "Apostolicae curae" that all Anglican orders had been and are "absolutely null and utterly void" because the Anglican Ordinal is deficient in intention and form, not intending to ordain a sacrificing priesthood, but merely to install ministers to an ecclesiastical institution that was not Catholic in belief. [..]

What Pope Leo XIII decreed about the Anglicans is a fortiori, i.e., even more, true of the Novus Ordo sect, the Newchurch of the New Order, or whatever you want to call it. That Newchurch, founded in 1964 at the Vatican II Anti-council, eventually rejected, in its official writings, the traditional term "ordination" and uses instead "installation," as of a Protestant minister. It rejected the term "priest" and uses instead "presbyter," an ambiguous term, essentially meaning "elder," much as the Mormons use the term "elder" for their clergy.

Therefore, it is unconscionable that any true Catholic, let alone a supposed traditional Catholic bishop of over thirty years, would ever speak of a sacrament as "perhaps."
[The last sentence promoting sedevacantism is omitted here.]

(Emphasis in the original.)

The brief reply is very accurate. And the Church has spoken very, very clearly on doubtful sacraments and how we are to view them:

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: Thus ... it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means. www.newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm

Once again, we see Bishop Williamson speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 'New Sacraments perhaps should be avoided but go ahead if you are in need.' This is very subjective, to leave it up to people to decided if they are in 'need.' Fr. Felix Sarday Salvany in his book, Liberalism is a Sin, notes that it is "Protestantism [that] naturally begets toleration of error."

The New Sacraments thus 'tolerated' eventually so blur the line for the simple Catholic adhering to such advice that they soon no longer distinguishes or remember why they were 'resisting' the errors of the Novus Ordo in the first place. We see the same tactics employed in the Indult communities and the New-SSPX and also in the False Resistance.

The words of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos [1832] are just important now and they were nearly two hundred years ago:

"6. ... We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

7. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty”[5] and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”

This certainly applied to all things Novus Ordo as everything from the Conciliar Church is indeed a New Order.




The referenced Eleison Comments:

Quote:EMERGENCY ADVICE – I

February 17, 2024
Eleison Comments Issue DCCCLXVI (866)

God asks us not the impossible to do,
But to leave for others the freedom you want for you.

A reader much confused by what is going on inside the Catholic Church sends in a number of practical questions which many Catholic souls must be asking themselves today in connection with the serious duty for any Catholic of attending Mass to fulfil his Sunday obligation. Normally the answers are more or less clear, but circumstances since the 1960s’ revolution of Vatican II inside the Church are no longer normal, and so the answers are no longer so clear. Let us list this reader’s questions in order, going from the general to the particular, to reply with answers offered by these “Comments,” but not imposed.

1 To what extent is the Newchurch of Vatican II Catholic, and to what extent is it counterfeit?

Answer, God alone knows, because He alone knows the secrets of men’s hearts, and the borderline between the true and the false Church often runs through men’s hearts, for instance whether or not they have the Catholic Faith. Since He alone can know for sure, then He does not expect us to know. However, He does give us sufficient means to know what we do need to know, and that is to judge by the fruits (cf. Mt. VII, 15–20). These will infallibly tell the difference, for instance, between true and false shepherds. Real joy and charity will reveal where the true Church still exists, even inside the Newchurch structures.

2 Do we have a Pope?

Answer, if we judge Pope Francis by his fruits, they are disastrous for the true Church, to the point that many serious Catholics argue that he is an anti-pope. God does not require of me to know for sure, one way or the other. Good Catholic theologians can disagree. The wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre for his priests was that they could have their own opinion in private, but in public they should behave as though the apparent Vatican II popes are true Popes, unless and until the evidence is clear that they are not Popes. Even Pope Francis is still serving the Catholic function of providing the structural Church with a visible head, enabling the Church structures to continue functioning until God cleans out the Augean stables. In His own good time God will put the Pope back on his feet. Meanwhile, I may despair of this or that pope, but I must not despair of the Papacy, or of any other institution from the Tradition of Our Lord Himself.

3 What about the Newchurch sacraments?

Answer, like the Newchurch as a whole of which they are product and part, they are still partly good but essentially rotting, like the rotten apples to which they may be compared, because the Newchurch was cleverly designed from the beginning to rot over tens of years until there would be nothing of the true Church left. This was because by the 1960’s when Vatican II happened, many churchmen at the top of the Church had been thoroughly infected by the thinking of Freemasonry, the secret society created in 1717 in London to infiltrate the Catholic Church until it could be destroyed from within, thus enabling the known enemies of God and man to take over the world. Our Lord’s own Church is the great obstacle in their way.

4 What about the “Eucharistic miracles,” supposedly taking place at Novus Ordo “Masses”?

Answer, down all near 2000 years of Church history so far, God has always by such miracles helped Christians to believe in the stupendous miracle of His Presence beneath mere appearances of bread and wine, and these miracles continue today, because the Sacred Heart will not abandon sheep misled by their shepherds. The difference is that today modern science is available to provide truly scientific evidence to prove that the miracles, if they are genuine, are genuine. See for instance the book “A Cardiologist examines Jesus” by Dr. Franco Serafini, with explanations and photographic illustrations from several recent miracles. It is published by Sophia Institute Press, available from SophiaInstitute.com God bless Traditionalists for clinging to the Traditional Latin Mass, but not for refusing scientific evidence provided by the Sacred Heart for the salvation of souls.

5 And what about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses?

Answer, perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid.

Kyrie eleison.
]]> <![CDATA[Bishop Williamson now promotes Archbishop Thuc?]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5606 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:58:19 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5606
His Excellency chooses to quote from an anonymous nun who sees visions, who claims Our Lord praises Archbishop Thuc (and of course, Bishop Williamson).



ELEISON  COMMENTS  DCCCXLVII
HEAVEN’S  MESSAGE  –  II
7 October, 2023
[Taken from here - slightly adapted, emphasis mine].]


None of what follows is dogma of the Church, nor official nor infallible, it is merely opinion of the author of these “Comments”, speculating on the nature of the Catholic Church and its present distress. Two weeks ago these “Comments” (845, Sept. 23) quoted a message supposedly from Heaven, in which an unknown Sister in France re-assured a Traditional priest that he was still serving Our Lord, even if he was apparently disobeying Church Authority above him in order to do so. Before commenting on the message it may be necessary to quote it again, as it appeared two weeks ago, but with some numbers for reference.

Quote:1. “The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is presently passing through a deep and hurtful crisis in its representatives, and you, Father, are one of its victims.

2.  Mgr. Thuc understood the breakdown inside the Church, and as bishop he took a personal stand which was not according to the rules, because he ordained priests and bishops without incardination, thus putting them all in an irregular situation, even if they are fervent and wish to exercise a ministry in accordance with the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

3.  Mgr Williamson, having been put in a similar situation by his dismissal from the Society of St Pius X by its Superior at that time without valid reason, should be able to understand your situation because he too has consecrated bishops and ordained priests. Like yourself, for now, these too are lacking incardination.

4.  The present situation within the Holy Catholic Church is so bad that the Lord is happy with all His ministers working faithfully for Him, with or without incardination.

5.  This is the Lord’s answer to your question. As soon as Holy Church has recovered within itself the strength of the Truth, priests still seemingly adrift will be able to rejoin it officially, while unofficially never having left it. The Lord blesses you, be at peace, and be faithful.”


1.  The message starts out from the Church’s present “deep and hurtful crisis”, to deny which is to grasp nothing of Church events today. The message shows real sympathy for a priest suffering in the crisis.

2.  Some readers may be scandalised by the message beginning with mention of Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc (1897-1984), because his long career in service of the Church did not finish in glory. In principle he understood the gravity of the Church crisis in the 1960’s and the need for emergency measures, but in practice he finished by consecrating bishops and ordaining priests with a wild abandon. However, in this context the message is using his case to show that the principles of the crisis go way back to the 1960’s.

That Mgr Thuc exaggerated in practice is not strictly relevant to the underlying principles still in play today. The message goes on to recognise both the normal need of a priest for structural incorporation in a diocese or Congregation (Authority), and the good will of priests doing their best to serve God (Truth). The message is throughout balancing Truth and Authority.

3.  Similarly with the movement in the Church going today by the name of “Resistance”, or “Fidelity”. On the one hand that movement has relied on abnormal or emergency measures for its bishops and new priests, as did Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 (“Truth”). On the other hand these bishops and priests have no normal incorporation, or “incardination”, in the official structure of the Church – “Authority”.

4.  However – and here is the “punchline” of the entire message – as long as such bishops and priests are working faithfully for Our Lord, then lack of incardination is not so important, because “the present situation in the Church is so bad”. In other words, Faith before structure, Truth before Authority.

5.  And here is the basic principle of common sense which solves the above priest’s original problem. Church Authority only exists to serve Church Truth and therewith the salvation of souls. And as soon as Truth recovers its rightful top place in the Church, as it will do, then Authority will likewise recover its secondary place, and everything truly rightful will recover its temporarily lost official rightfulness.

Deo Gratias!
                                                                                                              Kyrie eleison.


Till then, sit still, my soul. Foul deeds will rise,

Though all the world o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.

- Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2, end.



✠ ✠ ✠


One hardly knows where to begin there are so many issues in this one EC. And as with many of the Eleison Comments, there is error mixed with truth, so that souls default to believing these words and swallowing them whole rather than parsing them out.

Just a few of the many serious concerns raised after reading the above EC:
  • Bishop Williamson cites as an authority the 'visions' of an anonymous nun in France. He give no context to these visions, no dates, etc. We are given no idea whether this is a traditional nun or Novus Ordo, etc. She is merely put forward as an authority, as one whose words deserve mention. We are asked to trust her based solely on her promotion by Bishop Williamson. This is not at all the habit of the Church, to accept visions without a thorough investigation and without the facts and circumstances surrounding those visions being well known.
  • Archbishop Thuc has performed many doubtful ordinations and consecrations over the years, the most infamous being the Palmar de Troya connection in Spain, who have elected their own pope decades ago. To promote him and his scandalous consecrations as being praised by Heaven, is unforgiveable from Bishop Williamson. To lie and say the Thuc consecrations were 'exaggerated' is inexplicable. To say that his career in the Church 'did not end in glory' but still imply he is somehow someone to be admired is unfathomable.

For example, here is an excerpt from The Angelus, 1982, A Journey with the Archbishop [Lefebvre]:


Quote:“...The Archbishop also was adamant in his complete and total condemnation of the recent consecrations of so-called "bishops" by the Vietnamese bishop, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. The Archbishop's condemnation included the supposed ordination of an American priest by those "consecrated" by the Vietnamese bishop. His Grace urged all Catholics to totally reject these individuals and to have nothing whatever to do with them. He looks at the act as being an act of schism which, if carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to heresy. This is based on the fact that several of the "bishops" and a number of the priests with whom they have met have openly declared that their intention is to select a "pope" from among their group. The Archbishop predicted that these individuals would attempt to lure unsuspecting traditionalists into their schismatic schemes. He also said that eventually the movement will be a discredit to traditional Catholicism and would be used by the enemies of the Church as a means of trying to discredit traditional Catholicism. To emphasize his condemnation of these individuals, Archbishop Lefebvre specified that none of the chapels of the Society are to be made available to either these individuals or to those who support them...”

It would appear that Bishop Williamson has forgotten how vehemently Archbishop Lefebvre used to condemn the same prelate he is now promoting vis-à-vis the visions of this anonymous nun.

After insisting on New Mass [fake] miracles, promoting attendance at the New Mass, at Feeneyite chapels, etc. and even making allowances for the Anglicans, this appears to be yet another promotion of falsity by Bishop Williamson. Where is the concern for souls? Where is the attempt to truly lead them, as Archbishop Lefebvre did in the one brief admonition above?]]>
His Excellency chooses to quote from an anonymous nun who sees visions, who claims Our Lord praises Archbishop Thuc (and of course, Bishop Williamson).



ELEISON  COMMENTS  DCCCXLVII
HEAVEN’S  MESSAGE  –  II
7 October, 2023
[Taken from here - slightly adapted, emphasis mine].]


None of what follows is dogma of the Church, nor official nor infallible, it is merely opinion of the author of these “Comments”, speculating on the nature of the Catholic Church and its present distress. Two weeks ago these “Comments” (845, Sept. 23) quoted a message supposedly from Heaven, in which an unknown Sister in France re-assured a Traditional priest that he was still serving Our Lord, even if he was apparently disobeying Church Authority above him in order to do so. Before commenting on the message it may be necessary to quote it again, as it appeared two weeks ago, but with some numbers for reference.

Quote:1. “The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is presently passing through a deep and hurtful crisis in its representatives, and you, Father, are one of its victims.

2.  Mgr. Thuc understood the breakdown inside the Church, and as bishop he took a personal stand which was not according to the rules, because he ordained priests and bishops without incardination, thus putting them all in an irregular situation, even if they are fervent and wish to exercise a ministry in accordance with the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

3.  Mgr Williamson, having been put in a similar situation by his dismissal from the Society of St Pius X by its Superior at that time without valid reason, should be able to understand your situation because he too has consecrated bishops and ordained priests. Like yourself, for now, these too are lacking incardination.

4.  The present situation within the Holy Catholic Church is so bad that the Lord is happy with all His ministers working faithfully for Him, with or without incardination.

5.  This is the Lord’s answer to your question. As soon as Holy Church has recovered within itself the strength of the Truth, priests still seemingly adrift will be able to rejoin it officially, while unofficially never having left it. The Lord blesses you, be at peace, and be faithful.”


1.  The message starts out from the Church’s present “deep and hurtful crisis”, to deny which is to grasp nothing of Church events today. The message shows real sympathy for a priest suffering in the crisis.

2.  Some readers may be scandalised by the message beginning with mention of Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc (1897-1984), because his long career in service of the Church did not finish in glory. In principle he understood the gravity of the Church crisis in the 1960’s and the need for emergency measures, but in practice he finished by consecrating bishops and ordaining priests with a wild abandon. However, in this context the message is using his case to show that the principles of the crisis go way back to the 1960’s.

That Mgr Thuc exaggerated in practice is not strictly relevant to the underlying principles still in play today. The message goes on to recognise both the normal need of a priest for structural incorporation in a diocese or Congregation (Authority), and the good will of priests doing their best to serve God (Truth). The message is throughout balancing Truth and Authority.

3.  Similarly with the movement in the Church going today by the name of “Resistance”, or “Fidelity”. On the one hand that movement has relied on abnormal or emergency measures for its bishops and new priests, as did Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 (“Truth”). On the other hand these bishops and priests have no normal incorporation, or “incardination”, in the official structure of the Church – “Authority”.

4.  However – and here is the “punchline” of the entire message – as long as such bishops and priests are working faithfully for Our Lord, then lack of incardination is not so important, because “the present situation in the Church is so bad”. In other words, Faith before structure, Truth before Authority.

5.  And here is the basic principle of common sense which solves the above priest’s original problem. Church Authority only exists to serve Church Truth and therewith the salvation of souls. And as soon as Truth recovers its rightful top place in the Church, as it will do, then Authority will likewise recover its secondary place, and everything truly rightful will recover its temporarily lost official rightfulness.

Deo Gratias!
                                                                                                              Kyrie eleison.


Till then, sit still, my soul. Foul deeds will rise,

Though all the world o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.

- Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2, end.



✠ ✠ ✠


One hardly knows where to begin there are so many issues in this one EC. And as with many of the Eleison Comments, there is error mixed with truth, so that souls default to believing these words and swallowing them whole rather than parsing them out.

Just a few of the many serious concerns raised after reading the above EC:
  • Bishop Williamson cites as an authority the 'visions' of an anonymous nun in France. He give no context to these visions, no dates, etc. We are given no idea whether this is a traditional nun or Novus Ordo, etc. She is merely put forward as an authority, as one whose words deserve mention. We are asked to trust her based solely on her promotion by Bishop Williamson. This is not at all the habit of the Church, to accept visions without a thorough investigation and without the facts and circumstances surrounding those visions being well known.
  • Archbishop Thuc has performed many doubtful ordinations and consecrations over the years, the most infamous being the Palmar de Troya connection in Spain, who have elected their own pope decades ago. To promote him and his scandalous consecrations as being praised by Heaven, is unforgiveable from Bishop Williamson. To lie and say the Thuc consecrations were 'exaggerated' is inexplicable. To say that his career in the Church 'did not end in glory' but still imply he is somehow someone to be admired is unfathomable.

For example, here is an excerpt from The Angelus, 1982, A Journey with the Archbishop [Lefebvre]:


Quote:“...The Archbishop also was adamant in his complete and total condemnation of the recent consecrations of so-called "bishops" by the Vietnamese bishop, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. The Archbishop's condemnation included the supposed ordination of an American priest by those "consecrated" by the Vietnamese bishop. His Grace urged all Catholics to totally reject these individuals and to have nothing whatever to do with them. He looks at the act as being an act of schism which, if carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to heresy. This is based on the fact that several of the "bishops" and a number of the priests with whom they have met have openly declared that their intention is to select a "pope" from among their group. The Archbishop predicted that these individuals would attempt to lure unsuspecting traditionalists into their schismatic schemes. He also said that eventually the movement will be a discredit to traditional Catholicism and would be used by the enemies of the Church as a means of trying to discredit traditional Catholicism. To emphasize his condemnation of these individuals, Archbishop Lefebvre specified that none of the chapels of the Society are to be made available to either these individuals or to those who support them...”

It would appear that Bishop Williamson has forgotten how vehemently Archbishop Lefebvre used to condemn the same prelate he is now promoting vis-à-vis the visions of this anonymous nun.

After insisting on New Mass [fake] miracles, promoting attendance at the New Mass, at Feeneyite chapels, etc. and even making allowances for the Anglicans, this appears to be yet another promotion of falsity by Bishop Williamson. Where is the concern for souls? Where is the attempt to truly lead them, as Archbishop Lefebvre did in the one brief admonition above?]]> <![CDATA[Bishop Williamson continues to 'prophesy ' the demise of the [Fake] Resistance]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5520 Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:43:38 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5520 Eleison Comments (Bishop Williamson's blog) seems to contain an interesting premonition or perhaps a 'prophesy' so to speak on future events.

The Bishop has long been known to discourage any organized opposition to the errors of Rome (and the SSPX) and to whine about the ultimate demise of the Resistance. At the very least, this latest EC continues this defeatist mentality, which of course, goes against the sensus fidei of any Catholic heart.  Catholic history, from it's very first days has been filled with the accounts of millions of souls fighting for the Faith, from the very first martyr to the more 'recent' English martyrs, the Vendée, the Cristeros, etc., this defeatism from the Bishop doesn't sit well with those who understand this battle is spiritual and thus, eternal. It is truly a defense of Christ the King Himself. 

Some might recall the following statements by Bishop Williamson, painful to Catholic eyes and ears: 
  • Congregations and seminaries are not needed today. They are outdated. God does not want(!) there to be a structure or congregation for the Resistance.

  • Seminarians who are ready for ordination should not be ordained, because there is no structure or congregation for them to be ordained into.

  • 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.

Hardly the words of a great defender of the Faith, unfortunately. If there are no seminaries, then there are no future priests, no future bishops, and certainly fewer and fewer Sacraments for the faithful.

Here are more disturbing words of Bishop Williamson in the same vein:
  • "The resistant groups, the resistants - a - n - t - s - and I very much prefer the expression resistants to the expression resistance … I very much believe in the resistants, I’m not sure I believe in the Resistance."  (Bishop Williamson conference, Post Falls, Idaho, USA, June 2014)

  • “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..” (Bishop Williamson, EC #307)

  • “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…” (Bishop Williamson, Post Falls, ID (USA), 1st June, 2014)

  • "And so I don't think we need to be too concerned to bring souls towards us because people just don't understand today. They don't have ears to hear." (Bishop Williamson, Banquet speech after consecrating Bishop
    Zendejas, May 12, 2017, youtube.com/watch?v=hetZgRGZafA ).

  • "Many souls today are likewise unfit to hear the truth." (Bishop Williamson, EC #513)

  • "Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I  need not hammer him to get out of it. If Clare is persuaded that there is no grave problem within the  Society of St. Pius X, I need not ram down her throat why there is. And if John can see no way to keep  the Faith without believing that the See of Rome is vacant, I need urge upon him no more than that that  belief is not obligatory." (Bishop Williamson, EC #348)

These last two comments are more worthy of Pope Francis and his stance on evangelization than a traditional Catholic bishop.

But I digress. Here is the latest EC, bemoaning the upcoming 'demise' of the Resistance:

Quote:
CLEAR-SIGHTED RESISTANT
ELEISON COMMENTS  DCCCXLIII  (Sept. 2, 2023)


The so-called movement of “Resistance” inside today’s Catholic Church is a poor affair, humanly speaking, but it may yet be the will of God, given the unprecedented state of chaos in which Church and world find themselves today. If we say that this “Resistance” consists in a loose and unstructured union of priests mostly coming from inside the Society of St Pius X, who quit the SSPX of their own accord or were thrown out by its Superiors because they would not go along with the Society’s re-orientation at its General Chapter of 2012, then we can ask, what have these “Resistant” priests achieved since 2012 ?

Humanly speaking, the answer must be, not very much. Normal features of any Catholic organisation are structure, Superiors and subjects, internal obedience to those Superiors and external obedience to local Catholic authorities and to Rome. And up till now the “Resistance” priests seem to have achieved none of these things, as its enemies do not fail to point out. Nor can the “Resistance” boast that it is convincing many souls that it it has the true solution to the problems being left unsolved by the Newchurch or the Newsociety. Many souls may be attracted for a while to the “Resistance” by the arguments of Truth which it presents, but rather fewer will permanently stay, often due to the seeming lack of Authority behind those arguments. Catholics need their Catholic Pope, and many, destabilised without him, follow his shadow.

Then if the “Resistance” is not heeded in principle and barely followed in practice, what use is it?  Here are two quotes from the Passion of Our Lord. To Pharisees rebuking him for the noise being made by His disciples, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out” (Luke XIX,40). The “Resistance” is trampled upon, like stones in the street, but it is crying out, to save stones the trouble !  And to Pontius Pilate asking Him if He is a king, “For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth, hears my voice” (Jn. XVIII, 37). The “Resistance” is telling vital truth no longer told by the SSPX, for instance, today’s Roman officials have lost the Faith.

Here follows what one member of the “Resistance” writes about it. One might wish there were many other members who saw the reality so clearly. Otherwise they risk playing children’s games, somewhat like the SSPX Capitulants in 2012 – and 2006 and 1994…

In effect, one cannot be “optimistic” as to what is going on here, either with regard to a certain priest in particular, or with regard to the “Resistance” in general. The Devil is working double overtime to bring down the last bastions of Tradition. We need to ask God for ourselves to keep a cool head. Nicolas Gomez Davila (1913-1994) would say, “Since everything being constructed today automatically passes over to the enemy, let us hope, before constructing anything, that time brings us materials that do not betray.”  May God grant us patience, common sense and good humour.

In other words, as the official Catholic Church passed over to the enemy at Vatican II; as the Society of St Pius X passed over to the enemy at its General Chapter of 2012; so there is every possibility, if not likelihood, of the “Resistance” in turn passing over to the enemy, even if that can hardly happen officially, because the “Resistance” has so little official about it.  One may wonder if here is not exactly why the Lord God has allowed the “Resistance” to come into existence with so little structure or organisation. [emphasis - The Catacombs]

In any case, bravo to the Columbian philosopher, who never went to any “university”. And bravo to the “Resistance” member who quotes him. Neither of them are playing children’s games.

As St Paul says, “When I became a man, I gave up childish ways” (I Cor. XIII, 11).  One may ask, are there any men left?

                                                                                                         
Kyrie eleison


May Bishop Williamson undo much of the damage he has inflicted on those good souls trying to fight the errors of Vatican II and now the SSPX and encourage the fight for the Faith, rather than limply commenting on the 'helplessness' of the situation.]]> Eleison Comments (Bishop Williamson's blog) seems to contain an interesting premonition or perhaps a 'prophesy' so to speak on future events.

The Bishop has long been known to discourage any organized opposition to the errors of Rome (and the SSPX) and to whine about the ultimate demise of the Resistance. At the very least, this latest EC continues this defeatist mentality, which of course, goes against the sensus fidei of any Catholic heart.  Catholic history, from it's very first days has been filled with the accounts of millions of souls fighting for the Faith, from the very first martyr to the more 'recent' English martyrs, the Vendée, the Cristeros, etc., this defeatism from the Bishop doesn't sit well with those who understand this battle is spiritual and thus, eternal. It is truly a defense of Christ the King Himself. 

Some might recall the following statements by Bishop Williamson, painful to Catholic eyes and ears: 
  • Congregations and seminaries are not needed today. They are outdated. God does not want(!) there to be a structure or congregation for the Resistance.

  • Seminarians who are ready for ordination should not be ordained, because there is no structure or congregation for them to be ordained into.

  • 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.

Hardly the words of a great defender of the Faith, unfortunately. If there are no seminaries, then there are no future priests, no future bishops, and certainly fewer and fewer Sacraments for the faithful.

Here are more disturbing words of Bishop Williamson in the same vein:
  • "The resistant groups, the resistants - a - n - t - s - and I very much prefer the expression resistants to the expression resistance … I very much believe in the resistants, I’m not sure I believe in the Resistance."  (Bishop Williamson conference, Post Falls, Idaho, USA, June 2014)

  • “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..” (Bishop Williamson, EC #307)

  • “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…” (Bishop Williamson, Post Falls, ID (USA), 1st June, 2014)

  • "And so I don't think we need to be too concerned to bring souls towards us because people just don't understand today. They don't have ears to hear." (Bishop Williamson, Banquet speech after consecrating Bishop
    Zendejas, May 12, 2017, youtube.com/watch?v=hetZgRGZafA ).

  • "Many souls today are likewise unfit to hear the truth." (Bishop Williamson, EC #513)

  • "Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I  need not hammer him to get out of it. If Clare is persuaded that there is no grave problem within the  Society of St. Pius X, I need not ram down her throat why there is. And if John can see no way to keep  the Faith without believing that the See of Rome is vacant, I need urge upon him no more than that that  belief is not obligatory." (Bishop Williamson, EC #348)

These last two comments are more worthy of Pope Francis and his stance on evangelization than a traditional Catholic bishop.

But I digress. Here is the latest EC, bemoaning the upcoming 'demise' of the Resistance:

Quote:
CLEAR-SIGHTED RESISTANT
ELEISON COMMENTS  DCCCXLIII  (Sept. 2, 2023)


The so-called movement of “Resistance” inside today’s Catholic Church is a poor affair, humanly speaking, but it may yet be the will of God, given the unprecedented state of chaos in which Church and world find themselves today. If we say that this “Resistance” consists in a loose and unstructured union of priests mostly coming from inside the Society of St Pius X, who quit the SSPX of their own accord or were thrown out by its Superiors because they would not go along with the Society’s re-orientation at its General Chapter of 2012, then we can ask, what have these “Resistant” priests achieved since 2012 ?

Humanly speaking, the answer must be, not very much. Normal features of any Catholic organisation are structure, Superiors and subjects, internal obedience to those Superiors and external obedience to local Catholic authorities and to Rome. And up till now the “Resistance” priests seem to have achieved none of these things, as its enemies do not fail to point out. Nor can the “Resistance” boast that it is convincing many souls that it it has the true solution to the problems being left unsolved by the Newchurch or the Newsociety. Many souls may be attracted for a while to the “Resistance” by the arguments of Truth which it presents, but rather fewer will permanently stay, often due to the seeming lack of Authority behind those arguments. Catholics need their Catholic Pope, and many, destabilised without him, follow his shadow.

Then if the “Resistance” is not heeded in principle and barely followed in practice, what use is it?  Here are two quotes from the Passion of Our Lord. To Pharisees rebuking him for the noise being made by His disciples, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out” (Luke XIX,40). The “Resistance” is trampled upon, like stones in the street, but it is crying out, to save stones the trouble !  And to Pontius Pilate asking Him if He is a king, “For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth, hears my voice” (Jn. XVIII, 37). The “Resistance” is telling vital truth no longer told by the SSPX, for instance, today’s Roman officials have lost the Faith.

Here follows what one member of the “Resistance” writes about it. One might wish there were many other members who saw the reality so clearly. Otherwise they risk playing children’s games, somewhat like the SSPX Capitulants in 2012 – and 2006 and 1994…

In effect, one cannot be “optimistic” as to what is going on here, either with regard to a certain priest in particular, or with regard to the “Resistance” in general. The Devil is working double overtime to bring down the last bastions of Tradition. We need to ask God for ourselves to keep a cool head. Nicolas Gomez Davila (1913-1994) would say, “Since everything being constructed today automatically passes over to the enemy, let us hope, before constructing anything, that time brings us materials that do not betray.”  May God grant us patience, common sense and good humour.

In other words, as the official Catholic Church passed over to the enemy at Vatican II; as the Society of St Pius X passed over to the enemy at its General Chapter of 2012; so there is every possibility, if not likelihood, of the “Resistance” in turn passing over to the enemy, even if that can hardly happen officially, because the “Resistance” has so little official about it.  One may wonder if here is not exactly why the Lord God has allowed the “Resistance” to come into existence with so little structure or organisation. [emphasis - The Catacombs]

In any case, bravo to the Columbian philosopher, who never went to any “university”. And bravo to the “Resistance” member who quotes him. Neither of them are playing children’s games.

As St Paul says, “When I became a man, I gave up childish ways” (I Cor. XIII, 11).  One may ask, are there any men left?

                                                                                                         
Kyrie eleison


May Bishop Williamson undo much of the damage he has inflicted on those good souls trying to fight the errors of Vatican II and now the SSPX and encourage the fight for the Faith, rather than limply commenting on the 'helplessness' of the situation.]]> <![CDATA[Bp. Williamson makes the N.O. Miracles a Condition of Holy Oils]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5381 Fri, 28 Jul 2023 21:27:48 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5381 The following is a transcript of the communications read aloud by Fr. Hewko during this conference, queued for time:




✠ ✠ ✠



N. B. Notice that the conditions placed upon Fr. Hewko by Bp. Williamson to receive Holy Oils are that he (Fr. Hewko) publicly accept the Novus Ordo Eucharistic "miracles." As an aside, this begs the question, since there have been so many 'miracles' lately (see here, here, and here, for examples) one wonders if this acceptance applies to all the alleged miracles or just one or two? 

But more importantly, observe that it is demanded of Fr. Hewko that he believe in the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass and its subsequent 'miracles.' That is what is at stake. Public proclamation of the legitimacy of the New Mass. 

Notice there is essentially no difference between what Bp. Williamson demands and what Bp. Fellay signed in the Doctrinal Declaration, which states that the Novus Ordo Mass is "legitimately promulgated." Very hard to distinguish between these two sides of the same coin! 

Archbishop Lefebvre said this of the New Mass, in 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… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976).



✠ ✠ ✠



On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote to Bp. Williamson [emphasis mine, any mistakes in transcription are also mine.]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Easter Greetings to you and wishing you good health and many graces from the Risen Savior!

May I appeal, once again, for Holy Oils for this year? I have asked Bp. Zendejas but so far, no response. I'm not sure why this silent treatment continues, it is rather puzzling to me.

If it is, as you said before, a deserved response for "misrepresenting your position on the New Mass," with all due respect, how can I misrepresent you when I simply quote your own words? It was never Abp. Lefebvre who taught these things, nor have I taken you out of context, in fact, have bent over backwards to try to justify your words, hoping they were just oversights. But truthfully, after so many repetitions in conferences and letters and after receiving punishments for opposing these publicly voiced opinions, it is clear these are not mere oversights.

However, in truth, how often you repeated these were merely your "opinions" and that many confreres will not agree. Fair enough, but why be punished if some priests do not agree? Why be treated as outcasts when priests repeatedly quote our Founder who said the direct opposite so many times?

Your Excellency, all I'm requesting are the basic tools for saving souls! Baptisms and Extreme Unctions cannot be given without Holy Oils (aside from emergency baptisms). Why would a differing opinion be an obstacle to receiving Holy Oils? Would Jesuit or Dominican bishops of yesteryear refuse Holy Oils to Franciscan or Carmelite priests for holding different opinions on Grace or the reasons for the Incarnation? These were hotly debated theological opinions that caused much fighting between Orders but, in spite of all the bickering between them, I'm sure charity prevailed in most cases and priests received Holy Oils, dispensations, and any permissions needed for the good of souls.

In this case, all I quote is Abp. Lefebvre who never promoted New Mass miracles publicly, nor that it gives grace, nor that it can nourish your faith. In fact, as time passes from 1970 to 1980's his position becomes more adamantly opposed to this Masonic tool to destroy the Faith in souls. Facts show he was absolutely accurate. I have witnessed the confusion in many souls and quite honestly, scandal, from what has been publicly promoted from Broadstairs.

Nevertheless, if I have countered these opinions, I have always defended your name and praised your history of defending the Faith and the immeasurable treasures you gave us in the seminary and your guidance to innumerable souls throughout the '80's, '90 and on. But if these are differing opinions, fine, but why should these be grounds for refusing the basic tools for saving souls who just want to get to Heaven?

The fact is, there are hundreds of families and souls I take care of, who are waiting all these years for confirmation and have been scandalized by these novel opinions and prefer to wait for a bishop of Abp. Lefebvre (not Thuc!) who will simply hold his stand on the New Mass questions. Don't they have the right by Mother Church to be wary of novelties? Don't they have the right given by Our Lord to request for bread and be given bread? Why should they be treated as outcasts when they merely stand by the positions of Abp. Lefebvre?

Lastly, for all the insistence on "no structure and organization" it appears by the punishments incurred by priests holding different opinions, that there truly is a structure and organization in place. We all knew the doctrinal shift of Bp. Fellay was not merely words and opinions when it was backed by punishments for opposing his new direction. Punitive transfers, imposed silence, and expulsions backed his shift of direction towards Modernist Rome. I was silenced for giving a sermon at a First Mass in Winona in 2012, which merely quoted Abp. Lefebvre repeatedly. Punishments prove the program. My point is why should priests holding differing opinions be punished since they are not dogmas but opinions? Why should we be refused Holy Oils? Who else can we turn to? Thuc line? No. Sedevacantists? No. Novus Ordo? No.

Please, Your Excellency, for the good of souls battling to survive this horrible confusion and apostasy, do not turn a deaf ear to my appeal.

If I have been amiss or have not understood, please correct me.

With all filial respect, humility and affection, yours,

In Christo Rege,

Fr. David Hewko



✠ ✠ ✠



On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bishop Williamson replies:

Reverend,

When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.

Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.


With good wishes, in Christo,

Bp. Williamson



✠ ✠ ✠



On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:17, Fr. Hewko wrote:

Your Excellency,

Then to whom do I turn? "For the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters."

In Christo Rege,

Fr. Hewko



✠ ✠ ✠



On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bp. Williamson wrote:

Make up your mind. Choose.

Either you write in public, to all those people that you normally write to, that you have been wrong to deny the possibility of Eucharistic miracles at Novus Ordo Masses, and you quote several cases of such miracles which you now admit to have taken place. And you will have to persuade me that you sincerely mean what you write, and that you are not writing it just to deceive me. Judging by your past behavior that will be very difficult for you to do. And I have to remain the judge as to whether you may or may not have done it. And if you try any form of weaseling out of it, I will never again read an email of yours. Choose.

Or you find yourself a bishop who agrees with you. How about Bishop Pfeiffer?

In Christ,

Bp. Williamson



✠ ✠ ✠



On Friday, April 21, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote [this was an excellent reply!]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Firstly, I thank you, since thirty-one years ago today, April 21, you ordained me in St. Mary's, Kansas. Thank you again, unworthy of such a grace as I truly am but please remember me in your prayers of the Breviary & Mass!

Secondly, in response to your request to publicly endorse the New Mass Eucharistic miracles as a condition to possibly receive Holy Oils, may I bring some things forward for consideration?

While St. Paul says "Charity believeth all things," St. John also warns to "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God." With regard to the New Mass Eucharistic miracles, I prefer to wait for the final approval of Mother Church, not the Conciliar propaganda. To give the appearance of authenticity, the Conciliarists have invented New Mass canonized "saints", New Mass "incorrupt" bodies, New Mass Marian "apparitions", New Mass Rosary mysteries and New Mass "Eucharistic miracles." One must ask what is the final cause is in all these? The bad tree produces bad fruit and the Conciliar New Religion and New Mass are certainly bad trees. It cannot be doubted that all of these phenomena lead souls directly to the New Conciliar Religion and New Mass. That's where lies the great danger!

It has been proven that some of the "miracles" for the new canonizations were not miracles at all; that Pope John XXIII's "incorrupt" body was heavily dosed with formaldehyde, as admitted by the morticians who treated his body. Some New Mass "miracles" have already been proven to be frauds. In the case of Sokolka, Poland, some Polish people have told me the bishop there was indicted for money laundering, left with a nun and, at least according to them and news reports, the new bishop has never declared this as a miracle but simply that "it confirms the faith." But they won't declare on it because the oncoming pilgrims bring financial stability.

Fr. Cordozo visited the Eucharistic "miracle" in Argentina and was refused admittance to view it, but remarked how the church had the Blessed Sacrament exposed in a flowery pastel monstrance with all the modern art surrounding it.

I guess if St. Thomas Aquinas were to treat this subject, he would admit that, in the case of a valid Mass where the Consecration truly took place, a miracle of this sort would be possible in the realm of God's omnipotence, but he would certainly have raised questions if it came from the New Mass. Belief in the New Mass "miracles," he couldn't deny, leads directly to the New Mass. The New Mass, although admittedly can be valid, nevertheless, leads to a loss of Faith, is often sacrilegious and represents a Rite that is "odious in God's sight" (as Our Lord told Marie-Julie Jahenny). True miracles confirm the Truth. True miracles confirm Catholic doctrine and the Faith. Will God permit miracles to confirm an odious Rite of Mass? Will God work miracles to reinforce errors, heresy and sacrilege that are nearly intrinsic to the New Mass? This is the question that poses the problem.

With all things considered, perhaps the more prudent ground to stand on, is to patiently withhold judgement and wait for Mother Church to come back to Tradition. Then the world will have the final reliable decision. All the while publicly promoting the pre-Vatican II Eucharistic miracles (of which there are plenty!) and saints, while at the same time, being extremely cautious with the post-Vatican II phenomena and so-called miracles. If the Conciliar Modernist episcopate can parade before the whole world (with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II's presence and approval) a fake Sister Lucia of Fatima, as has been forensically and scientifically proven, what other frauds are they not capable of flaunting?

Perhaps, the more prudent position is to take to heart the warnings of Our Lord: "For there will rise up false prophets, and wonders (e.g. false Eucharistic miracles), to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect" (St. Mark 13:22). Where do the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" lead but to the New Mass? What devotions do they foster but the prayers and ecumenism of the New Mass? What do these shrines promote but the errors of Vatican II and confirm people in the faith of the Conciliar Church, which Abp. Lefebvre didn't hesitate to call a Modernist Church, and a "schismatic church" which leads to apostasy and heresy?

In this light, your Excellency, I can never promote, privately or publicly, the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" for it would lead souls to the wrong Church and at the very least to confusion, and the devil works in confused waters! Please consider also possibly holding this position yourself, since we were warned that the devil can appear as an angel of light, and with what greater deceit can he mislead souls than the Conciliar Church, with its new priesthood, new sacraments, new Mass, new morality, new theology, new Code of Canon Law, new religion! How many "elect" have truly been seduced by the Conciliar Church and have lost the Faith? The statistics show millions! How many souls has it taken to Hell?

Now, with all this in consideration may I have the Holy Oils to continue being about my Father's business? [A side note, I do not presume to give Confirmations and I never will. On that, don't agree with Fr. Rafael, OSB].

Humbly asking your blessings, filially yours,

Fr. David Hewko


Post scriptum: The Thuc line is out of the question because it swims in doubt, scandals and craziness, as Archbishop Lefebvre advised, stay away! Therefore, Fr. Pfeiffer is out of the question.]]> The following is a transcript of the communications read aloud by Fr. Hewko during this conference, queued for time:




✠ ✠ ✠



N. B. Notice that the conditions placed upon Fr. Hewko by Bp. Williamson to receive Holy Oils are that he (Fr. Hewko) publicly accept the Novus Ordo Eucharistic "miracles." As an aside, this begs the question, since there have been so many 'miracles' lately (see here, here, and here, for examples) one wonders if this acceptance applies to all the alleged miracles or just one or two? 

But more importantly, observe that it is demanded of Fr. Hewko that he believe in the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass and its subsequent 'miracles.' That is what is at stake. Public proclamation of the legitimacy of the New Mass. 

Notice there is essentially no difference between what Bp. Williamson demands and what Bp. Fellay signed in the Doctrinal Declaration, which states that the Novus Ordo Mass is "legitimately promulgated." Very hard to distinguish between these two sides of the same coin! 

Archbishop Lefebvre said this of the New Mass, in 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… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976).



✠ ✠ ✠



On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote to Bp. Williamson [emphasis mine, any mistakes in transcription are also mine.]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Easter Greetings to you and wishing you good health and many graces from the Risen Savior!

May I appeal, once again, for Holy Oils for this year? I have asked Bp. Zendejas but so far, no response. I'm not sure why this silent treatment continues, it is rather puzzling to me.

If it is, as you said before, a deserved response for "misrepresenting your position on the New Mass," with all due respect, how can I misrepresent you when I simply quote your own words? It was never Abp. Lefebvre who taught these things, nor have I taken you out of context, in fact, have bent over backwards to try to justify your words, hoping they were just oversights. But truthfully, after so many repetitions in conferences and letters and after receiving punishments for opposing these publicly voiced opinions, it is clear these are not mere oversights.

However, in truth, how often you repeated these were merely your "opinions" and that many confreres will not agree. Fair enough, but why be punished if some priests do not agree? Why be treated as outcasts when priests repeatedly quote our Founder who said the direct opposite so many times?

Your Excellency, all I'm requesting are the basic tools for saving souls! Baptisms and Extreme Unctions cannot be given without Holy Oils (aside from emergency baptisms). Why would a differing opinion be an obstacle to receiving Holy Oils? Would Jesuit or Dominican bishops of yesteryear refuse Holy Oils to Franciscan or Carmelite priests for holding different opinions on Grace or the reasons for the Incarnation? These were hotly debated theological opinions that caused much fighting between Orders but, in spite of all the bickering between them, I'm sure charity prevailed in most cases and priests received Holy Oils, dispensations, and any permissions needed for the good of souls.

In this case, all I quote is Abp. Lefebvre who never promoted New Mass miracles publicly, nor that it gives grace, nor that it can nourish your faith. In fact, as time passes from 1970 to 1980's his position becomes more adamantly opposed to this Masonic tool to destroy the Faith in souls. Facts show he was absolutely accurate. I have witnessed the confusion in many souls and quite honestly, scandal, from what has been publicly promoted from Broadstairs.

Nevertheless, if I have countered these opinions, I have always defended your name and praised your history of defending the Faith and the immeasurable treasures you gave us in the seminary and your guidance to innumerable souls throughout the '80's, '90 and on. But if these are differing opinions, fine, but why should these be grounds for refusing the basic tools for saving souls who just want to get to Heaven?

The fact is, there are hundreds of families and souls I take care of, who are waiting all these years for confirmation and have been scandalized by these novel opinions and prefer to wait for a bishop of Abp. Lefebvre (not Thuc!) who will simply hold his stand on the New Mass questions. Don't they have the right by Mother Church to be wary of novelties? Don't they have the right given by Our Lord to request for bread and be given bread? Why should they be treated as outcasts when they merely stand by the positions of Abp. Lefebvre?

Lastly, for all the insistence on "no structure and organization" it appears by the punishments incurred by priests holding different opinions, that there truly is a structure and organization in place. We all knew the doctrinal shift of Bp. Fellay was not merely words and opinions when it was backed by punishments for opposing his new direction. Punitive transfers, imposed silence, and expulsions backed his shift of direction towards Modernist Rome. I was silenced for giving a sermon at a First Mass in Winona in 2012, which merely quoted Abp. Lefebvre repeatedly. Punishments prove the program. My point is why should priests holding differing opinions be punished since they are not dogmas but opinions? Why should we be refused Holy Oils? Who else can we turn to? Thuc line? No. Sedevacantists? No. Novus Ordo? No.

Please, Your Excellency, for the good of souls battling to survive this horrible confusion and apostasy, do not turn a deaf ear to my appeal.

If I have been amiss or have not understood, please correct me.

With all filial respect, humility and affection, yours,

In Christo Rege,

Fr. David Hewko



✠ ✠ ✠



On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bishop Williamson replies:

Reverend,

When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.

Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.


With good wishes, in Christo,

Bp. Williamson



✠ ✠ ✠



On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:17, Fr. Hewko wrote:

Your Excellency,

Then to whom do I turn? "For the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters."

In Christo Rege,

Fr. Hewko



✠ ✠ ✠



On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bp. Williamson wrote:

Make up your mind. Choose.

Either you write in public, to all those people that you normally write to, that you have been wrong to deny the possibility of Eucharistic miracles at Novus Ordo Masses, and you quote several cases of such miracles which you now admit to have taken place. And you will have to persuade me that you sincerely mean what you write, and that you are not writing it just to deceive me. Judging by your past behavior that will be very difficult for you to do. And I have to remain the judge as to whether you may or may not have done it. And if you try any form of weaseling out of it, I will never again read an email of yours. Choose.

Or you find yourself a bishop who agrees with you. How about Bishop Pfeiffer?

In Christ,

Bp. Williamson



✠ ✠ ✠



On Friday, April 21, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote [this was an excellent reply!]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Firstly, I thank you, since thirty-one years ago today, April 21, you ordained me in St. Mary's, Kansas. Thank you again, unworthy of such a grace as I truly am but please remember me in your prayers of the Breviary & Mass!

Secondly, in response to your request to publicly endorse the New Mass Eucharistic miracles as a condition to possibly receive Holy Oils, may I bring some things forward for consideration?

While St. Paul says "Charity believeth all things," St. John also warns to "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God." With regard to the New Mass Eucharistic miracles, I prefer to wait for the final approval of Mother Church, not the Conciliar propaganda. To give the appearance of authenticity, the Conciliarists have invented New Mass canonized "saints", New Mass "incorrupt" bodies, New Mass Marian "apparitions", New Mass Rosary mysteries and New Mass "Eucharistic miracles." One must ask what is the final cause is in all these? The bad tree produces bad fruit and the Conciliar New Religion and New Mass are certainly bad trees. It cannot be doubted that all of these phenomena lead souls directly to the New Conciliar Religion and New Mass. That's where lies the great danger!

It has been proven that some of the "miracles" for the new canonizations were not miracles at all; that Pope John XXIII's "incorrupt" body was heavily dosed with formaldehyde, as admitted by the morticians who treated his body. Some New Mass "miracles" have already been proven to be frauds. In the case of Sokolka, Poland, some Polish people have told me the bishop there was indicted for money laundering, left with a nun and, at least according to them and news reports, the new bishop has never declared this as a miracle but simply that "it confirms the faith." But they won't declare on it because the oncoming pilgrims bring financial stability.

Fr. Cordozo visited the Eucharistic "miracle" in Argentina and was refused admittance to view it, but remarked how the church had the Blessed Sacrament exposed in a flowery pastel monstrance with all the modern art surrounding it.

I guess if St. Thomas Aquinas were to treat this subject, he would admit that, in the case of a valid Mass where the Consecration truly took place, a miracle of this sort would be possible in the realm of God's omnipotence, but he would certainly have raised questions if it came from the New Mass. Belief in the New Mass "miracles," he couldn't deny, leads directly to the New Mass. The New Mass, although admittedly can be valid, nevertheless, leads to a loss of Faith, is often sacrilegious and represents a Rite that is "odious in God's sight" (as Our Lord told Marie-Julie Jahenny). True miracles confirm the Truth. True miracles confirm Catholic doctrine and the Faith. Will God permit miracles to confirm an odious Rite of Mass? Will God work miracles to reinforce errors, heresy and sacrilege that are nearly intrinsic to the New Mass? This is the question that poses the problem.

With all things considered, perhaps the more prudent ground to stand on, is to patiently withhold judgement and wait for Mother Church to come back to Tradition. Then the world will have the final reliable decision. All the while publicly promoting the pre-Vatican II Eucharistic miracles (of which there are plenty!) and saints, while at the same time, being extremely cautious with the post-Vatican II phenomena and so-called miracles. If the Conciliar Modernist episcopate can parade before the whole world (with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II's presence and approval) a fake Sister Lucia of Fatima, as has been forensically and scientifically proven, what other frauds are they not capable of flaunting?

Perhaps, the more prudent position is to take to heart the warnings of Our Lord: "For there will rise up false prophets, and wonders (e.g. false Eucharistic miracles), to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect" (St. Mark 13:22). Where do the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" lead but to the New Mass? What devotions do they foster but the prayers and ecumenism of the New Mass? What do these shrines promote but the errors of Vatican II and confirm people in the faith of the Conciliar Church, which Abp. Lefebvre didn't hesitate to call a Modernist Church, and a "schismatic church" which leads to apostasy and heresy?

In this light, your Excellency, I can never promote, privately or publicly, the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" for it would lead souls to the wrong Church and at the very least to confusion, and the devil works in confused waters! Please consider also possibly holding this position yourself, since we were warned that the devil can appear as an angel of light, and with what greater deceit can he mislead souls than the Conciliar Church, with its new priesthood, new sacraments, new Mass, new morality, new theology, new Code of Canon Law, new religion! How many "elect" have truly been seduced by the Conciliar Church and have lost the Faith? The statistics show millions! How many souls has it taken to Hell?

Now, with all this in consideration may I have the Holy Oils to continue being about my Father's business? [A side note, I do not presume to give Confirmations and I never will. On that, don't agree with Fr. Rafael, OSB].

Humbly asking your blessings, filially yours,

Fr. David Hewko


Post scriptum: The Thuc line is out of the question because it swims in doubt, scandals and craziness, as Archbishop Lefebvre advised, stay away! Therefore, Fr. Pfeiffer is out of the question.]]> <![CDATA[The Recusant: Bishop Williamson - More Novus Ordo Madness!]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5144 Wed, 03 May 2023 13:34:01 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5144 The Recusant.com:


Bishop Williamson: More Novus Ordo Madness!

Whereas we thought the issue had been dealt with, within recent weeks Bishop Williamson has released a series of “Eleison Comments” emails defending and elaborating on his novel position regarding the New Mass. Error, and indeed anything liable to harm or weaken the Faith, must be resisted vigorously, no matter from what quarter it emerges. Therefore some comment on this is necessary and unavoidable. We deal with them in reverse order, the most recent first. All the main (unattributed) quotes are from the “Eleison Comments” indicated.
Source:  stmarcelinitiative.com/eleison-comments/back-issue/



1. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.438 (5th December, 2015):
“Catholics, be generous! Recognize God’s goal / To save, outside “Tradition,” many a soul.”


Bp. Williamson:
“However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition who have to some extent or another stood back from the Novus Ordo framework.”

Recusant Comment:
Is it really wise to “assume they are authentic”? (See 2. ‘Eleison Comments’ 437, p.24)

Secondly, “Novus Ordo framework” seems to mean ‘the conciliar church.’ But Archbishop Lefebvre told us not just to “stand back from” it “to some extent or another”, but to have nullam partem, nothing whatever to do with it! What new lessons do Catholics outside the conciliar church need to be taught, and why? And how do these “lessons” differ from what Archbishop Lefebvre taught us? Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX had to say about the “extent” to which we should “stand back from” the “framework” of the conciliar church:
  • “We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, the conciliar church, to which we have no wish to belong! This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is, therefore, not Catholic.” (‘Reflections on suspensio a divinis’, 1976)
  • “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this conciliar church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (‘Minute’ interview, 30th July 1976)
  • “We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the conciliar church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared excommunicated…excluded from impious communion with infidels.”  (‘Open Letter to Card Gantin’, 6th July 1988)


Bp. Williamson:
“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.”

Recusant Comment:
Why did Archbishop Lefebvre say he was happy about something which is in fact dangerous? Was he really so ignorant and irresponsible? Why did the SSPX superiors in 1988 write to Rome asking for something dangerous?

Or is not this talk about the “danger” of being “isolated” the “mainstream Church” (note - not the ‘conciliar church’) exactly what we have heard in recent years from Fr. Pfluger and Bishop Fellay? Likewise the supposed “danger” of becoming “pharasaical”, “sectarian” and “disconnected from reality” if we are not more open minded towards the conciliar church? Did Bishop Williamson get Fr. Pfluger to write this for him..?!



Bp. Williamson:
“...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.”

Recusant Comment:
So: people were too worldly to have the true Mass, but they had some redeeming virtue, so God rewarded them a little bit by letting them have the Novus Ordo? Does this not imply that the Novus Ordo is ‘good but not as good as’ the Traditional Mass? Yet the SSPX always used to say that the Novus Ordo is evil.

If the Novus Ordo is evil, surely those Catholics who lapsed and ended up with no Mass were better off? Does not the experience of the last 40 years bear this out: Catholics who lapsed forty years ago still sound like Catholics when one talks to them, whereas Catholics who have been pickled in the un-Catholic Novus Ordo for the last 40 years have nothing about them which previous generations would recognise as Catholic. Two generations of SSPX priests have witnessed how the former often convert easily back to Tradition, whereas the latter are virtually irretrievable and much harder to convert. How can God use the Novus Ordo, a rite which replaces ones Faith with another religion, as a reward for those who “have loved the Mass enough”..?



Bp. Williamson:
“The NOM [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.”

Recusant Comment:
This seems to confirm our suspicions about the portion quoted above. Last year an SSPX priest told the London congregation that whereas the Traditional Mass gives a waterfall of grace, the New Mass gives only a trickle of grace. This idea that the New Mass is only “not as good as” the Traditional Mass seems to be what Bishop Williamson is advocating too when he says that it “makes it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith … but not impossible to keep it.”

This is very, very different from saying that it actually destroys and is harmful to one’s Faith. Not having Mass, a chapel, the Blessed Sacrament to visit, a priest to confess regularly to, being poorly catechised as a child or ignorance of Catholic doctrine generally, having a non-Catholic spouse - these are all things which make it easier to lose the Faith. To use an analogy: not having enough food or water, shelter or warm clothing in winter makes it easier to die. But if an evildoer puts arsenic in your tea or turns the gas at night on so that you are poisoned to death while you sleep, that is something altogether different. One is a mere defect, the other a positive evil. Once again, here is Archbishop Lefebvre:
  • “Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church.” (Note to Agence France Presse, 12th July, 1976)
  • “Well! It is precisely the insistent demands of those sent from Rome that we change our rite which makes us reflect. And we are convinced 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, an expression, an image of a new faith, a Modernist faith.” (Ordinations sermon at Econe, 29th June 1976)
  • “This Mass is not evil in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly evil. It was based on the model of the Mass according to Cranmer and Taize. As I said in Rome to those who interviewed me: It is a poisoned Mass” (Abp. Lefebvre, 1981, see: ‘Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, p.465)



2. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.437 (30th November, 2015):
“The eucharistic miracles are where / God shows that He Himself is truly there.”


Bp. Williamson:
“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..”

Recusant Comment:
The limited research of this author, given limited time and resources, suggest a couple of concerns, not least that there seem to be several accounts of what took place, particularly how/where/when the host was dropped, and also that at least two of the scientists whose testimony plays a major part in the story are Novus Ordo Catholics.



Bp. Williamson: “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.”

Recusant Comment:
In other words: “There are lots of miracles! There are so many that at least one of them has to be genuine!” Non sequitur. If one is false, they might just as easily all be false. Like the man who falls for one scam after another and says to himself: “One of them has to be genuine!” If there are bogus Saints and bogus miracles in the Novus Ordo, then all that tells us is that we cannot trust the Novus Ordo to give us genuine Saints and miracles.



Bp. Williamson: "This is because the NOM, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church…”

Recusant Comment:
The last part, that the New Mass “has led numberless souls out of the Church” is correct. That Vatican II “is ambiguous”, however, is a dangerous lie, one subscribed to for years by many a Novus Ordo conservative, and sold to us more recently by Bishop Fellay and the liberals in the neo-SSPX. There are many things in Vatican II which are not ambiguous, which have only one interpretation, and which are irreconcilable with Tradition (Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching on ‘Religious Liberty’ being perhaps the most infamous).



Bp. Williamson:
“Doctrinally, the NOM [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 NOM frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the NOM does not absolutely exclude the old religion.”

Recusant Comment:
“Normally” designed to undermine the Faith? Which it “frequently” does?! So not always, then? In other words, it is not intrinsically evil, only sometimes; whereas sometimes it does not undermine the Faith! Likewise, the Novus Ordo is not merely “ambiguous”!

As Archbishop Lefebvre says, “There is something in it that is truly evil”. Since the rest of what Bishop Williamson writes is based on that false premise (that the Novus Ordo is only ambiguous), his conclusion, that the Novus Ordo “does not exclude the old religion” is equally flawed. Again, Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the “radically incompatibility” between the old religion and the new one, epitomised by the New Mass. How can a thing be radically incompatible with something but at the same time not exclude it?



Bp. Williamson:
“That does not make the NOM acceptable as such, because its intrinsic ambiguity still favours the new direction, but it does mean for instance that the Consecration can still be valid, as Archbishop Lefebvre never denied. Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either.”

Recusant Comment:
Discussion of validity is surely beside the point altogether. A priest who is a secret Satanist or Freemason, for example, might confect a valid sacrament in order to perform sacrilegious desecration. That it is valid is no consolation whatsoever, and is certainly no indication of whether good can ever come from attending it. Attending a satanic Black Mass would not help you get to heaven, even if it were valid.



Bp. Williamson:
“In brief, the NOM as such is bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts.”

Recusant Comment:
All evil is only “evil in parts but not all its parts.” There is not such thing as “pure evil”, because the definition of evil is that it is the absence of a due good. A table with only three legs is a bad table. A table missing all its legs and the table-top cannot be so described. Only one part evil makes the whole evil. Therefore, what Bishop Williamson ought to say is simply “The Novus Ordo is evil.” (why ‘bad’?). As it is, what looks like a redeeming qualification is really no more than an rhetorical illusion.


Bp Williamson:
“What specified Vatican II and the NOM was precisely the officialisation of the modernist heresy within the Church. 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?”

Recusant Comment:
No, it does not. Almighty God does not “reward” people by giving them something evil, something poisoned, something radically incompatible with the Catholic Faith. One fares better attending no Mass at all than attending the Novus Ordo. Once again, the idea that the New Mass is somehow not as good as the Traditional Mass but still better than nothing, is novel, untrue, disproved by the experience of the past forty years. In its full implications this idea is also very, very dangerous to the Faith.




3. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.436 (21st November, 2015):
“God has worked miracles with the N.O. Mass? / That’s what the evidence suggests. Alas?”

Bp. Williamson:
“When in June of 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre was on the brink of ordaining the first large batch of SSPX priests despite Rome’s disapproval, a Roman official came to promise him the end of all problems with Rome if only he would celebrate one Novus Ordo Mass. On principle, for doctrinal reasons, he refused. Then how can Almighty God have worked eucharistic miracles with and for this new Mass? Read here next week a suggested answer.”

Recusant Comment:
It should be clear by now that Bishop Williamson’s ideas about the New Mass are at radical variance with those of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X of old. Archbishop Lefebvre was quite right to refuse to say the New Mass and to prefer suspension in 1976. With his final question (“The how can Almighty God…?”), Bishop Williamson sows doubt into the mind of his reader not only about the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Mass, but also about Archbishop Lefebvre and what he stood for. Was the Archbishop perhaps deliberately being difficult towards the Romans, just to make a point, where he could have chosen to be more accommodating and not been any the worse for it? Is it enough to say that he refused “on principle, for doctrinal reasons” and leave it at that? It is true, his refusal was principled, and it was for doctrinal reasons. But I rather suspect that Archbishop Lefebvre would have said that he had no right to say the New Mass, since it was evil and poisoned and was destroying the Faith of countless millions; that he had no option, that to have agreed and said the New Mass would have been a sin.

As to Bishop Williamson’s “suggested answer” to his own question, presented in the two subsequent Eleison Comments, we have already examined it above. In short, his answer is that the Traditional Mass is a reward for fidelity and lack of worldliness, whereas the New Mass is a lesser reward for ‘loving the Mass’. It is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but still good and does not exclude the old religion. If you feel tempted to leave the Faith, the New Mass will be less of an obstacle than the old Mass.

One thing we have avoided touching on is whether the Novus Ordo miracles are really genuine. Well? Are they? The simple truth is I do not know, at least in the scientific sense, but every Catholic instinct in me says no. Three possibilities occur. The first is that they are fakes and frauds. That is not impossible. The world is full of lies now like it never was before. Lies throughout the media, education, banking and finance, everywhere. People generally are more used to the idea that one tells lies to get ahead, they are numb to it. We know that the conciliar church is not above a little dishonesty, now and then, in order to get its way (if they can’t be trusted with the Third Secret of Fatima, why should they suddenly be trusted concerning these ‘miracles’?)

The second possibility is that we are witnessing something like the “signs and prodigies” which Sacred Scripture prophesies will be seen towards the end of times. Certainly, if these ‘miracles’ have the power to lead many Traditional Catholics including some souls with the Resistance and one bishop (who is not, though many think he is) to a softening towards the abominable Novus Ordo, then that might well be an example of “deceiving, if possible, even the elect.” I only suggest it as a possibility - I may be wrong, and I await correction from any priest who would care to put me right.

The third possibility is that they are genuine and are sent as a warning from Almighty God against the sacrilege of the Novus Ordo Mass. There have been cases of miracles warning people off sacrilege. In Belgium, a couple of centuries ago, some Jews stole a host and stabbed it with knives. It bled. They converted. Clearly, desecrating a host by stabbing it with knives is not something God wants us to do, and the miracle does not lend approval to the action which prompted it in any way.

One thing is certain. That Almighty God can be using miracles to give His divine seal of approval to the New Mass is not a possibility. What is worrying is that Bishop Williamson discusses none of the three possibilities mentioned above. Nowhere in three separate ‘Eleison Comments’ does he even entertain the idea that the ‘miracles’ might be fakes or prodigies. Nor does he suggest that they might be a warning against sacrilege. Instead, he begins with the assumption that they are genuine (which in itself is staggering, when you think about it) and talks about “facts” being “stubborn” as though the matter were already proven beyond question. He then proceeds to use that unfounded assumption to push through a novel teaching about the New Mass of his own device, one which is completely at variance with Archbishop Lefebvre. The entire fiasco is summed up neatly in, and hinted ominously by, one word: the last word of the little jangle at the start of the first email. (“Alas?”), its question mark loaded with suggestiveness.

I am not much of a dab hand at silly rhyming couplets, but in an attempt to summarise the whole sorry business, here is my poor offering:


The Bishop thinks the New Mass can be good?
That’s bad enough. What’s worse is why he would!

"Viva Cristo Rey!"]]> The Recusant.com:


Bishop Williamson: More Novus Ordo Madness!

Whereas we thought the issue had been dealt with, within recent weeks Bishop Williamson has released a series of “Eleison Comments” emails defending and elaborating on his novel position regarding the New Mass. Error, and indeed anything liable to harm or weaken the Faith, must be resisted vigorously, no matter from what quarter it emerges. Therefore some comment on this is necessary and unavoidable. We deal with them in reverse order, the most recent first. All the main (unattributed) quotes are from the “Eleison Comments” indicated.
Source:  stmarcelinitiative.com/eleison-comments/back-issue/



1. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.438 (5th December, 2015):
“Catholics, be generous! Recognize God’s goal / To save, outside “Tradition,” many a soul.”


Bp. Williamson:
“However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition who have to some extent or another stood back from the Novus Ordo framework.”

Recusant Comment:
Is it really wise to “assume they are authentic”? (See 2. ‘Eleison Comments’ 437, p.24)

Secondly, “Novus Ordo framework” seems to mean ‘the conciliar church.’ But Archbishop Lefebvre told us not just to “stand back from” it “to some extent or another”, but to have nullam partem, nothing whatever to do with it! What new lessons do Catholics outside the conciliar church need to be taught, and why? And how do these “lessons” differ from what Archbishop Lefebvre taught us? Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX had to say about the “extent” to which we should “stand back from” the “framework” of the conciliar church:
  • “We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, the conciliar church, to which we have no wish to belong! This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is, therefore, not Catholic.” (‘Reflections on suspensio a divinis’, 1976)
  • “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this conciliar church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (‘Minute’ interview, 30th July 1976)
  • “We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the conciliar church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared excommunicated…excluded from impious communion with infidels.”  (‘Open Letter to Card Gantin’, 6th July 1988)


Bp. Williamson:
“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.”

Recusant Comment:
Why did Archbishop Lefebvre say he was happy about something which is in fact dangerous? Was he really so ignorant and irresponsible? Why did the SSPX superiors in 1988 write to Rome asking for something dangerous?

Or is not this talk about the “danger” of being “isolated” the “mainstream Church” (note - not the ‘conciliar church’) exactly what we have heard in recent years from Fr. Pfluger and Bishop Fellay? Likewise the supposed “danger” of becoming “pharasaical”, “sectarian” and “disconnected from reality” if we are not more open minded towards the conciliar church? Did Bishop Williamson get Fr. Pfluger to write this for him..?!



Bp. Williamson:
“...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.”

Recusant Comment:
So: people were too worldly to have the true Mass, but they had some redeeming virtue, so God rewarded them a little bit by letting them have the Novus Ordo? Does this not imply that the Novus Ordo is ‘good but not as good as’ the Traditional Mass? Yet the SSPX always used to say that the Novus Ordo is evil.

If the Novus Ordo is evil, surely those Catholics who lapsed and ended up with no Mass were better off? Does not the experience of the last 40 years bear this out: Catholics who lapsed forty years ago still sound like Catholics when one talks to them, whereas Catholics who have been pickled in the un-Catholic Novus Ordo for the last 40 years have nothing about them which previous generations would recognise as Catholic. Two generations of SSPX priests have witnessed how the former often convert easily back to Tradition, whereas the latter are virtually irretrievable and much harder to convert. How can God use the Novus Ordo, a rite which replaces ones Faith with another religion, as a reward for those who “have loved the Mass enough”..?



Bp. Williamson:
“The NOM [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.”

Recusant Comment:
This seems to confirm our suspicions about the portion quoted above. Last year an SSPX priest told the London congregation that whereas the Traditional Mass gives a waterfall of grace, the New Mass gives only a trickle of grace. This idea that the New Mass is only “not as good as” the Traditional Mass seems to be what Bishop Williamson is advocating too when he says that it “makes it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith … but not impossible to keep it.”

This is very, very different from saying that it actually destroys and is harmful to one’s Faith. Not having Mass, a chapel, the Blessed Sacrament to visit, a priest to confess regularly to, being poorly catechised as a child or ignorance of Catholic doctrine generally, having a non-Catholic spouse - these are all things which make it easier to lose the Faith. To use an analogy: not having enough food or water, shelter or warm clothing in winter makes it easier to die. But if an evildoer puts arsenic in your tea or turns the gas at night on so that you are poisoned to death while you sleep, that is something altogether different. One is a mere defect, the other a positive evil. Once again, here is Archbishop Lefebvre:
  • “Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church.” (Note to Agence France Presse, 12th July, 1976)
  • “Well! It is precisely the insistent demands of those sent from Rome that we change our rite which makes us reflect. And we are convinced 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, an expression, an image of a new faith, a Modernist faith.” (Ordinations sermon at Econe, 29th June 1976)
  • “This Mass is not evil in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly evil. It was based on the model of the Mass according to Cranmer and Taize. As I said in Rome to those who interviewed me: It is a poisoned Mass” (Abp. Lefebvre, 1981, see: ‘Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, p.465)



2. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.437 (30th November, 2015):
“The eucharistic miracles are where / God shows that He Himself is truly there.”


Bp. Williamson:
“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..”

Recusant Comment:
The limited research of this author, given limited time and resources, suggest a couple of concerns, not least that there seem to be several accounts of what took place, particularly how/where/when the host was dropped, and also that at least two of the scientists whose testimony plays a major part in the story are Novus Ordo Catholics.



Bp. Williamson: “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.”

Recusant Comment:
In other words: “There are lots of miracles! There are so many that at least one of them has to be genuine!” Non sequitur. If one is false, they might just as easily all be false. Like the man who falls for one scam after another and says to himself: “One of them has to be genuine!” If there are bogus Saints and bogus miracles in the Novus Ordo, then all that tells us is that we cannot trust the Novus Ordo to give us genuine Saints and miracles.



Bp. Williamson: "This is because the NOM, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church…”

Recusant Comment:
The last part, that the New Mass “has led numberless souls out of the Church” is correct. That Vatican II “is ambiguous”, however, is a dangerous lie, one subscribed to for years by many a Novus Ordo conservative, and sold to us more recently by Bishop Fellay and the liberals in the neo-SSPX. There are many things in Vatican II which are not ambiguous, which have only one interpretation, and which are irreconcilable with Tradition (Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching on ‘Religious Liberty’ being perhaps the most infamous).



Bp. Williamson:
“Doctrinally, the NOM [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 NOM frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the NOM does not absolutely exclude the old religion.”

Recusant Comment:
“Normally” designed to undermine the Faith? Which it “frequently” does?! So not always, then? In other words, it is not intrinsically evil, only sometimes; whereas sometimes it does not undermine the Faith! Likewise, the Novus Ordo is not merely “ambiguous”!

As Archbishop Lefebvre says, “There is something in it that is truly evil”. Since the rest of what Bishop Williamson writes is based on that false premise (that the Novus Ordo is only ambiguous), his conclusion, that the Novus Ordo “does not exclude the old religion” is equally flawed. Again, Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the “radically incompatibility” between the old religion and the new one, epitomised by the New Mass. How can a thing be radically incompatible with something but at the same time not exclude it?



Bp. Williamson:
“That does not make the NOM acceptable as such, because its intrinsic ambiguity still favours the new direction, but it does mean for instance that the Consecration can still be valid, as Archbishop Lefebvre never denied. Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either.”

Recusant Comment:
Discussion of validity is surely beside the point altogether. A priest who is a secret Satanist or Freemason, for example, might confect a valid sacrament in order to perform sacrilegious desecration. That it is valid is no consolation whatsoever, and is certainly no indication of whether good can ever come from attending it. Attending a satanic Black Mass would not help you get to heaven, even if it were valid.



Bp. Williamson:
“In brief, the NOM as such is bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts.”

Recusant Comment:
All evil is only “evil in parts but not all its parts.” There is not such thing as “pure evil”, because the definition of evil is that it is the absence of a due good. A table with only three legs is a bad table. A table missing all its legs and the table-top cannot be so described. Only one part evil makes the whole evil. Therefore, what Bishop Williamson ought to say is simply “The Novus Ordo is evil.” (why ‘bad’?). As it is, what looks like a redeeming qualification is really no more than an rhetorical illusion.


Bp Williamson:
“What specified Vatican II and the NOM was precisely the officialisation of the modernist heresy within the Church. 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?”

Recusant Comment:
No, it does not. Almighty God does not “reward” people by giving them something evil, something poisoned, something radically incompatible with the Catholic Faith. One fares better attending no Mass at all than attending the Novus Ordo. Once again, the idea that the New Mass is somehow not as good as the Traditional Mass but still better than nothing, is novel, untrue, disproved by the experience of the past forty years. In its full implications this idea is also very, very dangerous to the Faith.




3. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.436 (21st November, 2015):
“God has worked miracles with the N.O. Mass? / That’s what the evidence suggests. Alas?”

Bp. Williamson:
“When in June of 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre was on the brink of ordaining the first large batch of SSPX priests despite Rome’s disapproval, a Roman official came to promise him the end of all problems with Rome if only he would celebrate one Novus Ordo Mass. On principle, for doctrinal reasons, he refused. Then how can Almighty God have worked eucharistic miracles with and for this new Mass? Read here next week a suggested answer.”

Recusant Comment:
It should be clear by now that Bishop Williamson’s ideas about the New Mass are at radical variance with those of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X of old. Archbishop Lefebvre was quite right to refuse to say the New Mass and to prefer suspension in 1976. With his final question (“The how can Almighty God…?”), Bishop Williamson sows doubt into the mind of his reader not only about the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Mass, but also about Archbishop Lefebvre and what he stood for. Was the Archbishop perhaps deliberately being difficult towards the Romans, just to make a point, where he could have chosen to be more accommodating and not been any the worse for it? Is it enough to say that he refused “on principle, for doctrinal reasons” and leave it at that? It is true, his refusal was principled, and it was for doctrinal reasons. But I rather suspect that Archbishop Lefebvre would have said that he had no right to say the New Mass, since it was evil and poisoned and was destroying the Faith of countless millions; that he had no option, that to have agreed and said the New Mass would have been a sin.

As to Bishop Williamson’s “suggested answer” to his own question, presented in the two subsequent Eleison Comments, we have already examined it above. In short, his answer is that the Traditional Mass is a reward for fidelity and lack of worldliness, whereas the New Mass is a lesser reward for ‘loving the Mass’. It is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but still good and does not exclude the old religion. If you feel tempted to leave the Faith, the New Mass will be less of an obstacle than the old Mass.

One thing we have avoided touching on is whether the Novus Ordo miracles are really genuine. Well? Are they? The simple truth is I do not know, at least in the scientific sense, but every Catholic instinct in me says no. Three possibilities occur. The first is that they are fakes and frauds. That is not impossible. The world is full of lies now like it never was before. Lies throughout the media, education, banking and finance, everywhere. People generally are more used to the idea that one tells lies to get ahead, they are numb to it. We know that the conciliar church is not above a little dishonesty, now and then, in order to get its way (if they can’t be trusted with the Third Secret of Fatima, why should they suddenly be trusted concerning these ‘miracles’?)

The second possibility is that we are witnessing something like the “signs and prodigies” which Sacred Scripture prophesies will be seen towards the end of times. Certainly, if these ‘miracles’ have the power to lead many Traditional Catholics including some souls with the Resistance and one bishop (who is not, though many think he is) to a softening towards the abominable Novus Ordo, then that might well be an example of “deceiving, if possible, even the elect.” I only suggest it as a possibility - I may be wrong, and I await correction from any priest who would care to put me right.

The third possibility is that they are genuine and are sent as a warning from Almighty God against the sacrilege of the Novus Ordo Mass. There have been cases of miracles warning people off sacrilege. In Belgium, a couple of centuries ago, some Jews stole a host and stabbed it with knives. It bled. They converted. Clearly, desecrating a host by stabbing it with knives is not something God wants us to do, and the miracle does not lend approval to the action which prompted it in any way.

One thing is certain. That Almighty God can be using miracles to give His divine seal of approval to the New Mass is not a possibility. What is worrying is that Bishop Williamson discusses none of the three possibilities mentioned above. Nowhere in three separate ‘Eleison Comments’ does he even entertain the idea that the ‘miracles’ might be fakes or prodigies. Nor does he suggest that they might be a warning against sacrilege. Instead, he begins with the assumption that they are genuine (which in itself is staggering, when you think about it) and talks about “facts” being “stubborn” as though the matter were already proven beyond question. He then proceeds to use that unfounded assumption to push through a novel teaching about the New Mass of his own device, one which is completely at variance with Archbishop Lefebvre. The entire fiasco is summed up neatly in, and hinted ominously by, one word: the last word of the little jangle at the start of the first email. (“Alas?”), its question mark loaded with suggestiveness.

I am not much of a dab hand at silly rhyming couplets, but in an attempt to summarise the whole sorry business, here is my poor offering:


The Bishop thinks the New Mass can be good?
That’s bad enough. What’s worse is why he would!

"Viva Cristo Rey!"]]> <![CDATA[The Danger of So-Called “Miracles” in the Conciliar Church]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5143 Wed, 03 May 2023 12:46:03 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5143 The Recusant.com


Reproduced with kind permission from the December 2015 issue of “Catholic Candle”: catholiccandle.neocities.org


The Danger of So-Called “Miracles” in the Conciliar Church

The following is an effort to correct and counter faith-destroying statements from the author

of the Eleison Comments blog. I will not name the bishop so as not to embarrass him. I suspect that at one time or other you have run across this blog and considered it worth reading. I also have read it from time to time. Catholic Candle even reprinted one issue. However, not all that is published in Eleison is worth reading. In fact, some articles sow doubt and confusion that harm souls.

That harm is the reason for this article.

I will not republish these Eleison Comments (E.C.) articles here because I don’t want to be guilty of spreading further doubt and confusion. I will point out the problems and errors in the articles.

Traditional Catholics have always clearly known to stay far away from the Novus Ordo Missae (N.O.M.) because it subverts one’s Faith and greatly offends our Lord. The E.C.’s author says the opposite, viz., that Catholics should attend the N.O.M. if they perceive that it helps them spiritually.

He has since refused to admit that his advice is evil. In fact, he is doubling down on his ill-advised counsel by claiming there are miracles connected to the Novus Ordo. The devil himself works these “miracles” and, of course, they were not (and could not be) approved by the prudent pre-Vatican II Church.

The devil loves false “apparitions” and “miracles,” for by them he occasionally can undermine the faith of immense crowds, lead them into disobedience to the Church’s hierarchy, or even into schism, and distract them from their duties of state. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly denounced the widespread tendency of today’s credulous Catholics to run after such phenomena of doubtful origin. Angelus, May 1979, article: “Dubious Devotions”. Obviously the Church must, and does, regulate discipline with great care in such a dangerous domain. Canon 1399 §5 (pre-Vatican II code) forbids priests and faithful to publish, read, possess, sell, translate, or distribute any books or other publications (e.g., papers, magazines, pamphlets) which treat of new apparitions or miracles, unapproved by the Church.

Why would this Traditional leader speak so recklessly (i.e., citing supposed “miracles” connected to the Novus Ordo, to imply that Christ approves of people attending the N.O.M.), if this leader wasn’t trying to regain credibility with his confrères, heedless of how many trusting souls might take his advice and lose their souls. This is self-interest, not doing his duty.

Let us pray hard for this bishop. He has worked hard to save souls in the past and we need him very much in the Resistance Movement.

Of course, he must retract his advice about attending the Novus Ordo.

  • The Foolishness of Believing that (Supposed) “Miracles” Show that Some People Should Attend the New Mass

On December 13, 2014, a certain Resistance leader affirmed one of our core Traditional Catholic principles, viz., that no one should ever attend the new mass:

Quote:“Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. ... it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. ... if I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth ....”

- Eleison Comments #387 (emphasis added)


In June 2015, this same leader contradicted himself and publicly stated: “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single novus ordo mass.”

Over a three-week period in autumn 2015, this leader publicly promoted (supposed) “miracles” which he claimed that God worked in connection with the new mass. In these public statements, this leader stressed his belief that God performed these supposed) “miracles” to show the new mass can be valid. But since Traditional Catholics know that whether the new mass is valid or not, they must completely avoid it, why do Catholics need to know (and why should they care?) if the new mass is sometimes valid? This is like the fact that black (satanic) masses can sometimes be valid. But Catholics don’t need to know this because they must stay far away from black masses, whether they are valid or not.

Because the new conciliar mass, like the black mass, is inherently bad, it is an irreverent treatment of the sacred. In other words, the new mass is inherently a sacrilege. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.1. If a new mass or black mass were valid, that merely makes it objectively worse - by being a valid (rather than invalid) sacrilege. A valid sacrilege even more strongly calls down the wrath of God because a valid sacrilege compels God Himself (Sacramentally present) to take part in the sacrilege.

So it should be irrelevant to Traditional Catholics whether the new mass is valid. But here is how this Resistance leader ties together these (supposed) “miracles” - which he publicly states that God worked - with his pernicious view that some people should attend the new mass:

Quote:“[O]n the Internet can be found cases of Eucharistic miracles involving the Novus Ordo Mass .... How would this be possible if the Novus Ordo Mass was absolutely to be avoided?”

- Quoted from an email this leader wrote on July 21, 2015.


This present article examines this leader’s rash view that Traditional Catholics should change their position on the new mass because of (supposed) “miracles”.

We begin with our unshakable Traditional Catholic principles that the conciliar church is a new religion and its main liturgical expression is the new mass. Our Lord warned us that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Vatican II is a bad tree and bears only bad fruit—notably the new mass. To believe that the new mass can be good for anyone to attend, is to be deaf to our Lord’s words and to foolishly believe that bad trees can bear good fruit for anyone.

It defies Catholic teaching and Catholic common sense to accept a different religion (viz., the new conciliar religion) or its liturgy (the new mass) based on any theory whatsoever. We should not accept the conciliar (false) faith or its fruit (the new mass) any more than we should accept the satanic (false) faith or its fruit (the black mass).

So when this Resistance leader recently told people, “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single novus ordo mass”, he was as gravely wrong as if he said (about a different evil mass): “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single black mass”.

  • We should never change our Traditional Catholic principles based on supposed “miracles”

St. Paul warned his flock to never accept anything un-Catholic, even because of a supposed) miracle or vision: “But though ... an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Galatians, 1:8. St. Paul further explains that this “angel of light” is the devil: “Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.” II Cor. 11:14.

Our Lord warned, “there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” St. Matthew, 24:24. The devil uses false “signs and wonders” to lead credulous people away from what they know based on the principles of the Catholic Faith. So whenever there are “signs and wonders” which promote something un-Catholic, we know they must come from the devil (unless they are mere human deceit). Such “signs and wonders” might have no natural explanation (and be from the devil), but they could never be God’s work.

The Catholic principle which our Lord and St. Paul are teaching is that we must never consider that bad might be good because of so-called “miracles”. Only the man of weak Faith or the Traditional Catholic of weak conviction would read about (supposed) “miracles” with openness to the idea that maybe the Faith is wrong about something, or maybe Traditional Catholicism does not appreciate the good in the conciliar church (or the new mass).

So when this Resistance leader recently told people, “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single novus ordo mass”, and he promoted the false idea that God works “miracles” to promote the new mass in any way, this leader is showing he is a Traditional Catholic of weak conviction.

  • Advising confused Catholics

We sometimes talk with confused people who are diabolically disoriented and who think that evil is good. For example, an abortionist recently declared publicly that her conscience told her to perform abortions. [http://www.lifenews.com/2015/12/09/abort...-tells-me/]

But we must never advise such erring people to do what is evil. We must tell them that what they do is wrong and, if their conscience tells them to do something evil, they must inform their conscience better, through praying, obtaining good advice, studying sound Catholic doctrine, etc.

  • Advising a confused Catholic who believes that he experiences good from doing evil

No one should ever be advised to attend the new mass because he thinks he notices that it does him good. This is similar to the principle that no one should commit adultery, rob a bank or attend a black mass, even if he believes that he notices that such conduct (supposedly) brings him closer to God.

God can use whatever occasion (place, time, event, etc.) He wishes, to give His grace. So, e.g., God could use a (confused) person’s attendance at a new mass as an occasion of some good, such as causing someone to see how empty and man-centered the new mass is. But God never uses evil—like the new mass—as a source of grace. It is obvious, of course, that we should not attend the new mass motivated by the possibility that the new mass could be an occasion of grace, any more than we should attend a black mass or rob a bank, because it could be an occasion of grace. Those sins are not sources of grace but are always evil and offend God.

St. Ignatius of Loyola gives us Rules for the Discernment of Spirits to help us to discern when we are being led by the devil:

Quote:“We ought to note well the course of the thoughts, and if the beginning, middle and end is all good, inclined to all good, it is a sign of the good Angel; but if in the course of the thoughts which he brings, it ends in something bad, ... it is a clear sign that it proceeds from the evil spirit ....”

- Spiritual Exercises, Fifth Rule, Second Week (emphasis added)

Applying this Rule to the example immediately above: while attending the new mass, if a person comes to understand how man-centered the new mass is, and decides to never return, that would be an example of God (or the good angel) using a new mass as an occasion (not a source) of good. In other words, God used the person’s attendance at the new mass as the place and activity during which He showed the person the evil of the new mass.

On the other hand, if that person saw how empty the new mass is and resolved to make it more “meaningful” by becoming a “eucharistic minister”, then plainly that inspiration (which ends in something bad) comes from the devil, because the person’s ties to the new mass are strengthened, instead of being broken (as God demands). This inspiration is demonic however much the person is convinced that it strengthens his faith.

Traditional Catholics must not make decisions based on sentimentality! We must do what is objectively right, and we must not advise another person to do objective evil (like attend the new mass) even if such person “feels” (wrongly, of course) that the evil activity is a source of God’s blessings. Acting on such feelings is the sort of “touchy-feely fiftyism” that this same Resistance leader has correctly fought for decades!

Let us pray hard for this confused Resistance leader! He has done much good in the past and he could also do much good in the future!


Catholic Candle Note - Here is a short schema which visually shows the devil’s plan to use false “miracles” to promote the new mass and ultimately, the new conciliar religion.

[Image: CathCandle%20schema%20new%20mass.png]


“Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is the Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect...” St. Matthew 24:23-24

St Ephraim tells us in his sermon for the 24th Sunday after Pentecost that the devil using his Anti-Christ will “blaspheme, declaring: ‘I am the Father and the Son, the first and the last, and there is no other God but me.’... But when the Accursed has come and has worked signs and lying wonders, the people will be assembled together and they will come to see the god, and multitudes will adhere to him and all will deny their God, and all will call upon those who are close to them to praise the son of perdition... and the elect shall fly from his face to the mountaintops and to the hills...”]]> The Recusant.com


Reproduced with kind permission from the December 2015 issue of “Catholic Candle”: catholiccandle.neocities.org


The Danger of So-Called “Miracles” in the Conciliar Church

The following is an effort to correct and counter faith-destroying statements from the author

of the Eleison Comments blog. I will not name the bishop so as not to embarrass him. I suspect that at one time or other you have run across this blog and considered it worth reading. I also have read it from time to time. Catholic Candle even reprinted one issue. However, not all that is published in Eleison is worth reading. In fact, some articles sow doubt and confusion that harm souls.

That harm is the reason for this article.

I will not republish these Eleison Comments (E.C.) articles here because I don’t want to be guilty of spreading further doubt and confusion. I will point out the problems and errors in the articles.

Traditional Catholics have always clearly known to stay far away from the Novus Ordo Missae (N.O.M.) because it subverts one’s Faith and greatly offends our Lord. The E.C.’s author says the opposite, viz., that Catholics should attend the N.O.M. if they perceive that it helps them spiritually.

He has since refused to admit that his advice is evil. In fact, he is doubling down on his ill-advised counsel by claiming there are miracles connected to the Novus Ordo. The devil himself works these “miracles” and, of course, they were not (and could not be) approved by the prudent pre-Vatican II Church.

The devil loves false “apparitions” and “miracles,” for by them he occasionally can undermine the faith of immense crowds, lead them into disobedience to the Church’s hierarchy, or even into schism, and distract them from their duties of state. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly denounced the widespread tendency of today’s credulous Catholics to run after such phenomena of doubtful origin. Angelus, May 1979, article: “Dubious Devotions”. Obviously the Church must, and does, regulate discipline with great care in such a dangerous domain. Canon 1399 §5 (pre-Vatican II code) forbids priests and faithful to publish, read, possess, sell, translate, or distribute any books or other publications (e.g., papers, magazines, pamphlets) which treat of new apparitions or miracles, unapproved by the Church.

Why would this Traditional leader speak so recklessly (i.e., citing supposed “miracles” connected to the Novus Ordo, to imply that Christ approves of people attending the N.O.M.), if this leader wasn’t trying to regain credibility with his confrères, heedless of how many trusting souls might take his advice and lose their souls. This is self-interest, not doing his duty.

Let us pray hard for this bishop. He has worked hard to save souls in the past and we need him very much in the Resistance Movement.

Of course, he must retract his advice about attending the Novus Ordo.

  • The Foolishness of Believing that (Supposed) “Miracles” Show that Some People Should Attend the New Mass

On December 13, 2014, a certain Resistance leader affirmed one of our core Traditional Catholic principles, viz., that no one should ever attend the new mass:

Quote:“Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. ... it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. ... if I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth ....”

- Eleison Comments #387 (emphasis added)


In June 2015, this same leader contradicted himself and publicly stated: “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single novus ordo mass.”

Over a three-week period in autumn 2015, this leader publicly promoted (supposed) “miracles” which he claimed that God worked in connection with the new mass. In these public statements, this leader stressed his belief that God performed these supposed) “miracles” to show the new mass can be valid. But since Traditional Catholics know that whether the new mass is valid or not, they must completely avoid it, why do Catholics need to know (and why should they care?) if the new mass is sometimes valid? This is like the fact that black (satanic) masses can sometimes be valid. But Catholics don’t need to know this because they must stay far away from black masses, whether they are valid or not.

Because the new conciliar mass, like the black mass, is inherently bad, it is an irreverent treatment of the sacred. In other words, the new mass is inherently a sacrilege. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.1. If a new mass or black mass were valid, that merely makes it objectively worse - by being a valid (rather than invalid) sacrilege. A valid sacrilege even more strongly calls down the wrath of God because a valid sacrilege compels God Himself (Sacramentally present) to take part in the sacrilege.

So it should be irrelevant to Traditional Catholics whether the new mass is valid. But here is how this Resistance leader ties together these (supposed) “miracles” - which he publicly states that God worked - with his pernicious view that some people should attend the new mass:

Quote:“[O]n the Internet can be found cases of Eucharistic miracles involving the Novus Ordo Mass .... How would this be possible if the Novus Ordo Mass was absolutely to be avoided?”

- Quoted from an email this leader wrote on July 21, 2015.


This present article examines this leader’s rash view that Traditional Catholics should change their position on the new mass because of (supposed) “miracles”.

We begin with our unshakable Traditional Catholic principles that the conciliar church is a new religion and its main liturgical expression is the new mass. Our Lord warned us that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Vatican II is a bad tree and bears only bad fruit—notably the new mass. To believe that the new mass can be good for anyone to attend, is to be deaf to our Lord’s words and to foolishly believe that bad trees can bear good fruit for anyone.

It defies Catholic teaching and Catholic common sense to accept a different religion (viz., the new conciliar religion) or its liturgy (the new mass) based on any theory whatsoever. We should not accept the conciliar (false) faith or its fruit (the new mass) any more than we should accept the satanic (false) faith or its fruit (the black mass).

So when this Resistance leader recently told people, “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single novus ordo mass”, he was as gravely wrong as if he said (about a different evil mass): “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single black mass”.

  • We should never change our Traditional Catholic principles based on supposed “miracles”

St. Paul warned his flock to never accept anything un-Catholic, even because of a supposed) miracle or vision: “But though ... an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Galatians, 1:8. St. Paul further explains that this “angel of light” is the devil: “Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.” II Cor. 11:14.

Our Lord warned, “there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” St. Matthew, 24:24. The devil uses false “signs and wonders” to lead credulous people away from what they know based on the principles of the Catholic Faith. So whenever there are “signs and wonders” which promote something un-Catholic, we know they must come from the devil (unless they are mere human deceit). Such “signs and wonders” might have no natural explanation (and be from the devil), but they could never be God’s work.

The Catholic principle which our Lord and St. Paul are teaching is that we must never consider that bad might be good because of so-called “miracles”. Only the man of weak Faith or the Traditional Catholic of weak conviction would read about (supposed) “miracles” with openness to the idea that maybe the Faith is wrong about something, or maybe Traditional Catholicism does not appreciate the good in the conciliar church (or the new mass).

So when this Resistance leader recently told people, “I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single novus ordo mass”, and he promoted the false idea that God works “miracles” to promote the new mass in any way, this leader is showing he is a Traditional Catholic of weak conviction.

  • Advising confused Catholics

We sometimes talk with confused people who are diabolically disoriented and who think that evil is good. For example, an abortionist recently declared publicly that her conscience told her to perform abortions. [http://www.lifenews.com/2015/12/09/abort...-tells-me/]

But we must never advise such erring people to do what is evil. We must tell them that what they do is wrong and, if their conscience tells them to do something evil, they must inform their conscience better, through praying, obtaining good advice, studying sound Catholic doctrine, etc.

  • Advising a confused Catholic who believes that he experiences good from doing evil

No one should ever be advised to attend the new mass because he thinks he notices that it does him good. This is similar to the principle that no one should commit adultery, rob a bank or attend a black mass, even if he believes that he notices that such conduct (supposedly) brings him closer to God.

God can use whatever occasion (place, time, event, etc.) He wishes, to give His grace. So, e.g., God could use a (confused) person’s attendance at a new mass as an occasion of some good, such as causing someone to see how empty and man-centered the new mass is. But God never uses evil—like the new mass—as a source of grace. It is obvious, of course, that we should not attend the new mass motivated by the possibility that the new mass could be an occasion of grace, any more than we should attend a black mass or rob a bank, because it could be an occasion of grace. Those sins are not sources of grace but are always evil and offend God.

St. Ignatius of Loyola gives us Rules for the Discernment of Spirits to help us to discern when we are being led by the devil:

Quote:“We ought to note well the course of the thoughts, and if the beginning, middle and end is all good, inclined to all good, it is a sign of the good Angel; but if in the course of the thoughts which he brings, it ends in something bad, ... it is a clear sign that it proceeds from the evil spirit ....”

- Spiritual Exercises, Fifth Rule, Second Week (emphasis added)

Applying this Rule to the example immediately above: while attending the new mass, if a person comes to understand how man-centered the new mass is, and decides to never return, that would be an example of God (or the good angel) using a new mass as an occasion (not a source) of good. In other words, God used the person’s attendance at the new mass as the place and activity during which He showed the person the evil of the new mass.

On the other hand, if that person saw how empty the new mass is and resolved to make it more “meaningful” by becoming a “eucharistic minister”, then plainly that inspiration (which ends in something bad) comes from the devil, because the person’s ties to the new mass are strengthened, instead of being broken (as God demands). This inspiration is demonic however much the person is convinced that it strengthens his faith.

Traditional Catholics must not make decisions based on sentimentality! We must do what is objectively right, and we must not advise another person to do objective evil (like attend the new mass) even if such person “feels” (wrongly, of course) that the evil activity is a source of God’s blessings. Acting on such feelings is the sort of “touchy-feely fiftyism” that this same Resistance leader has correctly fought for decades!

Let us pray hard for this confused Resistance leader! He has done much good in the past and he could also do much good in the future!


Catholic Candle Note - Here is a short schema which visually shows the devil’s plan to use false “miracles” to promote the new mass and ultimately, the new conciliar religion.

[Image: CathCandle%20schema%20new%20mass.png]


“Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is the Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect...” St. Matthew 24:23-24

St Ephraim tells us in his sermon for the 24th Sunday after Pentecost that the devil using his Anti-Christ will “blaspheme, declaring: ‘I am the Father and the Son, the first and the last, and there is no other God but me.’... But when the Accursed has come and has worked signs and lying wonders, the people will be assembled together and they will come to see the god, and multitudes will adhere to him and all will deny their God, and all will call upon those who are close to them to praise the son of perdition... and the elect shall fly from his face to the mountaintops and to the hills...”]]> <![CDATA[The Recusant #60: SSPX Watch!]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5096 Sun, 23 Apr 2023 12:03:38 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5096 The Recusant #60 - Easter 2023


SSPX Watch!


SSPX Sick Calls?

The SSPX priory at Ridgefield, Connecticut recently included this notice in their bulletin.

[Image: Screenshot-2023-04-23-075959.png]

“Sick calls are for those who are listed in our records as parishioners.”

The first reaction is to be shocked at such a lack of apostolic zeal. Is this not the equivalent of saying: People can go to hell, what business of ours is that?

The second, is to ask oneself: why? To answer, let us translate this scandalous notice into normal English. “We don’t have jurisdiction over anyone: our conciliar masters have only granted us jurisdiction over those people who are definitely our people, but not over their people. They would be very displeased if we trespassed on their territory!”

Bearing in mind Pope Francis’s approval for SSPX ordinations, jurisdiction for their confessions, the approval of their marriages, the SSPX’s recourse to conciliar courts using the modernist 1983 Code of Canon Law, and all the rest - isn’t this entirely consistent with a priestly Society which has been secretly absorbed into the conciliar church and now has to abide by their jurisdiction?


More Navel-Gazing

Listening to Fr Paul Robinson and Mr James Vogel talking about podcasts, the Angelus Press, etc. (here) has to be one of the most boring experiences of the year so far, a veritable cure for insomnia if ever there was one.

What’s more, when one considers that this is in effect the Angelus Press talking about the Angelus Press, a podcast about podcasts, one is reminded of the time the SSPX issued a press release about press releases. One of the surest signs of an organisation becoming ineffectual and rotten on the inside is when it starts to look inward and wastes time talking about itself.

The one noteworthy piece of news to be gathered, is that: Fr Paul Robinson Takes Over at Angelus Press

Go on, tell me again all about how The Realist Guide was just one rogue priest. Tell me again that it doesn’t represent his superiors or the SSPX as a whole. Not only has Angelus Press been selling that scandalous book, the SSPX has now placed its author in charge of Angelus.

The man who wrote a book promoting evolutionist ideas is now in charge of publishing the SSPX’s books for the whole English-speaking world.


Doubtful Novus Ordo Bishop Consecrates German SSPX’s Holy Oils

Bishop Vitus Huonder has featured in these pages before. Until now he has only been celebrating Mass on SSPX altars - that is, until Holy Week 2023. He has now been used to consecrate the holy oils at Zaitskofen, Germany. Are the SSPX bigwigs intending to ease him into the bloodstream? First doubtful oils, then..? Doubtful confirmations? Doubtful ordinations? He was consecrated bishop in the new rite of episcopal consecration in 2007, by a bishop who was himself also so consecrated in 1987 - “second generation doubtful,” in other words.]]> The Recusant #60 - Easter 2023


SSPX Watch!


SSPX Sick Calls?

The SSPX priory at Ridgefield, Connecticut recently included this notice in their bulletin.

[Image: Screenshot-2023-04-23-075959.png]

“Sick calls are for those who are listed in our records as parishioners.”

The first reaction is to be shocked at such a lack of apostolic zeal. Is this not the equivalent of saying: People can go to hell, what business of ours is that?

The second, is to ask oneself: why? To answer, let us translate this scandalous notice into normal English. “We don’t have jurisdiction over anyone: our conciliar masters have only granted us jurisdiction over those people who are definitely our people, but not over their people. They would be very displeased if we trespassed on their territory!”

Bearing in mind Pope Francis’s approval for SSPX ordinations, jurisdiction for their confessions, the approval of their marriages, the SSPX’s recourse to conciliar courts using the modernist 1983 Code of Canon Law, and all the rest - isn’t this entirely consistent with a priestly Society which has been secretly absorbed into the conciliar church and now has to abide by their jurisdiction?


More Navel-Gazing

Listening to Fr Paul Robinson and Mr James Vogel talking about podcasts, the Angelus Press, etc. (here) has to be one of the most boring experiences of the year so far, a veritable cure for insomnia if ever there was one.

What’s more, when one considers that this is in effect the Angelus Press talking about the Angelus Press, a podcast about podcasts, one is reminded of the time the SSPX issued a press release about press releases. One of the surest signs of an organisation becoming ineffectual and rotten on the inside is when it starts to look inward and wastes time talking about itself.

The one noteworthy piece of news to be gathered, is that: Fr Paul Robinson Takes Over at Angelus Press

Go on, tell me again all about how The Realist Guide was just one rogue priest. Tell me again that it doesn’t represent his superiors or the SSPX as a whole. Not only has Angelus Press been selling that scandalous book, the SSPX has now placed its author in charge of Angelus.

The man who wrote a book promoting evolutionist ideas is now in charge of publishing the SSPX’s books for the whole English-speaking world.


Doubtful Novus Ordo Bishop Consecrates German SSPX’s Holy Oils

Bishop Vitus Huonder has featured in these pages before. Until now he has only been celebrating Mass on SSPX altars - that is, until Holy Week 2023. He has now been used to consecrate the holy oils at Zaitskofen, Germany. Are the SSPX bigwigs intending to ease him into the bloodstream? First doubtful oils, then..? Doubtful confirmations? Doubtful ordinations? He was consecrated bishop in the new rite of episcopal consecration in 2007, by a bishop who was himself also so consecrated in 1987 - “second generation doubtful,” in other words.]]> <![CDATA[Rumor: Bp. Williamson consecrated Fr. Paul Morgan]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5080 Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:02:18 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5080
If this rumor is true, what an odd 'announcement'!!

From the Suscipe Domine forum: Fr. Paul Morgan consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson



Fr. Paul Morgan resigned from the SSPX (rather late in the SSPX crisis) in 2018.

Prior to that, a letter from Fr. Morgan, defending the SSPX can be found in this issue of The Recusant from 2013.]]>
If this rumor is true, what an odd 'announcement'!!

From the Suscipe Domine forum: Fr. Paul Morgan consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson



Fr. Paul Morgan resigned from the SSPX (rather late in the SSPX crisis) in 2018.

Prior to that, a letter from Fr. Morgan, defending the SSPX can be found in this issue of The Recusant from 2013.]]>