I stress, “for now.” There are credible rumors of antichurch scheming to implement invalidating formulas, which would not surprise me at all. Perhaps we should even expect it. But for now, if the N.O. is all you have access to, by all means avail yourself. I’m not suggesting the good Bishop is saying as much in the essay that follows, so don’t infer that. But do consider the Eucharistic miracles, the healing miracles, the effective Exorcisms… examine the evidence; the new rites are valid. Hold your nose and ears if you have to. Don’t let a 1958 Sede turn you into a home aloner. (another essay I need to find time to write up) -nvp
“Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DCCCXLVI BAD SHEPHERDS?
We always want calm seas, easy to sail,
But God wants storms, to test how we avail.
As certain questions come back, so there are certain answers which need to be repeated. From the very beginning of the “Traditional movement” soon after Vatican II there arose the question of attending or not the New Mass of Pope Paul VI: If it is not necessarily invalid, if it can be valid, why can I not attend it?” In accordance with Catholic theology of the Mass, the Tradionalists’ answer from the beginning was that even if the celebration of a New Mass with correct Matter, Form and Intention is valid, nevertheless it cannot normally be attended because it is so poisoned by the new humanistic religion of Vatican II that many a Catholic who attends it regularly, risks losing his faith by exposure to a false version of God, of man, of sin and Redemption, no less. The Traditional Mass is centred on God, the New Mass is centred on man.
However, the acceptability of attending the New Mass has been supported in recent years by the allegation that there have been a number of Eucharistic miracles with hosts consecrated at a New Mass celebrated by a priest ordained with the New Ordination Rite by a bishop consecrated with the New Consecration Rite, for instance in Sokulka, Poland, in 2008. Now Traditionalists not only claim, but can argue, that all three New Rites (of Mass, Ordination and Consecration) can be invalid, but in the case of many of these alleged Eucharistic miracles they are up against the (truly) scientific evidence of transubstantiation having really taken place. See for instance the 279-page book recently published by the Sophia Institute Press, A Cardiologist Examines Jesus, in which a professional heart doctor lays out “the stunning science behind Eucharistic miracles.” A sane mind, having examined such “science,” starts out from it. Sokulka features in the book from pages 81 to 95. Two of the book’s 27 photographic plates come from Sokulka.
With such evidence we must assume that at least a number of alleged eucharistic miracles are authentic. The argument for the New Mass then takes the following form: If the New Mass is as offensive to God and as harmful to Catholics as Traditionalists claim, then how could God (who alone can produce the evidence behind such miracles) possibly have worked them at the New Mass? And how can it possibly be wrong for me to attend it? The answer has not changed from above. All that the scientific evidence has done is to prove beyond all possible doubt that transubstantiation really did happen at the Mass where the miracle took place. Then the question becomes, how can a loving God possibly want to poison the faith of His own sheep?
The answer is classic. God does not want evil, but He wants to allow evil in order to bring a greater good from it. The evil is the exposure of Catholic souls to humanistic poison threatening their faith. This evil was wanted by the unfaithful churchmen who changed the Rite of Mass, but it was not wanted by God. What He wanted was to remind His shepherds (bishops) and His sheep (layfolk) that the Mass is the true Sacrifice of His Son, and both of them must stop behaving as though Mass is just like some glorified picnic. In Sokulka for instance, the parish priest at the time of the miracle and for a number of years afterwards, declares that devotion to the Holy Eucharist has notably increased in the whole region of Sokulka itself ever since the miracle. And the miraculous host is now exposed for adoration in a side chapel of the parish church.
Thus Almighty God does not like what a mass of churchmen and layfolk have done to His church down the ages, starting with Judas Iscariot, but He does want to put His infinitely precious Church in the hands of churchmen with free-will to merit for their own Heaven by how well they serve it, at the risk of their choosing to demerit by their dis-serving it, and he does want to allow His sheep to have bad church shepherds if that is what they deserve, so that they will suffer and return to wanting good shepherds. But He will never leave His sheep completely leaderless, if they want to get to Heaven. See how He gave us Archbishop Lefebvre to pioneer the return to Tradition, and now Archbishop Vigano to set an example of courage, in telling Catholic Truth to an apparently overwhelming anti-Catholic power.
Kyrie eleison
Catholic Sacramental Validity and Liceity do not depend on the “scientific evidence” of a miracle. Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider the Novus Ordo rite to be necessarily invalid. He did, however, consider it illicit because it does not express Catholic truth concerning the Mass and the priesthood. The lex orandi, lex credendi, or legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (the law of praying is to establish the law of believing) was mangled beyond recognition, and in the hands of the Modernists the New Mass became a faith killer.
I don’t disagree with any of that.
Then how can The Catholic Church with valid popes give the sheep faith killing liturgies, disciplines and doctrines? I thought the Catholic Church was indefectible.
She is indefectibile. That’s why Totalist Sedeism is a dead end.
Thank you.
So then you no longer believe that Jorge is the probable anti John the Baptist? You and Ann used to post that quite often.
How does that follow?
“She is indefectibile. That’s why Totalist Sedeism is a dead end.”
“How does that follow?”
If Jorge is the forerunner of the false prophet, next comes AC. Seems to me there will not or even cannot be a Pope at that time. As Bp. Sanborn has said, an intact Catholic Church with a valid Pope would fight the AC tooth and nail. So if there could be a true Pope at that time, one could hardly be fooled by AC. Totalism would then fit.
As a sede, I don’t hold either position; Totalist or Thesis because I know neither position can be proven unless or until God seems it His Good Pleasure to give us another holy, valid Pope.
Of course there will be a terrible trial in end days, when the Church undergoes a terrible ordeal, and unless the time had not been shortened, even the Elect would be deceived.
Everything you write in some way always comes back to your religion, 58 Sedevacantism. You exist to propagandist. And this is why sedes are not real Catholics. They’re a club and even if the Church were to get a pope who went back to the TLM and denounced V2, these sedes would still exist. This is why you fight the church from within.
Um, this thread is about the validity of the NO, so my sedeism is relevant. You always attack me and my position, but never refute it with theology or ecclesiology. The best you’ve got is “stay and fight within the Church”.
How about you tell me, as I don’t recall, about your on the SSPX? Is RnR a Catholic response to the current situation? What Catholic doctrines, exactly do the sedes deny?
If you don’t want to answer, or you’re not certain, or you don’t have anything to refute SVism, maybe stop attacking me until you do.
Btw, Mark here and many others do not hold your position that sedes are not Catholic. They may not agree, but they’re not ignorant enough to call us not Catholic.
I don’t like the novus ordo and will go hours out of my way not to attend one. However… it is a FACT that Eucharistic Miracles are still happening and they are happening in novus ordo Catholic Churches. A few years ago, one happened in India where the priest was facing the congregation and both the priest and the parishioners saw it. Over here in the U.S., sadly, there have been several where the priests were ordered by their bishops to keep silent and even wash the bleeding host down that special sink all Churches have that go directly into the ground.
If the novus ordo were 100 percent invalid, Our Lord would not be coming down and reminding His priests that He is for real in the Blessed Sacrament.
That the NO Masses are valid, that they are offensive to God, and that we can still attend them are not all necessarily mutually exclusive. Hot dogs are food, they are an offense to gastronomical sensibilities, and you can survive on them if need be.
It appears that a common factor leading to Eucharistic Miracles has been missed, common to many including Lanciano (eighth century) and Santarém (thirteenth century).
In the case of Lanciano, it was doubt about the Real Presence on the part of the Priest consecrating the Host.
In the case of Santarém, it was an intended sacrilege of a consecrated Host by a parishioner who was taking it for use by a witch.
In 1996, there was a Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires. This involved a desecrated Host, left on the ground.
The Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires (neither Cardinal nor Archbishop then) was Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
A shorter one of many videos on the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXLfwdw2yUk
I’m of the opinion that the devil’s plan was always to maintain the valid consecration in the Novus Ordo. After all there are plenty of fake masses and fake eucharists and invalid orders out there already.
But perhaps this is more insidious because that opens the door to actual desecration, abuse, neglect and mistreatment of the real thing, which, whatever we think of the Anglicans & Protestants, actually never occurs in their services precisely because there is nothing there.
So, Novus Ordo participants need to be extremely careful about what they are engaging in, depending in the state of the parish, and have to answer for if there was an alternative available for them to attend.
If you can hang on for about three weeks (assuming the world doesn’t implode further), I’m writing an E-book on Vatican 2. I dedicate about a quarter of it to this issue with all the trad groups (1958 Sedes, 2022 Sedes, SSPX, SSPX Resistance, Thuccites, Sedeprivationists, etc.). It’ll cover some of the issues here (and, of course, why we could really use a pope right now).
I hope you touch on how ’22 SVism does not answer 5 decades of the SSPX.
Now that Aqua is no longer posting his pro RnR position, I’m wondering how many here really believe that resisting a valid pope is in anyway a Catholic position.
I think it comes down to even a Pope’s orders can be illegal, if they go against the defined canonical process he has bound himself to. The law can be changed; but until it is changed the law is the law.
And ‘58 SVism, in my opinion and that of many others, does not answer how Heaven could permit this situation to continue for seventy years essentially unanswered. It is possible; it does not seem likely. Further, there is good reason to believe from both public miracles, exorcisms, and private experience, that the NO sacraments – including ordination – are still valid, and the bishops are still, somehow, clinging to some scraps of divinely granted authority.
I personally think a better question, for everyone involved, is “what evidence would I need in order to falsify my personal beliefs and/or discernment?” For if we cannot be corrected by reality, how shall we be corrected at all?
There is a section of the Catechism of St Pius X called “The Pope and the Bishops”, which touches on the Pope and his teaching. I think the ‘58 sedes do a much better job of being in line with this part of that Catechism than anyone else.
For example: (59) Why has God granted to the Pope the gift of infallibility?
A. God has granted the Pope the gift of infallibility in order that we all may be sure and certain of the truths which the Church teaches.
Or: (55) Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A. The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.
As for who has the right diagnosis of what is going on (‘58s, ‘22s, RnR, Novus Ordo etc), the groups I don’t think have the right diagnosis are :
1) any Catholic who doesn’t attend Mass and holds to the values of the world (I.e. someone with a rainbow flag on the bumper of their car right next to a sticker for the Catholic school they send their child/children to);
2) any Catholic in that CARA survey meme that holds to heretical beliefs (for all I know, these may include some people who attend the N.O. or TLM).
3) any Catholic who believes Bergoglio is the Pope but also knows enough of the Faith to be able to recognize that he is teaching error (like Amoris Laetitia).
I wish the times were much less confusing but sadly I also think we deserve it. Much like Europe likely deserved WW1 after even Catholic states (thinking of France and Austria) did not rally in defense of the Pope and prevent the loss of the Papal States to the so-called Kingdom of Italy. Of course, how much of their governments were Liberal and Masonic by then (I.e. Portugal prevented its bishops from attending Vatican 1) so they had essentially betrayed the Faith.
Nevertheless, it is sobering to think that we may deserve this in a manner.
“3) any Catholic who believes Bergoglio is the Pope but also knows enough of the Faith to be able to recognize that he is teaching error (like Amoris Laetitia).”
This is why I started, after 5 years of holding to the BiP theory, to look into SVism. When those a lot more knowledgeable than I (SSPX clergy, Indults etc) didn’t get on board with it, I wondered why. I’ll never tire of reminding folks, the existence of the SSPX points to ’58 SVism, not ’22.
Kono, let me ask you a different question, inspired by Mr. “Demons did it!!1!” from below. How probable would you rate the explanations for the current situation? And what evidence – not reasoning from theory, but from history or reality – would you accept that would falsify your position?
Urielangeli, you’re asking me what evidence would it take for me to believe the NO Church/religion was Catholic. And what evidence would convince me the post V2 popes were actual popes. Short of Divine Intervention, I can think of nothing. Only unbelievers ask for signs and miracles. I became Catholic because Catholicism is obviously true. I became sede for the same reason.
The NO is a false religion, promulgated by false popes. The Catholic Church CANNOT give the faithful poison (like the faith killing NO “Mass”). The “fruit” of V2 is exceedingly clear. The existence of the SSPX points to more than just Jorge being a false pope. The state of the whole world points to a lack of graces from so few valid Masses. For me, it is that simple.
@Kono fair enough. I would not be satisfied with that myself, but it’s your life and your decisions to make. Anyone can be wrong with great certainty, which is why I myself prefer to be and know that I am uncertain. Certainty in what, after all? One’s own judgement & discernment? God forbid.
@kono One last thing. There are only two thing of which I am certain – which no evidence could persuade me to abandon. Those two things are Christ is Logos, and Logos is God. All other things are derived or interpreted from those two things, reason/metaphysics, the evidence of my senses, and trusted authority. But all those things are less-than-certain – they may be misinterpreted, misunderstood, incorrectly derived, badly trusted. Therefore they can be changed, and are arranged in a hierarchy-of-probability.
I cannot understand why others would do anything less, but, I am not others and others are not I.
Urielangeli,
“Certainty in what, after all? One’s own judgement & discernment? God forbid.”
Certainty in my faith. Certainty in what the Catholic Church IS. Certainty in what the papacy IS
And I do not lean on my own understanding. I started out in 2015 in the NO. My second Sunday as a newly Confirmed Catholic was DMS. When I heard about it, I thought , well this certainly sounds Protestant. But told myself, I must be wrong, because I was certain this was the true Church. A year or so later, I learned about the controversy. Then when ICK came to town I went there for 5 years. Also during those years, I held the BiP theory. When no clergy got on board with that position, I started to wonder why. Also, I was in a second “marriage”. How easy it would have been for me to stay in and believe the NO was the true Church and keep my “husband” and not be poor. Heck, even the ICK said my annulment and second marriage was okey dokey. I did a twelve year stint in Protestantism and neither my NO priest nor the ICK canons would let me do an abjuration. My sede priest insisted on it.
Conclusion: even if the sedes are wrong about their doubts as to the validity of the V2 popes (which is NOT a sin).. ..we’re Catholic. That, I am 1000% certain.
@kono I have never once doubted your Catholicity, nor that of the sedes; nor your good will. In these times fit to deceive even the elect, the most we can say, I think, is that someone is in error. God bless you and yours and may he lead us all to truth.
Thank you urielangeli. *Some* here do not consider sedes Catholic. Barnhardt calls us Protestants and schizos. Obviously, I don’t care what others think of me, but I do care that people who have an audience and slander sedes are spreading errors about SVism in general.
May God bless and Mary keep you and yours.
Just an article I read:
https://traditioninaction.org/bev/284bev09_29_2023.htm
Interesting. Gonna keep an eye open for this. Guess I should visit TIA more frequently.
Bishop Williamson is demonstrating terrible logic here. It is possible that he did so because of time and space constraints, but nonetheless, it is terrible.
First, as Fr. Spirago’s Catechism Explained tells us, miracles can be produced by demons to lead people astray. They are NOT always evidence of a thing’s holiness or legitimacy. In this regard, we must listen to the Church. Here we have NO hierarchy approving NO miracles. This is the bishop’s first logical fallacy: using the legitimacy of the NO clergy to prove its legitimacy. If you are arguing for the legitimacy of the clergy, you CAN’T use, as evidence, miracles that depend on their legitimacy.
The second fallacy is not considering the NO hierarchy’s track-record on 1) miracles, and 2) validity. First, miracles. We all know examples of questionable miracles used to ensure that particular people would get canonized (in many cases to “canonize” V2). Thus, the NO clergy’s track record with miracles is spotty, to say the least.
In terms of validity, I call everyone’s attention to the 1975 meeting between +Lefebvre and Paul VI, wherein BOTH men agreed that almost 90% of NO Masses in France were invalid because the priests were changing the Form at will. No correction came of that from Rome, if I remember. We cannot also forget how BXVI ruled an obscure Syro-Mallabar rite “valid”, even though it has no Consecration at all. One could argue that the Conciliar Church is not altogether concerned with validity, based on it’s own history (in my area, there were three priests who did many “invalidating” things for decades, to the point that it is highly likely that not a single Baptism, Confession, Mass, Last Rites, or Marriage was valid. Despite numerous complaints, the diocese was unconcerned with their antics because “they were good priests”).
If the Bishop seriously wants to argue for the NO legitimacy, then he needs to 1) explain how the new Forms of ordination and consecration follow the principles established by the Church, 2) explain how the new Conciliar ideas of Orders are consistent with Catholic ideas of Orders, 3) explain how the USCCB’s contention that Lumen Gentium changed the concept of orders to match the Anglicans does not invalidate the intention (recall, Leo XIII said that the Anglicans’ concept of orders was deficient enough to render it impossible to have a proper intention…the USCCB argues that Lumen Gentium made the Catholic concept more on-line with the Anglican, so Leo’s condemnation doesn’t apply).
OK. I am going to start with a good quote from a bad man – “I pray you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be wrong.”
I have to ask – in consideration of your assertion that “Demons did it!!1!” – what evidence – not theoretical explanations, historical or physical evidence – would you consider to falsify your beliefs?
You are reasoning platonically, and platonic reasoning is almost never correct because we can’t ever have an absolutely perfect theory of reality. If we had one, we could predict the future, but we can’t. Theory is subordinate to Reality. Reality must always be able to correct theory.
I am not trying to criticize you – even though you are jumping all over my buttons – but there are three things that are missing from your assertion, the first being “what non-theoretical evidence would you accept that your position is wrong?” The second, because certainty is for chumps, “How probable is it that your theory is correct? And how probable are the other possible explanations, in comparison?” The third, “What are your first principles? What are the assumptions in which you are placing your full faith?”
If this is unclear, I can always provide examples. But merely saying, “My theory says it can’t be true, so obviously demons did it,” just means that you cannot be corrected, even by reality. And we are all in need of correction.
While we’re at it, I would like to add “I disagree with what he/she said so they are false prophets” Is not a good idea either. I would agree that there are false prophets, but if you are basing your judgement based on whether their claims are reasonable to you instead of the reality of whether they have heard God then you will also have stoned true prophets by accident. It’s hard to accept the idea that in the greatest crises in Church history God wouldn’t send any modern prophets to warn the faithful.
Yes! To maintain his hideous and insipid RnR position, Bp. Williamson must legitimize the NO at all costs. Since their position, RnR, destroys the supernatural aspects of the Church and papacy, they need to demonstrate the supernatural in the NO. It’s too obvious the NO liturgy and doctrines are not from heaven (lacks anything supernatural)….ABS. Anything but sedevacantism.