A Catechetical Refutation:

(Regarding Certain Objections Made to Bishop Williamsons

Comments on the Novus Ordo)
By
Sean Johnson
5-1-16
A. Introduction:
On June 28, 2015, Bishop Williamson gave a conference
after a confirmation Mass in
New York, in which he was asked by a lay faithful attendee
whether or not it was
permissible for her to attend the Novus Ordo Missae.
1
A strange question, you might think, coming from an
attendee of a Resistance
confirmation/Mass/conference, until you recognize that this
occasion being a
confirmation, she was not a regular attendee, but rather a
guest or relative of one of the
confirmands.
This woman went on to provide some additional details: That
she attended the traditional
Latin Mass on Sunday, but also attended the Novus Ordo
Missae during the week; that
the Mass was celebrated by a priest who certainly had a true
faith in the Mass; that it is
celebrated with unusual reverence, etc.
Less well known, however, is the fact that the traditional
Latin Mass this woman attends
on Sunday is also celebrated by the same (bi-ritual) priest
who celebrates the Novus Ordo

Missae during the week.2

These additional details are important for context, insofar as
they plainly evince an
ignorance on the part of this woman regarding the doctrinal
deficiencies and evils of the
Novus Ordo Missae. I say plainly evince, because it is
scarcely conceivable that she has
been taught these things by her bi-ritual priest (i.e., Is it
imaginable that he would be
condemning from the pulpit at the traditional Latin Mass on
Sunday the evils of the
Novus Ordo Missae he was going to be celebrating on
Monday?). Is it not much more
likely that he has been explaining to his faithful nondoctrinal reasons for praying the
Tridentine Mass (e.g., artistic beauty; historical continuity; a
preference for Latin; etc),
especially since, as a conciliar priest, he is in no position to
make doctrinal criticisms of
the Novus Ordo Missae, even if he wanted to, for fear of
sanctions?
In the weeks and months that have followed since June,
Bishop Williamson has defended
his response by various arguments, primarily within the
pages of the weekly Eleison
Comments,
3 while his adversaries have used these subsequent
explanations as means to
contrive new objections.
It wasnt until April 8, that Br. Raymund de Pennefort, T.O.P.
posted a quote of the
Archbishop taken from the recording of a spiritual
conference in 1979, which fully
vindicated and corroborated the pastoral approach taken by
Bishop Williamson on June
28:

"I still have some considerations to make about precisely

what the judgment is
that we should make regarding those who say this New Mass
and those who
attend the New Mass. Is there not also a need to have a
reasonable judgment
which corresponds to the pastoral care that we must have
regarding the souls who
still do not realize the error that they could be committing?
"It is not just the fact of the attendance or celebration of the
New Mass. It's true
that in many other cases where the fault is objectively grave
and subjectively it is
not because ultimately the conditions of a grave moral
culpability do not exist; it
is necessary that there is serious matter, knowledge, and full
consent. We admit
that there is serious matter (materia grave) and that there is
full consent. But if
there is no knowledge, no knowledge of the seriousness of
the sin, then the person
is not aware of the grave matter (materia grave). They do
not commit a subjective
sin.
"They commit an objective sin, but not a subjective sin. I
think that people who
are accustomed to utter profanities or repeat blasphemies
without realizing that it
is blasphemy do not know it. They repeat what they hear in
their environment,
vulgar things to which is associated the name of God, and
they are not aware of it
-well, one can point it out. They can understand it, but then
they could be
committing an objectively serious offense but subjectively
not be guilty.

Therefore you should not judge all people. You must know
how to examine each
case. It's precisely the role of the confessor; he must
examine, he must be
informed... Sometimes, in certain cases, we might even
think that it is not always
very pastoral to point it out to some people ... If for example
we are aware that
these people, if we point out the error that they are
committing, these people will
continue to do it [attend the New Mass-translator] ... it is
sometimes necessary to
proceed prudently in order to open their eyes to tell them
what to do and not
always be harsh in the way we act regarding souls. Souls are
delicate objects that
we cannot mistreat. When we say "you commit a grave sin",
"you will go to hell",
etc., we take a chance of doing more damage to a soul by
mistreating it than by
making it understand things gently. Rather than making one
understand, explain it
to them, open their eyes about the error being committed. It
is a pastoral question,
I would say, but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these
people as well and not
condemn them immediately." 4
This quotation, representing a nearly identical pastoral
approach between Archbishop
Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson, ought to end the
discussion, and would seemingly preempt
the need for such a work as this. And in fact it does.
But when one kills a vampire, he not only drives a stake
through his heart, he then cuts of
his head, to be sure the monster never rises again.
And, as at present there exists such a multiplicity of

sophisms and confusion (both

feigned and real), it seemed best to proceed with the article
anyway, in an attempt to
address as many of these concerns/objections/sophisms as
possible within the limitations
of a single article. To facilitate this objective, I decided to
proceed in the form of a
catechetical refutation (i.e., A progressive and cumulative
question/answer format,
divided as well as possible by topic and subject matter).
Having done so, the conclusions we (and you the reader)
shall be obliged to reach will be
the following:
The advice Bishop Williamson gave to the woman on June
28 (as well as his
subsequent explanations following therefrom in the Eleison
Comments) contains
no doctrinal error;
Quite to the contrary, Bishop Williamsons advice to this
woman (as well as his
subsequent statements and explanations on the subject) is
in perfect harmony with
the perennial doctrine of the Church;
Neither is there any rupture between the comments of
Bishop Williamson and the
traditional teachings on the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre on
these topics;
Most of the confusion on these topics has been politically
motivated and
proliferated, while on the other hand, the elevated nature of
the doctrine touching
upon moral theology, sacramental theology, scholastic
philosophical definitions,
and pastoral prudence go well beyond the education of the
average layman (and
even some priests), representing a potential source of

confusion even for those of

goodwill.
That Bishop Williamson opposes the Novus Ordo Missae
every bit as much in
2016 as he (or Archbishop Lefebvre) did in 1988.
That at worst, Bishop Williamson could be charged with a
minor imprudence in
choosing to tackle a complex issue publicly, which was sure
to be capitalized
upon (and distorted) by his adversaries, and misunderstood
or confused by the
simple faithful.5
Let us now move to an evaluation of these various
objections.
B. The Objections and their Refutations:
1. Bishop Williamson should not have withheld the truth
from the woman regarding
the evils and dangers of the new Mass.
Response:
Were we watching the same conference? I count 12 distinct
warnings in response to the
womans question about new Mass attendance, repeated in
a span of only 11.5 minutes:6
1:02:17 - "There's the principle and there's the practice. In
practice the new Mass is a key
part of the new religion, which is a major part of the
worldwide apostasy of today."
Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:02:34 - "Archbishop Lefebvre, in public, would say stay
away. Keep away from the
new Mass." Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:03:10 - "In certain circumstances, like those you
mentioned, exceptionally, if you're not
going to scandalize anybody..." Conclusion: The new Mass is
dangerous.
1:03:29 - "The conclusion many of them are going to come

to [i.e., people who see you

go to the new Mass] is that the new Mass is OK." Conclusion:
The new Mass is not OK
to go to.
1:04:35 - "The principles are clear, and the wrongness of the
Novus Ordo Mass is clear."
Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:05:00 - "The Archbishop said if you want to look after your
faith, stay away from the
new Mass." Conclusion: The new Mass is bad.
1:08:40 - "The new religion is false, and it strangles grace."
Conclusion: The new Mass is
bad.
1:10:30 - "But I hope its clear that I don't therefore say that
the NOM or Novus Ordo
religion are good; that's obviously not the case." Conclusion:
The new Mass is bad.
1:10:40 - "Generally, its a tremendous danger because the
new religion is very
seductive...and its very easy to go with it and lose the faith."
Conclusion: The new Mass
is bad.
1:12:24 - "Stay away from the Novus Ordo, but
exceptionally, if you're watching and
praying, even there you can find the grace of God."
Conclusion: The NOM is dangerous;
stay away from the NOM.
1:13:24 - "But it does harm in itself, there's no doubt about
it." Conclusion: The Novus
Ordo is bad.
1:13:45 - "Its a rite designed to undermine the Catholic
faith." Conclusion: The Novus
Ordo is bad.
2. Yes, but Bishop Williamson contradicts himself, because
mixed in with those
warnings and statements, he nevertheless gives the woman

permission to attend the

Novus Ordo.
Response:
There is no contradiction.
Rather, Bishop Williamson is distinguishing between the
objective principle and the
subjective application of it.
The objective principle, outlined by all the examples above,
is that nobody should attend
the Novus Ordo. As demonstrated above, this was
emphasized repeatedly in the course
of his answer.
But subjectively, there can be exceptions to the principle
because of circumstances (e.g.,
extreme spiritual necessity, ignorance, etc).
3. Where do you come up with this distinction between the
objective principle, and
the subjective application (especially as applied to New
Mass attendance)?
Response:
This is found in the Catholic science of casuistry.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, casuistry is:
The application of general principles of morality to definite
and concrete cases
of human activity, for the purpose, primarily, of determining
what one ought to
do, or ought not to do, or what one may do or leave undone
as one pleases; and
for the purpose, secondarily, of deciding whether and to
what extent guilt or
immunity from guilt follows on an action already posited.7
And again:
Since the special function of casuistry is to determine
practically and in the
concrete the presence or absence of a definite moral
obligation, it does not fall

within its scope to pass judgment on what would be more

advisable, or on what
may be recommended as a counsel of perfection.
8
And finally:
The necessity of casuistry and its importance are obvious.
From the nature of the
case, the general principles of any science in their concrete
application give rise to
problems which trained and expert minds only can solve.
This is
especially true regarding the application of moral principles
and precepts to individual conduct. For, although those
principles and precepts are
in themselves generally evident, their application calls for
the consideration of
many complex factors, both objective and subjective. Only
those who
unite scientific knowledge of morality with practice in its
application may be
trusted to solve promptly and safely problems of
conscience.
9
There can therefore be no question regarding the legitimacy
of Bishop Williamson
distinguishing between the objective principles, and their
subjective application to
individual cases.
4. Fine and well, but the SSPX has always taught that there
are no exceptions to the
ban on Novus Ordo Mass attendance, so I dont see where
this distinction between
the objective principle, and its subjective application, gets
you.
Response:
Not so fast.

If you reflect, for a moment, you will recognize that the

writings of the SSPX and other
traditionalist groups regarding new Mass attendance are
always directed to
traditionalists, and that, therefore, the question of
exceptions for ignorance cannot arise.
But you should not conclude from this that the SSPX,
Archbishop Lefebvre, et al, would
not excuse the ignorant (or those in necessity) from
attending the Novus Ordo.
In fact, quite the contrary, you will see that even in the most
stalwart writings of Fr. Peter
Scott (SSPX), the Avrille Dominicans, Fr. Chazal, etc., that
they leave intact from their
prohibitions on new Mass attendance the excusing
justification of ignorance.
For example, Fr. Peter Scott (while still Rector of the Holy
Cross Seminary in Australia)
made this very strong condemnation of new Mass
attendance:
However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New
Mass still remains a
sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never
permitted to
knowing and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing,
even if it is only
venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means.
Consequently, although it
is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy ones
Sunday obligation, it is
never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at
the New Mass, for a
person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is
consequently at least a
venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not
permissible for a traditional

Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to

Our Divine Savior,
to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger
scandal to others or
of the perversion of ones own Faith (as in an older person,
for example), and
even if it is the only Mass available.
10
But notice even within this blistering prohibition on new
Mass attendance, Fr. Scott still
consistently excepts the ignorant (i.e., In the
bolded/underlined portions above).
One can find the same careful exception in the article by the
Avrille Dominicans,
published shortly after the June 28 conference in an attempt
to clarify or reiterate the ban
on Novus Ordo Mass attendance (which even contains a
section called Can one assist at
the New Mass in Certain Circumstances?):
Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God in so far as
it is ecumenical and
protestant. Besides that, it represents a danger for the faith
in the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass. It must therefore be rejected. Whoever
understands the problem of
the New Mass must no longer assist at it, because he puts
voluntarily his faith in
danger, and, at the same time, encourages others to do the
same in appearing to
give his assent to the reforms.
11
The most committed Resistance priests also maintain this
exception. For example, in a
February/2016 letter by Fr. Chazal, we find this passage:
As for trying to explain away what happeneth and what
doth happeneth not in

Novus Ordo masses, I think it is a total minefield. Anything

good we can say
about attending the New Mass would come with so many
caveats, conditions and
distinctions. Basically, only ignorance is an excuse for taking
part in it.
12
And of course, there is this quote from Bishop Tissier de
Mallerais Biography
regarding the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter
of Novus Ordo Mass
attendance:
In 1975, he still admitted that one could assist
occasionally at the new Mass
when one feared going without Communion for a long time.
However, in 1977 he
was more or less absolute: To avoid conforming to the
evolution slowly taking
place in the minds of priests, we must avoid -I could almost
say completelyassisting
at the new Mass.13
Notice the same careful qualifications: Bishop Tissier says he
was only more or less
absolute; Archbishop Lefebvre himself says I could almost
say completely. In other
words, Archbishop Lefebvres position was not absolute; he
did not say completely.
What is this but a recognition that the archbishops position
did not intend to bind
completely (e.g., the ignorant or extreme necessity)?
The proof of this interpretation comes another two years
later, while giving a spiritual
conference (in French) in 1979 two years after his almost
complete and more or less
absolute position was already elucidated:
I still have some considerations to make about precisely

what the judgment is

that we should make regarding those who say this New Mass
and those who
attend the New Mass. Is there not also a need to have a
reasonable
judgment which corresponds to the pastoral care that we
must have
regarding the souls who still do not realize the error that
they could
be committing?
"It is not just the fact of the attendance or celebration of the
New Mass. It's true
that in many other cases where the fault is objectively grave
and subjectively it is
not because ultimately the conditions of a grave moral
culpability do not exist; it
is necessary that there is serious matter, knowledge, and full
consent. We admit
that there is serious matter (materia grave) and that there is
full consent. But if
there is no knowledge, no knowledge of the seriousness of
the sin, then the
person is not aware of the grave matter (materia grave).
They do not commit a
subjective sin.
"They commit an objective sin, but not a subjective sin. I
think that people who
are accustomed to utter profanities or repeat blasphemies
without realizing that
it is blasphemy do not know it. They repeat what they hear
in their environment,
vulgar things to which is associated the name of God, and
they are not aware of it
-well, one can point it out. They can understand it, but then
they could be
committing an objectively serious offense but subjectively

not be guilty.
Therefore you should not judge all people. You must know
how to
examine each case. It's precisely the role of the confessor;
he must
examine, he must be informed... Sometimes, in certain
cases, we
might even think that it is not always very pastoral to point
it out to
some people ... If for example we are aware that these
people, if we
point out the error that they are committing, these people
will
continue to do it [attend the New Mass-translator] ... it is
sometimes
necessary to proceed prudently in order to open their eyes
to tell
them what to do and not always be harsh in the way we act
regarding
souls. Souls are delicate objects that we cannot mistreat.
When we say "you
commit a grave sin", "you will go to hell", etc., we take a
chance of doing
more damage to a soul by mistreating it than by making it
understand
things gently. Rather than making one understand, explain it
them, open their
eyes about the error being committed. It is a pastoral
question, I would say,
but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these people as well
and not
condemn them immediately."14
There can be no doubt, therefore, that neither the SSPX,
Archbishop Lefebvre, Avrille,
Fr. Chazal, Fr. Peter Scott, etc. ever intended to bind the
ignorant (or those in necessity).

Consequently, one cannot justly charge Bishop Williamson

with having departed from
this teaching.
5. But none of this applies to the woman who asked Bishop
Williamson the question:
She attends the Traditional Latin Mass on the weekends!
How could she be in
ignorance or extreme necessity?
Response:
It is clear that the woman in question was ignorant of the
evils of the Novus Ordo,
otherwise she would not have asked the question (unless
you would contend that her
desire was to extract from Bishop Williamson permission to
do something she already
knew was evil. And any answer to that question would
pertain to the internal forum).
That aside, the reflexive impression of many was that this
woman could not possibly be
ignorant of the evils of the new Mass, because she was
attending the traditional Latin
Mass on a weekly basis (presumably at either an SSPX or
Resistance Mass venue), and
was even attending Bishop Williamson conferences in
Resistance venues!
However, this presumption is factually wrong: The woman is
not an SSPXer or
Resistance faithful, but instead attends both the traditional
Latin Mass and the Novus
Ordo celebrated by a bi-ritual priest.15
That being the case, what do you think she has been taught
regarding the differences
between the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses? Or, more to
the point, about any evils
inherent in the new Rite? Nothing.
In the conciliar world, the differences between the two, or

the reasons for saying the

Tridentine Mass instead of the Novus Ordo, are all explained
as matters of personal
preference: The Tridentine Mass is more reverent; it
precludes abuses; features Latin;
there is no Communion in the hand; etc.
But the Novus Ordo itself being evil? Forget about it. How
can a bi-ritual priest
condemn at the Tridentine Mass on Sunday the evils of the
Novus Ordo Mass he is going
to say on Monday? He would as much as announce himself a
hypocrite.
All of this adds up to a pretty obvious conclusion: The
woman was most certainly in a
state of ignorance (or at least imperfect understanding) of
the evils of the new Mass.
6. Now I have you! Earlier, you said Bishop Williamson
taught this woman the truth.
But now you are saying that since she remained in
ignorance, she can continue to
attend the Novus Ordo! Either she was taught the truth, or
she remained in
ignorance. You cant have it both ways!
Response:
To be told the truth is one thing. Recognizing it as the truth
is quite another.
If ever there was a man who understood the theological
problems inherent in the new
Mass, it was Archbishop Lefebvre. It was principally under
his guidance that in 1969 the
Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (otherwise
known as The Ottaviani
Intervention) was drafted.16
Yet despite that, Archbishop Lefebvre did not rule out
attendance at the Novus Ordo until 1977.
Why not? Had not this man perhaps the greatest

comprehension of the inherent evils in

the new Rite of anyone in the Church in 1969? What then
explains the delay?
The answer is simple:
The soil must be prepared for the reception of truth. Our
Lord told the Apostles, I have
yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them
now.17
In matters of major importance, one needs psychologically
to be sure the decision one is
about to make is correct. And this certitude is the fruit of
study, prayer, and consultation.
In short, the virtue of prudence.
All of this takes time.
But if it took the great Archbishop Lefebvre, with all his
intimate knowledge of the
problems, false doctrines, and evils of the new Mass 8 years
to leave it behind (and
obligate others to do the same), is it really reasonable to
expect this woman who was just
taught the truth by Bishop Williamson (probably for the first
time) to have
simultaneously recognized, internalized, and accepted it as
truth?
Those who would answer affirmatively would seem to hold
her to a much higher standard
than the Archbishop was held.
7. Even if I conceded these points, dont you at least agree
that Bishop Williamson
erred doctrinally when he said that one could find spiritual
nourishment in the
Novus Ordo?
Response:
Presuming we are talking about a valid Novus Ordo Mass,
the only way one could deny

Bishop Williamsons comment is to either dispute the validity

of the Novus Ordo rite per
se (which was not a position held by Archbishop Lefebvre),
or, to deny that the
transmission of sacramental grace is spiritual nourishment
(which would be absurd).
This is because the Council of Trent (Session 7: On the
Sacraments in General) enjoined
the following propositions to be held by all Catholics as a
matter of faith (i.e., de fide):
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New
Law do not
contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not
confer that grace on
those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though
they were merely
outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and
certain marks of the
Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished
amongst men from
unbelievers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part
is concerned, is
not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all
men, even though
they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to
some persons; let him
be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of
the New Law
grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that
faith alone in the
divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be
anathema.
18
Moreover, the manuals have faithfully transmitted and

applied these articles of faith ever

since. For example, in one of the most popular pre-conciliar
manuals of moral and
pastoral theology, we find this quote:
"The grace of the sacraments is infallibly produced in those
who are capable
and fit recipients, by reason of the sacred rite itself (ex
opere operato),
independently of the worth or merits of minister or
recipient...The grace which is
here spoken of as given by the Sacraments is sanctifying
grace."19
Therefore, since it is infallibly certain that those who attend
a valid Novus Ordo, and
receive Communion in the state of grace, have received an
increase of sanctifying grace
(which is the spiritual nourishment par excellence), there
can be no question as to the
doctrinal correctness of Bishop Williamsons comment.
Rather, the concern is with those who would fall into at least
material heresy by denying
this dogma of faith.
8. Yes, but the quotes you provide above from the Council
of Trent were talking
about the Traditional Latin Mass, not the Novus Ordo!
Response:
Actually, that it not correct.
The Canons of the Council of Trent from Session VII quoted
above dealt with all the
sacraments in general, and definitively declared how grace
works through them (i.e., The
Council was not here considering the sacrament of Holy
Communion specifically, much
less any particular Rite of Mass); this latter discussion was
reserved to Session XXIII.
However, even if you had been correct, your argument

essentially boils down to a charge

that, Trent could never have foreseen the advent of a Rite
of Mass so estranged from
Catholic theology, and would certainly not have intended its
Canons and Decrees to
apply to the Novus Ordo.
Yet in arguing along those lines, you would be unwittingly
proposing the modernist
thesis of dogmatic relativism, (i.e., the idea that the
dogmatic teachings of the Church
are not immutable, as they are conditioned by their
particular times and circumstances,
and therefore only applicable to them). 20
And having therefore undermined the permanence and
stability of dogma, it is but a short
step to the very same dogmatic evolution condemned by
Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi.
21
I understand that you would recoil from embracing any such
position. Yet it is the
unavoidable consequence of declaring Trent does not apply
to the Novus Ordo, because it
could not have foreseen its advent.
9. Yes, but didnt Bishop Williamson admit the unorthodoxy
of his own comments
when he acknowledged that what he was saying was
practically heresy within
Tradition?
Response:
No.
To interpret his words in such a manner is to imbue them
with a false understanding,
made plain by the context: His Lordship was simply
acknowledging the incomprehension

with which many traditionalists would greet the distinction

he was making between the
objective principle, and the subjective application (which can
dispense from the dictates
of the objective principle in certain extenuating
circumstances, such as ignorance or
extreme necessity).
Evidence that this is the proper sense in which we are to
understand Bishop Williamsons
comment is found in the affinity of Bishop Williamsons
pastoral approach on this
subject, and that of Archbishop Lefebvres (e.g., The quote
from Archbishop Lefebvre
contained in the Introduction to this article). If it is
practically heresy for Bishop
Williamson, then it is practically heresy for Archbishop
Lefebvre, who makes the same
distinction, and tempers his pastoral approach on the basis
of this distinction.
10. You are trying to whitewash this whole thing, but if
Bishop Fellay would have said
what Bishop Williamson said, you would have been all over
him!
Response:
A couple thoughts on that:
Firstly, at the doctrinal level, had Bishop Fellay said the
same things Bishop Williamson
said, he would have been perfectly justified according to the
Council of Trent, and at the
pastoral level, perfectly in line with the teaching and
example of Archbishop Lefebvre (as
has been shown above).
Secondly, at this pastoral level, though such comments
would have been every bit as
much in line with the approach of Archbishop Lefebvre when
uttered by Bishop Fellay as

they are when uttered by Bishop Williamson, the larger

context within which such
comments would occur are completely opposite for each:
In the case of Bishop Fellay, these hypothetical comments
would be made within the
context of an accelerating rapprochement with Rome and
Vatican II (allegations which I
have demonstrated elsewhere),22 and one might be
excused in that case for wondering
whether His Excellency intended to expand or broaden
Archbishop Lefebvres
pastoral approach (which, by the way, is not an accusation I
am making).
On the other hand, Bishop Williamson had just consecrated a
Bishop to ensure the work
of Archbishop Lefebvre would survive independent of Rome
a mere seven months prior
to his comments (and another bishop only five months
later). On what reasonable basis,
then, would one accuse His Excellency of going soft on the
new Mass, or leading us back
into conciliarism?
11. Im not buying it: The whole Resistance movement is in
an uproar because of these
comments!
Response:
Actually, for the most part, this whole tempest in a teacup
is only an issue for that
small segment of the Resistance under the poisoned
influence of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr.
Hewko (or those having some loose affiliation with him, such
as the sedevacantist Fr.
Cardozo).
The proof of this becomes evident upon a reconnaissance of
the worlds various
Resistance blogs, and even more evident in the opinions of

the Resistance clergy

themselves.
Regarding the blogs, it is conspicuous that only those in
English-speaking countries (i.e.,
Mission territory for Fr. Pfeiffer/Fr. Hewko) are straining to
keep the matter alive,
obviously for reasons more political than doctrinal (despite
their claims to the contrary).
But if one tunes in to the French, German, or most Spanishspeaking blogs, this matter
has NEVER been an issue, despite all the publicity the
English-speaking blogs have
generated. Note also that most of these blogs contain links
to other blogs, so it will not
suffice to claim that the matter is unknown in the nonEnglish-speaking Resistance
world.
In regard to the few Spanish-speaking blogs who are
wrongfully taking Bishop
Williamson to task for his (perfectly justified) comments,
most of these are not
Resistance blogs properly speaking, but are instead affiliated
with sedevacantists like Fr.
Ceriani (an enemy of Bishop Williamson for several years) or
Fr. Cardozo (who despite
calling himself Resistance, omits the popes name in the
Canon of the Mass, etc.).
12. But a bad tree cant bear good fruit! Bishop Williamson
is saying it can!
Response:
When, in the third part of Our Lords Sermon on the Mount,
He speaks of good and
bad trees and fruits,23 He is not imparting a philosophical
maxim, but a moral lesson. He
is warning his disciples against the works of false prophets,
and alerting His followers

how they may distinguish good men from bad (i.e., Judge
their fruits; good men produce
good fruits; bad men produce bad fruits, etc.).
The moral lesson applies to the human acts of men, not to
things and objects (which are
not capable of committing moral acts). If you read the
commentaries of the Fathers on
these passages (e.g., In St. Thomas Aquinass Catena
Aurea24) you will find unanimity
on this subject.
It is false (and contrary to all human experience), therefore,
to transform this moral lesson
into a philosophical maxim. And the proof of this is easy to
discern: Does not every
good tree also produce some bad fruit? Do not many bad
trees also produce some good
fruit? And even within the same apple: Do not many bad
apples still contain some good
flesh? And does not many a good apple contain some
blemish?
Transforming this moral lesson into a philosophical maxim
would attribute a factual error
to Scripture, and is fatal, therefore, to the inerrancy of
sacred Scripture (which is a dogma
of the faith25), and therefore heretical.
In other words, it is not appropriate to attempt to apply to a
Rite of Mass (rather than a
man) the comparison of a good or bad tree (or as good or
bad fruits, the loss of faith it
engenders in the faithful who attend it).
13. OK, then I will rephrase my question: If the new Mass is
evil, how can Bishop
Williamson claim that good can come from it?
Response:
Leaving aside the fact that this claim has already been
shown (in #7 above) to be

infallibly correct according to the Council of Trent, perhaps a

bit of philosophy would be
in order to help you understand how this can be.
It was just shown that every good tree also produces some
bad fruit, and that bad trees are
capable of producing good fruit, and that even within the
same piece of fruit, one can
usually find good and bad flesh. Even if the whole apple be
corrupted, it still retains a
relative goodness (e.g., For the soil which it will fertilize; for
the insects or birds it will
feed; etc).
These observations from the natural world reveal a
philosophical conclusion:
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in the Summa Theologiae that,
Evil cannot wholly consume
good.26
Therefore, it matters not what species of evil we attribute to
the Novus Ordo (e.g.,
Intrinsic, moral, physical, etc). Some good survives within it,
or as a consequence from
it.
If, therefore, the evil of the Novus Ordo is not absolute, and
wholly consuming of the
good (and St. Thomas opines such an evil is impossible27),
then the good which can come
from the Novus Ordo (e.g., sanctifying grace), is that
element which produces the
spiritual benefit.
Which is all another way of saying that good is not really
coming from evil at all, but
rather from the good still contained in the evil Rite of Mass.
14. But if you are right about that, then you would seem to
be at odds with the claim,
always made within Tradition, that those people still trapped
in the Novus Ordo

benefit not from the Mass, but despite the Mass.

Response:
As always, we need to make distinctions:
In this case, the distinction is between the Rite of Mass, and
the sacrament of Holy
Communion (or if you will, between the cause of the benefit
the Novus Ordo-, and the
effect or benefit itself: Sanctifying grace in Holy
Communion).
It is the continuous position within Tradition that one does
not benefit from the Novus
Ordo Rite of Mass.
But it has never been the position of Tradition (nor in light of
Trent, could it ever be the
position of Tradition), that a soul in the state of grace could
not benefit from a validly
confected sacrament:
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New
Law do not
contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not
confer that grace on
those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though
they were merely
outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and
certain marks of the
Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished
amongst men from
unbelievers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part
is concerned, is
not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all
men, even though
they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to
some persons; let him
be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of

the New Law

grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that
faith alone in the
divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be
anathema.
28
It is important, therefore, to recognize that in saying Those
trapped in the Novus Ordo
benefit not from the Mass, but despite the Mass we are not
thereby questioning the
benefit of the sacrament itself (i.e., sanctifying grace
infallibly transmitted through
reception of Holy Communion), but simply observing that
that benefit is transmitted
despite an evil Rite.
15. Im not sure about this distinction you are making.
Hasnt the SSPX (and
Archbishop Lefebvre) always said that the Novus Ordo is
intrinsically evil?
Response:
There is much confusion surrounding the use of this term
intrinsic, because the word is
capable of being used in both an illegitimate
(secular/common) sense, as well as multiple
legitimate (philosophical and theological) senses.29
In the secular/common (or illegitimate sense), intrinsic evil
is often used to convey the
degree of heinousness or magnitude of evil associated with
an act. But this sense is
erroneous in the field of theology:
Intrinsic evil refers to actions that are morally evil in such a
way that
is essentially opposed to the will of God or proper human
fulfillment. The key
consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions are judged
to be so solely by

their object, independently of the intention that inspires

them or the
circumstances that surround them. Intrinsic has nothing to
do with how
heinous the act is (although all heinous acts are intrinsically
evil), but rather that
the act is wrong no matter what its circumstances. A good
example of an
intrinsically evil act would be deliberately willed
abortion.30
Furthermore, we need to distinguish intrinsic evil as applied
to things/objects (e.g.,
Novus Ordo) and intrinsic evil as applied to human acts
(attending the Novus Ordo).
Speaking firstly of the concept of intrinsic evil as applied to
the Novus Ordo Missae itself
(i.e., to objects/things, rather than to human acts), the SSPX,
Archbishop Lefebvre, and
Bishop Williamson have always taught along these lines:
At best, [the new Mass] provides a deficient spiritual diet to
the faithful. The
correct definition of evillack of a due goodclearly shows
that the New Mass
is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is
not evil by positive
profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic
dogma should profess: the
True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial
priesthood.31
It is in this sense, therefore, that the SSPX has taught that
the Rite itself is intrinsically
evil.
But does it necessarily follow, therefore, that all those who
attend the Novus Ordo are
themselves committing an intrinsically evil act?
No.

There are three determinants of the moral goodness or evil

of human acts (object,
intention, and circumstances).
For an act to be intrinsically evil, the object of the act must
be evil:
The key consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions
are judged to be so
solely by their object, independently of the intention that
inspires them or the
circumstances that surround them.32
For, as St. Alphonsus de Liguori teaches:
The object gives the act its essential moral goodness or
badness. Thus, the
moral object of the act, if bad, makes the whole act bad.33
Therefore, in order to determine whether or not attending
the Novus Ordo is an
intrinsically evil act, we must determine the moral object
of such an act. If this object
is evil, then such attendance will always be evil, regardless
of circumstances or intention
of the subject.
Yet, isolating the object gives rise to no small controversy,
as Conte explains:
The moral object is the most difficult font [source] of
morality to understand; it
is the font most often misrepresented or misused in moral
evaluations. And it is
the font most often attacked by those who wish to
undermine the teaching of
the Church on morality."34
Why this is so should become evident: By mixing
circumstances into the identification
of the object of a moral act, one can either declare an evil
act intrinsically evil (and
therefore never permissible) or declare an intrinsically evil
act only relatively evil by

obscuring the true object. That is to say, that confusing the

object by mixing the
circumstances of the human act into the identification of the
object can lead either to
rigorism, or to laxism.
As regards our particular question (i.e., Whether Novus Ordo
Mass attendance is an
intrinsically evil act), what is the object of the act in
question?
Is it simply Mass attendance or is it Novus Ordo Mass
attendance?
The way in which one identifies this object as one or the
other will determine whether
Novus Ordo Mass attendance is, or is not, an intrinsically evil
act. Obviously, we are in
need of a definition of the term object, and we find an
excellent one in the manual of
Fr. H. Davis, S.J.:
The object here means that to which the will immediately
and primarily directs
itself and it's activity, such as walking, praying,
almsgiving."35
Note that in these examples provided by Fr. Davis, S.J. he is
only describing as the basic
object the primary act willed, not including in his description
of the object circumstances
such as walking to grandmas house, or praying to God,
or almsgiving to orphans.
These bolded words are circumstances added onto the basic
object of walking, praying,
or almsgiving.
That is to say, the object is what, in the first instance, the
person is setting about (i.e.,
willing) to do. But notice that the way in which I might
describe what the person is
setting out to do (i.e., the object) may be different than what

the subject themselves

considers themselves to be setting out to do.
So, in determining the precise object of the human act, from
whose perspective must we
assess the question?
To identify the object of an action, one has to put oneself in
the shoes of the one acting,
and to describe the action from [their] perspective.
36
Therefore, what must be our assessment and/or
identification of the object of the human
act as regards Novus Ordo Mass attendance?
1. It is obvious the immediate object upon which the will has
fastened upon is
simply Mass attendance.
2. The will of the ignorant conciliarist does not set out to
attend the Novus Ordo
Mass, but simply to attend Mass (just as in Fr. Daviss
examples above, the
object of the will was not immediately set upon walking to
grandmas
house, or praying to God, or to almsgiving to orphans,
but simply upon
walking, praying, or almsgiving).
3. Therefore, the italicized words are only the circumstances
(e.g., where one is
walking; to whom one is praying; for what purpose one gives
alms), not
objects of the human act, and therefore have no bearing on
the intrinsic
goodness or evil of these acts.
4. So too with the object of Mass attendance: It is in itself
a good object, and it
is only by mistakenly mixing and conditioning the object
with circumstances
(e.g., Novus Ordo Mass attendance; Byzantine Mass

attendance; etc) that one

is able to declare the act evil.
Therefore, we can say with the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre,
or Avrille,
37 et al, that as
regards the Novus Ordo Rite itself, it is inherently (or
intrinsically) evil, but as regards
Novus Ordo Mass attendance, since the object is good (i.e.,
Mass attendance), attendance
cannot be intrinsically evil.
16. Are you trying to tell me Novus Ordo Mass attendance is
good?
Response:
Not at all! I am simply stating that we have to distinguish
between evil inherent in the
rite itself (intrinsically evil) and the type of evil present in
the human act of Mass
attendance.
Since that which has a good object cannot be intrinsically
evil, it remains for us to assign
the species of evil Novus Ordo Mass attendance falls under.
According to Fr. Bernard Wuellners Dictionary of Scholastic
Philosophy, there are
within the category of "moral evil" (which is defined as:
"Privation of rectitude in human
acts; a sin)38 three sub-species of evil::
Formal evil: A bad human act, performed with knowledge
that it is evil and with
consent;
Intrinsic evil: An act or intention that of its very nature,
essentially or necessarily, is
not in conformity with the norm of morals and the eternal
law;
Material evil: Something that is objectively a moral evil, but
which is in a given
instance performed without knowledge of its evil or under

duress without consent to the

evil.39
Therefore, having just eliminated the possibility of Novus
Ordo Mass attendance being
intrinsically evil, we are left with material evil and formal
evil, and it is the absence or
presence of our subjective knowledge of its objective evil
that determines which of these
types of evil those who attend the Novus Ordo are guilty of:
In the case of conciliarists (and some indultarians), who are
largely, completely, or
partially ignorant of the doctrinal problems inherent in the
new Mass, they commit only a
material evi.
For SSPXers, Resistance faithful (and some indultarians),
who are fully aware of the
doctrinal problems inherent in the Novus Ordo, they would
commit an act formally evil
(and therefore sinful, possibly gravely).
17. Well I want to go back to this quote of Archbishop
Lefebvre from 1979 you are
making so much of: Even if that was his opinion in 1979, he
got more strict over
time, and by 1981 was requiring all seminarians to sign a
Declaration of Fidelity
which says I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner
to take an active part
in such a Mass.40
Response:
A couple observations in this regard:
We have already demonstrated above41 that Archbishop
Lefebvres prohibition on new
Mass attendance was never intended to apply to the
ignorant (or those in extreme spiritual
necessity), else how could all of those sources quoted in the
objection cited have been

made, all of them appearing after 1981?

More than this, we also demonstrated in our rebuttal to the
same question, that
Archbishop Lefebvre drew his red light on new Mass
attendance not in 1981, but in
1977 (i.e., Two years before the 1979 quote in question):
In 1975, he still admitted that one could assist
occasionally at the new Mass
when one feared going without Communion for a long time.
However, in 1977 he
was more or less absolute: To avoid conforming to the
evolution slowly taking
place in the minds of priests, we must avoid -I could almost
say completelyassisting
at the new Mass.42
That being the case, it is impossible to object to the
applicability of the 1979 quote on the
basis that Archbishop Lefebvre became stricter on Novus
Ordo attendance between then
and 1981.
Finally, it is worth observing that, if Archbishop Lefebvres
position regarding Novus
Ordo Mass attendance evolved over time (despite his having
clearly understood its
objective evil back in 1969 (i.e., When he was steering the
committee of bishops and
cardinals who were to produce the Ottaviani Intervention), it
evinces clearly that the
matter of Novus Ordo Mass attendance is one of prudence,
and not doctrine.
To oppose this contention, we would be forced to admit that
either Archbishop
Lefebvres position was incoherent (i.e., Allowing for many
years attendance at the
Novus Ordo, despite clearly understanding its evils), or, that
Archbishop Lefebvre

changed his doctrinal position (which means he was in

doctrinal error from 1969 1977,
which the Ottaviani Intervention clearly shows was not the
case).
18. But what about the part of the SSPXs Declaration of
Fidelity that says, I shall
never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active
part in such a Mass?
Thats exactly what Bishop Williamson did!
Response:
To construe Bishop Williamsons permission for this woman
to continue attending the
Novus Ordo as advising someone in a positive manner to
attend the Novus Ordo is
surely a distorted perception of the case.
To permit is not the same as to promote.
The former conveys a concession being made due to
circumstances, or a toleration being
extended; the latter conveys the idea of desiring that one
attend the Novus Ordo.
No sane mind would contend Bishop Williamson was
promoting new Mass attendance by
extending a concession or dispensation from the objective
preclusion due to circumstance
(in this case ignorance). If they did, they would likewise be
bound to contend the same
of Archbishop Lefebvre, in light of the 1979 quote above,
which would be madness.
More than this, we have the explicit testimony of Bishop
Williamson himself that his
intention was to dispense this women, in light of her
distress, for fear of causing more
damage to her, and the hope of her arriving fully at Tradition
(see footnote 14), and this
approach is precisely that contained in the 1979 quote of
Archbishop Lefebvre previously

referenced.
Essentially, one would have to contend that the 1981 Pledge
repealed the 1979 pastoral
approach, but there is no evidence available anywhere to
suggest this was Archbishop
Lefebvres intention (and the quotes provided above by Fr.
Peter Scott, Avrille, Fr.
Chazal, et al explicitly militate against any such contention).
Therefore, one cannot accuse Bishop Williamson with
violation of the 1981 Pledge of
Fidelity, unless he imbues the words of that Pledge with a
false understanding.
19. Well surely you believe Bishop Williamson is wrong to
try and make his point by
citing miracles in the Novus Ordo?
Response:
There are two questions that need to be addressed in this
regard: One prudential, and one
doctrinal.
The prudential question is whether or not one could or
should trust the conclusions of
conciliar churchmen, who are generally swept away by
modernism, regarding approved
Eucharistic miracles. In this regard, one should possess a
healthy dose of reserve and
skepticism, in much the way one would regarding Marian
apparitions approved/denied by
the conciliar magisterium. Their judgment is simply not
trustworthy. Far more prudent
to reserve judgment in this regard until sanity returns to the
Church, and reliable
churchmen are trusted to reach reliable conclusions.
The doctrinal question asks whether it is theologically
possible for God to perform a
Eucharistic miracle within the context of the Novus Ordo.
Presuming we are speaking of

a valid Novus Ordo, then there is no doubt that God can and
does perform a Eucharistic
miracle at each and every Novus Ordo through
transubstantiation (i.e., The changing of
the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of
Our Lord Jesus Christ).
It makes no difference that the Eucharistic miracle of
transubstantiation occurs through
the mediation of a priest, rather than directly from the hand
of God, for as the old
Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:
God's power is shown in the miracle directly through His
own immediate action
or, mediately through creatures as means or instruments.
In the latter case the effects must be ascribed to God, for He
works in and through
the instruments; "Ipso Deo in illis operante" (Augustine, City
of God X.12).
Hence God works miracles through the instrumentality:
Of angels, e.g., the Three Children in the fiery furnace
(Daniel 3), the deliverance
of St. Peter from prison(Acts 12);
Of men, e.g., Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7), Elias (1 Kings
17), Eliseus (2
Kings 5), the Apostles (Acts 2:43), St. Peter (Acts 3:9), St.
Paul (Acts 19), the
early Christians (Galatians 3:5).
In the Bible also, as in church history, we learn that animate
things are
instruments of Divine power, not because they have any
excellence in themselves,
but through a special relation to God. Thus we distinguish
holy relics, e.g., the
mantle of Elias (2 Kings 2), the body of Eliseus (2 Kings 13),
the hem of
Christ's garment (Matthew 9), the handkerchiefs of St. Paul

(Acts 19:12); holy

images, e.g., the brazen serpent (Numbers 21) holy things,
e.g., the Ark of the
Covenant, the sacred vessels of the Temple (Daniel 5); holy
places, e.g.,
the Temple of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 6:7), the waters of the
Jordan (2 Kings 5),
the Pool of Bethsaida (John 5).
Hence the contention of some modern writers, that a
miracle requires an
immediate action of Divine power, is not true. It is sufficient
that the miracle be
due to the intervention of God, and its nature is revealed by
the utter lack of
proportion between the effect and what are called means or
instruments.
43
There is therefore no doubt at all that, according to the mind
of the Church, Eucharistic
miracles are not only possible, but present in every validly
performed Novus Ordo
consecration. It appears, rather, in light of the foregoing
passages, that the objection to
the possibility of Eucharistic miracles within the context of
the Novus Ordo emanates
(partially) from an erroneous and restrictive conception of
miracles, which would
confine authenticity only to those instances resulting from
the direct and immediate
action of God (to the exclusion of the mediate
instrumentality of men or angels), which
the final paragraph of our excerpt from the Catholic
Encyclopedia refutes as erroneous.
20. Fine, but Bishop Williamson is not talking about
transubstantiation. He is talking
about bleeding Hosts, etc. in the Novus Ordo being authentic

miracles. To allow
that possibility is to charge God with deceiving souls into
accepting the Novus
Ordo!
Response:
Firstly, let us observe that a miracle is a miracle, whether it
occurs through the mediation
of men or angels (e.g., transubstantiation), or transpires
directly from the hand of God
Himself (e.g., bleeding Hosts, etc.). In other words, it gets
you nowhere to distinguish
between the type or species of Eucharistic miracle, since
both are the mediate or
immediate action of God. If one is possible, so is the other.
Secondly, implicit in your concern is the idea that a
Eucharistic miracle within the
context of the Novus Ordo could only be used by God to
promote this illegitimate and
illicit Rite.
But in fact, it is exactly the opposite which is true:
the great primary ends of miracles are the manifestation of
God's glory and
the good of men; that the particular or secondary ends,
subordinate to the former,
are to confirm the truth of a mission or a doctrine of faith or
morals, to attest
the sanctity of God's servants, to confer benefits and
vindicate Divine justice.44
Certainly, you are aware that of all the doctrines undermined
or contradicted in the Novus
Ordo, the belief in the Real Presence is that which is most
attacked by the very right
itself, with ruinous consequences for belief in this dogma of
the Faith.45
It therefore makes all the sense in the world that, if God
wants to reaffirm belief in the

Real Presence, performing such a miracle within the context

of the Novus Ordo, where
this dogma is under siege, makes all the sense in the world.
Jesus comes not to heal the strong and healthy, but to heal
the weak:
Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have
no need of a physician,
but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but
sinners.
46
We can see that God works throughout history in precisely
this way, creating miracles
where the faith is under attack, or sending his Blessed
Mother to transmit a message to
men. In this latter case of apparitions, history shows that
when the Church was strong,
there were relatively few approved Marian apparitions:
Leaving aside apparitions approved only by the local
ordinary, the Church approved only
four Marian apparitions from the time of the Protestant
Reformation until the mid-19th
century,47 which is not surprising given the vigor of the
Catholic counter-reformation
during this time.
But by the time Protestent rebellion had transformed into
the much more subtle and
seductive errors of full-blown liberalism in the early 19th
century, the Church authorized
ten apparitions between 1830 1933 (i.e., More than twice
as many appearances by the
Blessed Mother in only one third the time).48
This analogy demonstrates what you would probably already
recognize: That God creates
miracles (or send His Mother to send a message) in those
times and places where the
Faith is most under attack.

If therefore we are cognizant of Gods modus operandi, it

makes every bit of sense that
Our Lord would perform a miracle within the context of the
Novus Ordo, where belief in
the Real Presence is most attached (not to promote the
Novus Ordo, but to defend the
dogma it implicitly denies).
C. Anticipated Objections:
1. You mentioned in endnote #15 that Bishop Williamson
didnt even know the
background of this woman (i.e., Not an SSPXer or Resistance
faithful; attends
Mass from a bi-ritual priest; etc), so he could not claim to
dispense her on the
basis of ignorance or necessity. Moreover, I doubt very much
when Bishop
Williamson made his comments that he had the Council of
Trent in mind. You
are creating defenses for him after the fact!
Response:
We have already seen (in the footnote you reference) that
His Excellency made his
comments based on the visible distress of the woman in
question, and did so not to
promote the new Mass, but to avoid giving her a command
which he judged would do
more harm than good in bringing this conciliarist towards
Tradition.
As regards what doctrinal arguments Bishop Williamson may
or may not have had in
mind when he made his comments, it is correct, for
example, to state that His
Excellency did not have the Council of Trent in mind when he
made his comment
about receiving spiritual nourishment from a valid Novus
Ordo.

But just as an experienced pianist does not think in terms of

pushing A flat major or
quarter notes and half notes, or as a fluent linguist does
not transliterate in his mind
word equivalencies between languages, but simply
recognizes the meaning of the
word in its own language, so too would the long experience
and extensive doctrinal
formation of Bishop Williamson steered His Excellency
toward the correct answers
and doctrines, whether or not they were explicitly in his
mind at the moment.
The proof of this is to note how closely his pastoral approach
mirrors that of
Archbishop Lefebvre in this matter of Novus Ordo Mass
attendance (which His
Excellency was also not conscious of at the time, but which
has proven his fidelity to
the pastoral approach of Archbishop Lefebvre after the
fact).
2. You are just one of Bishop Williamsons defenders, and
your whole article is
motivated by human respect for a bishop who is obviously in
error. You are just
towing the party line!
Response:
If you will consider the matter, it should occur to you that
my article has been, from
the first to last, based completely on doctrine.
Nowhere in 31 pages of argument will you find an appeal to
arguments suggestive of
human respect (e.g., Appeals to authority; outrage at the
subversion and division the
erroneous arguments of Bishop Williamsons opponents are
creating within the
Resistance; ad hominems against His Excellencys

opponents; appealing for gratitude

for all His Excellency has done in the past; etc).
Rather, I would suggest to you the following: Either you can
defeat the doctrinal
arguments which comprise the entirety of this article, or I
would ask you to consider
which of us should be accused of towing the party line.
If you are unable to accomplish this, on what basis can you
maintain Bishop
Williamson is making doctrinal errors?
3. All these distinctions are smoke and mirrors: Nothing
good can come from the
conciliar church!
Response:
In making this statement, you have just endorsed the
ecclesiavacantist position (i.e.,
Those who believe that there is no overlap between the
Catholic Church and the
conciliar church; that they are two completely distinct
entities).
Note that those who arrive at this position generally first
embrace sedevacantism,
which is rejected by the Resistance (even if, as was always
the case in the SSPX, a
few sedevacantists find their way into the Resistance). But
note also that those few in
the Resistance who wrongly embrace the ecclesiavacantist
position, without having
embraced the sedevacantist error, will nevertheless be
placed in a retroactive
trajectory back towards sedevacantism (i.e., Eventually it
will occur to these people
that the Papacy does not allow for dual citizenship, and
that if Francis is the Pope
of a Church completely cut off from the Catholic Church, it
stands to reason he cannot

also be the Pope of the Catholic Church).

Such is the fate of those who believe the conciliar church
has no connection to the
Catholic Church.49
While it is certainly true that, contrary to the thesis of Fr.
Gleize (Professor of
Ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe), Archbishop
Lefebvres use of the term
conciliar church certainly comprised something more than
the mere spirit of the
council, it is a demonstrable exaggeration to claim the two
are entirely separate.
The explanation is this: When we speak of a conciliar
church, we speak of the
churchmen teaching in virtue of their authentic
magisterium50 which is not
consistent with the teachings of the ordinary or
extraordinary magisterium of all time,
and of the institutions and rites designed to implement
these false or questionable
teachings (e.g., new sacraments; new Code of Canon Law;
new catechisms; etc).
But in such measure as the modernist churchmen do teach
the truths of the ordinary
and extraordinary magisterium (or promulgate new
documents consistent with these),
we say that these are, in such measure, coming from the
Catholic Church (not the
conciliar church).
An example of conciliarist churchmen still representing the
Catholic Church (i.e., an
area of overlap between conciliar authority and Catholic
truth) would be Pope John
Paul IIs 1994 promulgation of the encyclical Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis (On
Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone).51

In this case, the conciliarists promulgated a teaching always

held by the Catholic
Church (i.e., Their conciliar authority was used to
promulgate Catholic truth). And in
such measure, the unity between the conciliar and Catholic
Church was harmonized.
It is only to the degree that the conciliar church ruptures
with the Catholic Church
that we reject it.52
Therefore, it is demonstrably false to claim that nothing
good can come from the
conciliar church in the sense that the conciliar churchmen
are per se incapable of
presenting good and true teaching.
Insofar as they do, those teachings come from the Catholic
Church, and we are
obliged to accept them.
D. Conclusion:
Why, ten months after Bishop Williamsons comments, are
we still discussing the issue?
It has to be acknowledged that, even if Bishop Williamsons
words to the woman in
Mahopac, NY were, from top to bottom, perfectly orthodox,
they nevertheless lent
themselves to giving the impression of advocating New Mass
attendance.
Bishop Williamsons opponents were not slow in capitalizing
upon this impression, and
have worked feverishly ever since to foment division within
the Resistance upon this
point, in order to win back support which has been waning.
If Bishop Williamson is to be faulted at all in this entire
episode, the fault would perhaps
lie in this: That he provided an opportunity for his enemies
to attack him (i.e., By delving

into what Fr. Chazal has termed the minefield of

considering how good can come from
the Novus Ordo; of discussing excusing causes and
circumstances which could justify it;
etc.), when it was foreseeable that all the distinctions and
caveats included in this
Refutation would be missed by the faithful, who are
generally incapable of making these
necessary distinctions, and are therefore easily led astray by
parties with an interest in
doing so.
The more interesting question is to consider why the
impression of promoting the Novus
Ordo arose in the first place.
Several Resistance priests were privy to this article (in
incomplete form) before its
publication, and one of them admitted to me that to allow
Bishop Williamsons position
seems to open the door to Novus Ordo Mass attendance.
I explained to him that, as a habit of the Anglo-Saxon mind,
we tend to see things only as
black or white, this or that, either/or, and therefore often
times tend to view things as
contradictions, which in fact distinction and nuance can
harmonize.
I mentioned as exam
s of this Anglo-Saxon habit of mind the Feenyite and

sedevacantist errors (both peculiarly American inventions with primarily

American

adherents). The Feenyite feels (at the level of instinct) that

to allow baptism of blood
or baptism of desire is to mitigate against the dogma no
salvation outside the Church.
He cannot see how the two can be compatible. The
sedevacantist feels(at the level of
instinct) that the conciliar and post-conciliar popes could not

possibly teach the things

they teach, and still be Catholics.53
So too in the case of Bishop Williamsons comments in
Mahopac: There is an
impression; a feeling that what was said was not quite right
(i.e., Because our faithful
have always been taught the objective principles, but not
the subjective excusing causes,
such as extreme necessity or ignorance, which are acquired
pastoral skills, and generally
not relevant to laymen).
As proof of this last assertion, just consider how many
people you know struggle with
supplied jurisdiction, and cannot reconcile it with their
understanding of obedience (or
how it could validate sacraments for priests without ordinary
jurisdiction), or consider
how many were unable to justify Archbishop Lefebvres 1988
episcopal consecrations
with the papal primacy it seemed to militate against.
Most people either accept or reject these things at the level
of impression and instinct,
rather than reasoned doctrine. If you doubt it, the next time
you are in Church, ask the
person next to you if he/she can harmonize these seemingly
contradictory doctrines, and
watch their confusion set in!
But interestingly enough, just as with the sedevacantist and
Feenyite errors being
primarily American extravagances consequent to the AngloSaxon either/or psyche, so
too is the opposition to Bishop Williamson on these refuted
objections primarily an
American phenomena.
Where Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko have traveled outside the
Anglo-Saxon world, the

seeds of division have not born the fruit they hoped to

harvest. But in the Anglo-Saxon
world, ahh.what fertile soil!
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKH6KHvJO5c
2 This information was provided to me by a Resistance priest
in February, 2016.
3 Available here: http://stmarcelinitiative.com/eleisoncomments/
4 http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com/ Note: Br. Raymund,
T.O.P. has also translated the article into French and
Spanish. The original French audio has since been uploaded
onto YouTube, and can be listened to here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKH6KHvJO5c
5
Incidentally, this charge of minor imprudence is not one the
present author shares. Rather, I perceive it as an
entry point into the broader issue of ecclesiavacantism,
which sooner or later will need to be addressed, if
traditionalists are to have a faith that corresponds with
reality.
6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKH6KHvJO5c
7 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03415d.htm
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10 http://www.holycrossseminary.com/catholic_FAQs_crisis_p
g_2.htm [Emphasis mine]
11 http://www.dominicansavrille.us/attendance-at-the-newmass/ Note: Regarding the charge that I would
unwittingly attribute inconsistency to the Dominicans
article, by insisting upon my interpretation that Avrille
allows an exception for ignorance (e.g., By citing the words
quoted in opposition to the section titled Can one
Assist at the New Mass in Certain Circumstances?), the

explanation is simple: The paragraph I cited above is the

opening paragraph of the article, and what is said there
conditions that which follows, so that ignorance remains
an exception to the rule. The proof of this lies in the fact that
the section titled Can One Attend the New Mass in
Certain Circumstances? nowhere eliminates that exception
(i.e., Because the section and the whole article, with
the exception of the words I cite from the opening
paragraph- are keeping the arguments at the objective level,
to
avoid further confusion among the faithful). [Emphasis in the
quote supplied is mine]
12 http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2016/02/fr-chazal-nocross-no-victory.html
13 Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Bernard, The Biography
Marcel Lefebvre. Angelus Press (2004), p. 464.
14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=PKH6KHvJO5c&feature=youtu.be
15 This information was supplied to me by Fr. Gerardo
Zendejas after the fact. After composing this particular
passage, I reached out to Bishop Williamson to run this by
His Excellency.
I received the following response:
You mention in your introduction background details of the
woman who posed the deadly question
which I did not know at the time. All I knew at the time from
how she presented herself and her question
was that she was a distressed Catholic believing in
attendance at the New Order Mass who would be
more distressed still if she had been given a straight black
and white 'stay away'.
The sheep are now so confused, in the world as in the
Church, that the old proverb applies, 'The wind
must be tempered to the shorn lamb'.
Hence even if in the abstract it is clear as clear can be that

the New Rite of Mass as it stands on the pages

of a New Missal is a deadly falsification of the central act of
Catholic worship, nevertheless in the concrete
the shorn state of the lambs requires the wind to be
tempered from an episcopal mouth.
It is thus clear that His Excellency was simply applying the
pastoral approach of Archbishop Lefebvre. No
reasonable Catholic could conclude, in light of this explicit
rebuke of the Novus Ordo, that Bishop Williamson was
promoting Novus Ordo Mass attendance.
Whether or not the readers of this article would themselves
have determined whether or not this woman met the
threshold for applying Archbishop Lefebvre's pastoral
approach or not is a prudential question which allows
for some difference of opinion.
16
A little known fact about the creation of this study was that
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre chaired the working
committee that drafted it. Historical details about this
important event can be found in The Biography: Marcel
Lefebvre by Bishop Bernard Tissier de
Mallerais. http://fsspx.org/en/node/1248
17 John 16:12 (Douay Rheims)
18 http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
19 "Moral and Pastoral Theology (Vol. III: Sacraments)" by Fr.
H. Davis, S.J. (Sheed & ward, 1943, p. 3)
20 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/i
ndex.cfm?id=33189
21 http://w2.vatican.va/content/piusx/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendidominicigregis.html
See especially #13: In like manner, he who believes may
pass through different phases. Consequently,
the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to
these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.

Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An

immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and
destroys all religion.
22 Response to an SSPX Priest (Part I)
here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?
a=topic&t=38885 and
Response to an SSPX Priest (Part II: Damage Control)
here:
file:///C:/Users/K04868/Downloads/Response%20to%20an
%20SSPX%20Priest%20-%20Part%20II%20(4).pdf
23 Matthew 7: 15-20
24 https://thedivinelamp.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/wednes
day-june-22-st-thomas-aquinas-catena-aurea-ontodaysgospel-matt-715-20/
25
And so far is it from being possible that any error can
coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is
essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects
it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that
God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not
true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the
Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of
Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly
formulated by the Council of the Vatican. Pope Leo XIII,
Providentissimus Deus, #20.
26 http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St.%20Thomas
%20Aquinas-Summa%20Theologica.pdf (See p. 334-5 on
the question Whether evil corrupts the whole good?
27 Ibid. The good which is opposed to evil is wholly taken
away; but other goods are not wholly removed, as said
above.
28 http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
29 And interestingly enough, St. Thomas Aquinas himself
never even used the term intrinsic evil (intrinsece
malum) at all. https://catholiclabor.com/spirituality-ofwork/morality-usccb/intrinsic-evil/

30 I hesitated to use this citation, as it is based on the

modernist (i.e., 1992) Catechism of the Catholic Church,
yet
since the present work is an online article, I wanted to use
online citations where possible (i.e., so the readers can
verify the citations more easily), I eventually decided to,
since I do not anticipate any of my fellow traditionalists
having any problems with the quote itself, despite the
source.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetext
s/8a.htm
31 http://sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit
32 https://catholiclabor.com/spirituality-of-work/moralityusccb/intrinsic-evil/
33 St. Alphonsus Liguari, Theologia Moralis, n. xxxvii, with
reference to <Summa Theologiae,> 11-2, q. 18, a. 2.
(Note: I do not own Theologia Moralis personally, and am
relying on the integrity of the author of this article in
having supplied
it: http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/FR92202.htm#4
34 https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/in-romancatholic-moral-theology-what-is-a-moral-object/
35 Fr. H. Davis, S.J. Moral and Pastoral Theology (Vol I:
Principles), (p. 55).
36 John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, #78. Note: Though I could
not find this question addressed in any traditional
manuals, the correctness of the statement seems manifest,
since it is the one willing the object whose morality we
are considering.
37
The Novus Ordo rite is inherently evil, and cannot bear in
itself any good fruit.
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/62-reasons-to-reject-thenew-mass-novus-ordo-missae/ Note: Neither does this
quote from Avrille run afoul of the Council of Trent, because

it is not the Novus Ordo Rite which produces the

spiritual nourishment (i.e., the increase of sanctifying
grace), but the sacrament of Holy Communion itself.
Whether such grace transmitted will be efficacious in the
soul is another question entirely.
38 Fr. Bernard Wuellner, S.J. Dictionary of Scholastic
Philosophy." (The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee
1956.
39 Ibid.
40 http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/04/04/declarationof-fidelity-to-the-positions-of-the-society-of-st-piusx/
41 See objection #4.
42 Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Bernard, The Biography
Marcel Lefebvre. Angelus Press (2004), p. 464.
43 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm [Note: I
have reformatted this excerpt to better fit the body of
the present article , but have not changed or omitted a
single word]
44 Ibid.
45 And a New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 70% of
Catholics ages 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a
symbolic reminder of Jesus. Jones, Kenneth C. Index of
Leading Catholic Indicators, p. 10 (Oriens Publishing
Company, St. Louis, Missouri (2003).
46 Mark 2:17
47 http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approv
ed_apparitions/vatican.html Note to reader: Be
careful about the last apparition on this list; there is some
question surrounding the authenticity of some of the
seers involved.
48 Ibid.
49 Note that nowhere in the study of Bishop Tissier de
Mallerais (likewise in the commentaries of Avrille on the
same subject of One Pope, Two Churches) is this
contention made. See this article of Bishop Tissier,
republished

by the Avrille Dominicans

here: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliarchurch/
50 For a good explanation of what is meant by the term
authentic magisterium, see the brief work by Dom Paul
Nau Pope or Church. See also this
article: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magi
sterium.htm
51 https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paulii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jpii_apl_19940522_ordinatiosacerdotalis.html
52 Let no sophistry hold out the quote of Archbishop
Lefebvre from his book Spiritual Journey (p. 13) that It is,
therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain
Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for
as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church
and of the Catholic Faith. What Archbishop Lefebvre
is speaking of here is refusing a merely practical accord
before Rome has converted back to the Faith, not rejecting
the truth promulgated upon rare occasions (such as
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) by conciliar churchmen.
53 This is not to say that Feenyites and sedevacantists are
not intellectual, or are incapable of creating doctrinal
defenses to their positions. Only that the cause which
usually instigates the position is an instinct that somehow
damage is being done to the Church by doctrines they are
not able to harmonize with eachother.