" CerebrumVacantism "

The confusion seems to never end and Bishop Williamson sure seems to enjoy it way too much.

In his new series, yes, a new series of torture(!) known as Eleison Comments #445, His Excellency is adding more and more confusion to Catholic tradition/resistance.

Bishop Williamson at his new Eleison Comments 445:

"And if the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition? "

Surreal! The Novus Ordo people who have come to the Faith (Catholicism-Tradition) have done so despite their false beliefs, not because of them. Bishop Williamson unfortunately implies this is because of the "good left in the Newreligion".

"Depending on how a celebrant uses the options in the NOM, not all the elements that can nourish faith are necessarily eliminated from it, especially if the Consecration is valid, a possibility which nobody who knows his sacramental theology can deny. "

The elements that might nourish the faith (e.g Rosary, Novena, Grace, Good Will, etc.) are NOT derived from the cancer (Conciliar Church) but from the healthy body (Catholic Church) through her channel of graces!!! 

Should we credit the Greek Orthodox church if one of them decides to convert to Catholicism? Should we credit the Protestant church if one of them decides to convert to Catholicism?

God can grant the necessary grace for conversion to a Novus Ordo, Schismatic, Protestant, Buddhist, Atheist... But that does not mean their "elements" were the ones "nourishing" their good will, quite the contrary. The Novus Ordo converts find Catholicism/Tradition through their genuine catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Rosary; so to credit the "elements" of the Novus Ordo instead of the Holy and Merciful Mother of God bear an insult, to say the least. Other converts receive their grace of conversion due to their good will not the mistakes of their heretical/schismatical/pagan beliefs.

 His Excellency has gone as far as inventing a new word to describe his thesis: "Ecclesiavacantism"(?!).  According to him, those who affirm the Novus Ordo has absolutely nothing Catholic left "in" it, should be called "ecclesiavacantists": 

"However, given the weakness of human nature and so the risk of encouraging Catholics to go with the new and easy religion by the least word said in favour of its central rite of worship, why say a word in favour of any feature of the Newchurch? For at least two reasons. Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement, and firstly to ward off what is coming to be called “ecclesiavacantism,”(?!?!) namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever."

Why the disproportioned concern to "ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement"?? Is it not Tradition just a name we were forced to 'add' because of the Conciliarists but that in reality it is nothing less than Catholicism itself? And if that is so, is it pharisaical to say outside Tradition (Catholicism) there are no believers and no salvation?? Now, am I denying that some people or groups may go overboard towards some Novus Ordo individuals? Far from it, but as Cicero says: "Abusus non tollit usum", "The abuse does not eliminate the usage" . We should still univocally use the condemnations of their beliefs despite some abuses from the pharisaical ones, whoever they might be.

Or should we stop condemning Protestantism because some go as far as saying they couldn't even have a valid Baptism? Should we stop condemning Paganism because some go as far as saying they don't have a soul, etc.? Again, "abusus non tollit usum".

The "Newchurch" has absolutely nothing Catholic “in” it, despite what Bishop Williamson implies; whatever is Catholic (individuals, devotions, teachings, sacraments...) belong to the Catholic Church! Not the "Newchurch”!  A parasite or a cancer (e.g., Conciliar church, Newchurch) cannot be credited for being somewhat good because they are attached [infiltrated] to something good (Catholic Church), they are strange bodies, not part of it. To say otherwise would be to succumb to Vatican II ecclesiology.

So, instead of inventing insipid words such as “Ecclesiavacantism”, we should be more worried with something plaguing Tradition which could be called: “CerebrumVacantism”.