Quo Vadis, Dom Thomas?

Nota praevia: It is with sadness I find myself obliged to rebuke an article of a person who has been a solid rock within the Traditional Movement, a person who has survived through Le  Barroux, Campos, Dom Lourenço, Bishops de Galarreta and Fellay... only for, in the end, be brought down by him who was expected a commitment and support to battling the modernist forces which have crept into Tradition: Bishop Williamson.

Defending the indefensible

Dom Thomas Aquinas: "Bishop Williamson wrote in his Eleison Comments no. 438: "If the evidence for eucharistic miracles taking place within the Novus Ordo Church (see EC 436 and 437) is as serious as it seems, then Catholics must conform their minds to the mind of God, and not the other way round." Many attacked Bishop Williamson because of these comments on a possible Eucharistic miracle that took place in Buenos Aires."

First off, it doesn't seem fair to pick out the mildest of all Bishop Williamson's statements --bolded and underlined above-- regarding "eucharistic miracles", in order to bring about a defense which seems to be biased right off the bet. Why is Father Thomas Aquinas quoting the third Eleison Comment (438) instead of the very first of the series (436), where Bishop Williamson describes these so called 'miracles' as "stubborn facts"???

Facts are stubborn things,” is a famous quote of the United States’ second President, John Adams (1735–1826), “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Concerning the New Order of Mass imposed upon the entire Latin Rite Church by Paul VI in 1969, there are some stubborn facts, apt to perturb the “wishes and inclinations” of Catholics cleaving to Catholic Tradition. Let successive issues of these “Comments” first of all present some of these facts; secondly let us see how they may be explained in view of the disastrous role played over the last 46 years by the NOM in helping Catholics to lose the Faith, and thirdly let us deliberate as to what conclusions a wise Catholic needs to draw. First of all, some facts: (...)
Bishop Williamson - Eleison Comments (436), November 21, 2015 - Novus Ordo Missae I

Bishop Williamson has also affirmed in many other Conferences (Canada, E.U.A, Mexico), as Fr. Thomas Aquinas is well aware of, that Eucharistic Miracles have been happening within the Novus Ordo Mass on different occasions and locations. Hence, let's not try to conceal the truth with "damage control words" such as " if ", "as it seems", "possible", etc., because they aren't compatible with reality. Let us not allow our culpable silence to be raised to an unwise attempt to defend something which can very easily be proved wrong if compared with many and verifiable facts against Bishop Williamson; at least on this regard.

There's another point worth of mentioning regarding Dom Thomas' paragraph above:  Would Dom Thomas consider himself an "attacker" of Bishop Fellay (persona) when he criticized or condemned his many statements or actions? No! Father Aquinas, as well as the whole of the resistance, when we had a "resistance", were attacking his words, conduct and betrayals. 

It is not Bishop Williamson's persona we are interested in attacking either, but his words, ideas and actions. They have been proved to be very imprudent at best and outright anti-Catholic at worst; therefore, as Catholics committed to the truth, we have a duty to speak up, especially if one is a priest about to become a bishop.

Bishop Williamson states Catholics "must conform their minds" to this foolishness! How can one not be in dismay? 

"We can summarize the arguments into :
Outside the Church there can be no miracles. The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. Therefore there was no miracle in Buenos Aires.
No one acts without an end. A miracle in the New Mass could have no other purpose than to induce the faithful to attend the New Mass. Therefore there was no miracle in Buenos Aires.
A miracle is an endorsement from God. God cannot endorse a heresy. The New Mass favors heresy. Therefore there was no miracle in Buenos Aires.Let's look at each of these arguments."

Before we go to the response of these arguments, I would have to mention beforehand the responses should not be "summarized" by secondary arguments (1, 2 and 3 bellow). This does not seem very fair either. But we'll come back to this later on, let's proceed to the Fr. Aquina's response.

"1- The first argument is an oversimplification and mixes two issues. The first is whether we can have miracles outside of the Church. The other is whether the Conciliar Church is completely separate of the Catholic Church or not.
To the first question we have to answer with St. Thomas, yes. Under certain conditions, there can be miracles "outside of the Church". On this matter, see the articles of Carlos Nougué. God does not confirm an error or a vice with a miracle, but He can confirm the truth or a virtue with a miracle, even so among the pagans. If some good is done among pagans, this good is done under the inspiration or by the action of God (cf. De Potentia, question VI, Article V, ad 5um). In the same article St. Thomas says it is possible that God performs a miracle to attest to the chastity of a pagan virgin. One can also recall the miracle of Balaam's mule, speaking clearly, as we read in the Holy Scriptures. Now, Balaam was a pagan magician. The mule spoke because God wanted to warn Balaam not to go ahead with this intention to curse the Jews (Num XXII)."

That we cannot have true miracles outside of Body and Soul of the Church (as implied by Dom Thomas' own collaborator)  is obvious, and maybe that is why Dom Thomas himself uses "quotes" when he says: "Under certain conditions there can be miracles "outside the Church"(sic). Now, if there could really be miracles fully outside the One True Church, he wouldn't need to have used quotes on "outside of the Church" at all, would he?

St. Thomas attests miracles can only confirm true doctrine and holiness, therefore every miracle under the sun belongs, in reality, to the True Church one way or another. 

We could use the baptism of desire as an analogy; a person who attain salvation through this extraordinary mean might not have seemed to be Catholic, nonetheless he/she was one and was saved by the Catholic Church through her Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, the same way there isn't salvation outside of the Catholic Church, there isn't true miracles outside of the Church (Body or Soul), after all, who else on this world carries the TRUE DOCTRINE, which is the reason why miracles are bound to work for? (St. Thomas)

In a book entitled "Santa Ecclesia - Historia da Única Igreja de Cristo", (Major Catechism of St. Pius X) published by Permanencia, and reproduced by one of Dom Thomas's Chapel, we read in respect of the Church's Holiness:

139. HOLY. - The faithful who reads Ecclesiastical History with righteousness of heart will see the brightness of Church’s sanctity , not only in the essential of her invisible head, Jesus Christ, in the sanctity of the Sacraments, in her doctrine, her religious congregations, in very many of her members, but also in the abundance of heavenly gifts, of sacred charisms, of prophecies and miracles that the Lord (refusing to give to other religions) makes it shine forth in the face of the world the mark of holiness which exclusively adorns His One Church.

One of Dom Thomas' own chapel has published this text as being part of the Major Catechism of Saint Pius X (!); hence, why the big fuss and red-lighting of Fr. Cardozo's Masses all about? What is the agenda? Who is behind it? Why is it better, on his estimation, to have two missions in Sao Paulo going (even longer) without the sacraments, than having Fr. Cardozo to say Mass to them? Is it a mortal sin to disagree with Bishop Williamson?  Is it a matter for excommunication? 


It's going to be interesting to see how those extremely sensible to red-lighting the SSPX's Masses are going to react with this red-light applied to Fr. Cardozo... Are they going to be honest enough to admit this is plain insanity or are they going to justify it because, after all, the priest in question dared to disagree with Bishop Williamson?

Also, it is extremely disedifying to see Dom Thomas recommending articles of a lay person, who has many qualities,  but that on this particular point has obsessively attacked Fr. Cardozo and some lay folk alike, calling them all sorts of names (e.g Sectarian, Illuminated, Puritan, Saint of the latter days, Proud, Erzats, etc.). How can Dom Thomas, who have been a rock of common sense for so long put up with articles so distasteful and confusing as these articles of Carlos Nogué? 

Anyhow, let's look at the 'argument' where St. Thomas is brought up. According to Dom Thomas, the Angelic Doctor says "God can perform a miracle to attest to the chastity of a pagan virgin...".

This is true and in any way, shape or form contradicts what St. Thomas, the major catechism of Pius X and all those who criticize Bishop Williamson have been saying: Miracles confirm true doctrine and holiness, never a false doctrine which is obviously not a sign of Holiness.

Is Chastity a Catholic virtue or is it not? Yes it is.

Was God leading people into believing Paganism was acceptable or good because of the catholic virtue this pagan virgin practiced so well? 

No, this was an event in order to teach a few unfaithful believers a lesson about the truly Catholic virtue of Chastity; and not a special reward which would mislead people into believing *her Paganism. Her virginity was not intrinsically connected with her belief or worship but with a truly Catholic Virtue: Chastity!  The same cannot be said of the Consecration and the place where the transubstantiation occurs: Holy Mass! They are intrinsically connected, the latter only occurs when the former is accomplished. You can't separate the two. 

The same principle applies to Balaam's mule, this was an event brought up by God to protect true believers from a curse, not to transform the Mule into an acceptable offering/worship to God.

- Does the N.O.M have anything chaste to teach us?

- Does the N.O.M protect true believers or rather endanger them?

Therefore, it is most definitely not fair to compare an individual or animal to a supposedly universal Rite of worship. Furthermore, if one denies that the so called 'eucharistic miracle' would at least "lead many people into believing" the Novus Ordo is acceptable, they might as well throw the towel in. It is interesting to note, though, not even Bishop Williamson denies this immense possibility: See point# 2 here.

Hence the question should be: Could God irresistibly lead many into believing something "protestantized" and "intrinsically evil" to be acceptable or good?

"To the second question we must answer that the authorities of the conciliar church form a modernist sect, occupying key posts in the Church, which they keep captive. We can not say with absolute certainty that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church, neither that it is not."

This is unbelievable! If this were coming from Bishops Rifan or Fellay I would not be surprised, but from Dom Thomas Aquinas(!), really? So, according to him, we can no longer say with absolute certainty that the cancer is not the body? I mean, what's going on? How can Bishop Williamson spread his nonsense so extensively and effectively to the point of starting to crack this seemingly unmovable rock? 


Catholic Church = Immaculate Bride of Christ

Conciliar church = Made up by evil men

Therefore we must say with absolute certainty that the evil and corruptible Conciliar Church cannot be the Incorruptible and the Spotless Bride of Jesus Christ, the holy Catholic Church! 

We must say the Cancer is not the Body! 

We must say the parasite is not the body either!

Difficulties may (and will) arise regarding the individuals or their powers, nevertheless that do not change the fact stated above. But since this is not an article about individuals or their powers (or lack of it thereof), we'll leave at that.

"Because of the modernist teachings and the intention to destroy the doctrine of the Catholic Church, it is not [the Catholic Church], of course; but because of the fact that she has a power of jurisdiction which belongs to the Catholic Church, it possesses something Catholic. If the current Pope converts, it [the conciliar church] will exercise a Catholic power, that today it exercises in a modernist manner."

The power of jurisdiction is debatable, but for the sake of the argument let's suppose that is, in fact, the case. Now, considering this was true, we could still not say they have something Catholic, after all, power of jurisdiction belong to the Catholic Church, as acknowledged by Dom Tomas himself at the paragraph above; so even if they temporarily have [an usurped] possession of power, they should still most definitely not be praised, respected, recommended nor rewarded in any way whatsoever.

Or should a bank robber who has taken hostages and all the money of a bank be defended from "Pharisees" and/or promoted with a "golden rule" in any circumstance?

Furthermore, do we say the greek-Orthodox church is Catholic because they posses the power of consecration/ordination? Do we say the Protestant church is Catholic because they posses the power of performing valid Baptisms?

"This seems to me to be the position that Archbishop Lefebvre has always adopted."

Again and again Dom Thomas uses the tactic of talking about other issues (jurisdiction, validity of the Newmass, etc.) when the main and plain issue lies on the FACT that Bishop Williamson has told a lady who lives around "resistance grounds" and goes to a Traditional Mass on Sundays she could go to a decent Novus Ordo Mass if her conscience allows her, accordingly to him this is the "golden rule". On the other hand Archbishop Lefebvre stated: 

“That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to
this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass." (Archbishop Lefebvre)

Would anybody honestly say Bishop Williamson adopted Archbishop Lefebvre's teaching regarding the attendance at the Newmass?

Dom Thomas KNOWS bishop Williamson has told an individual he was ashamed of the infamous conference and that he had asked this particular person to not talk about it anymore and remove the video of circulation... He KNOWS this!

Wouldn't be easier to just apologize for the mistake, make amendments and move on?

"2- No one acts without an end. But to what end would God perform a miracle in the New Mass?Bishop Faure has already answered this question.If Our Lord is present in the consecrated host of a New Mass, and especially if this host has been desecrated, it is not unreasonable to think that God would perform a miracle to show us the gravity of this desecration. But, some will say, Bishop Williamson also cited an alleged miracle in Poland. The same argument must apply. Wherever there is the real presence, we can have a miracle without contradicting the truth.
But would it not be approving of the New Mass?No, just as we have shown that the miracle did not condone paganism, but that through it the innocence of a pagan virgin was attested."

Bishop Faure's response is unsatisfactory at best. 

His 'argument' is that it wouldn't be a surprise to have a miracle (eucharistic miracle) on the top of another miracle (Transubstantiation).... 

Now, THAT is a oversimplification, to paraphrase Dom Thomas.

In a proper sense, the Real Presence is not an "*extraordinary" event if form, matter and intention are present; this is a "normal consequence". 

On the other hand, we know that a miracle is an extraordinary gift from God to confirm true doctrine and holiness. And since a Consecration cannot be separated from the Mass in which it is enwrapped, it is only obvious if God were to perform a real miracle in a Novus Ordo Church, during a Novus Ordo Mass, with a Novus Ordo Priest, many "would be led to believe" the Mass in which such a WONDER has happened may be acceptable, good or even the most beautiful thing under the sun, as it really is the case with the True Catholic Mass!

Notice that such an "eucharistic miracle" would not have to outright approve of the Newmass as Dom Thomas proposes. What we are trying to call his attention to is the fact that even the great possibility of having many people being irresistibly led to approving the Newmass due to such a miracle would prove this event to be evil, therefore it wouldn't be from God. 

How could this be even slighted accepted by many as a possibility is beyond comprehension.

"3- A miracle is a sign from God, and God can not condone a heresy. But this miracle, if it was indeed a miracle, is not a confirmation of the New Mass, but of the real presence. The Sacrament received in the conciliar church may be true, yet the accompanying doctrine may be false. So we have to make a distinction. The one does not negate the other. Confirmation of one, even by a miracle, does not confirm the other; just like the approval of the innocence of the virgin, does not approve of paganism."

If even Dom Thomas admits the miracle has not been proven, wouldn't we be correct in criticizing bishop Williamson at least for presenting it to the Catholic world as a "stubborn fact" in which "Catholics must confirm their minds" to it?

Or has the bishop --who claimed not having authority to lead the Resistance on numerous occasions-- all of the sudden received a special jurisdiction to approve and promote miracles?

Apparently promoting condemned visionaries hasn't been enough for him, eh?!

Once again, this so called 'miracle' would not have to explicitly "approve of the Newmass", all we'd need to know to realize it could not have come from God is the fact that it leads a great deal of people into believing the Newmass is acceptable or good.

"The arguments that have been presented don't seem conclusive to me. In any case, they can not be used to discredit Bishop Williamson,"

This isn't a political debate where one tries to "discredit" the other. We are dealing with Catholic principals, moral and standards. Whatsoever we criticize is based on that, not on anybody's persona. 

On the other hand, I would have to charitably urge Dom Thomas to take a deeper look at his own double standards:

Dom Thomas allows people to go to SSPX Masses (This article is not here to debate if this is right or wrong but only to state a fact). 

Dom Thomas has blindly defended the Bishop who recommends a "semi-Traditional" lady who has and goes to a Traditional Mass on Sundays to attend at a decent Novus Ordo Mass during weekdays if her conscience allows her. But he intransigently "red-lighted" the Masses of Fr. Cardozo because of the "nefarious heresy" of taking a picture of Bishop Williamson down from one of the Resistance chapels...!!!

Also, Dom Thomas was not long ago in Anapolis-GO trying to rescue some nuns from this convent where the priest is known to be a conservative/semi-traditional type, and the reason he has given for the nuns to abandon such a priest was that the priest (Fr. Fernando) "believed the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church"(sic).  What a contradiction, eh?


"who still is the bishop who opposed the suicidal policy of the accordistas,"

Did he really? If that is true, how can we explain the celebration of the Motu Proprio and the thanksgiving for the "lifting of the excommunications"? 

He apparently does not agree with the terms adopted by Bishop Fellay, but he certainly does not discard an accord with Modernist Rome: 

"If the Holy Father would authorize me to found a Society, I would be on the next plane to Rome." (Bishop Williamson - Post Falls, Idaho, USA, June 1, 2014)

"who consecrated Bishop Faure, ordained priests for the Resistance, confirmed many of the faithful;

All that glitters is not gold!

"who gives us all hope to continue the good fight of Archbishop Lefebvre, which is nothing else than the good fight of the Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman and, as St. Pius X said, persecuted."

 How can we honestly say we are continuing the good fight(?) of Archbishop Lefebvre while placing our hope in Bishop Williamson, who Dom Thomas Aquinas KNOWS to have:

- Thanked Benedict XVI for the Motu Proprio with "a deep gratitude for this great spiritual benefit" 

- Accepted with filial devotion the "lifting of the excommunications"

Apologized to Benedict XVI and the Jews

- Recommended people going to a decent New Mass

- Promoted "eucharistics miracles" in the New Mass

- Performed the Sacrament of Confirmation at the heretical Chapel of the Feeneyites

 Invited a Rabbi to lecture to his seminarians

- Promoted the blasphemous Maria Valtorta, a visionary condemned by the Catholic Church (not the Conciliar!)

- Promoted various other Novus Ordo apparitions (i.e Grabandal, Akita, etc); 

- Promoted his own visionary: Dawn Marie, "Le Petite Plume"
Eleison Comments (379, 380, 381, 382, 383)

Who lives with homosexual / pedophile priest and promotes him to the point of sending him to missions at family houses and even participating in retreats with him

- Protected and ordained seminarians accused and expelled (by SSPX Seminary in Argentina) for homosexual misconduct

- Who has been undisputedly rebuked by Fr. Ceriani

- Or even by Dom Thomas himself

Is that the man we are counting to continue the "good fight" of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre??? If that is the case I can't help but ask:


It is really sad to witness Dom Thomas changing his discourse so drastically in such short period of time; let's look how he used to talk in 2012:

"It is either John Paul II who has the truth on his side, or Archbishop Lefebvre. It is not possible to exalt John Paul II and withdraw --if they really withdrew-- the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. Both cannot be right at the same time. This is pure modernism. As for the Mass, it is the same thing. If both are allowed, the result is the contradiction. It is a principle of dissolution. It is a principle of corruption of the Catholic faith."

"We read in the Old Testament Abraham expelled the slave Hagar and his son Ishmael, in order that Isaac would not stay with the son of the slave, as St. Paul says: "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born after the Spirit", and St. Paul adds, "so also it is now" (Gal. V, 29). Abraham did this, reluctantly, in consideration of Sarah’s request, and God agreed with Sara, because the one who is free should not be equated to the slave. Hagar is the new Mass. She has no rights. She must be suppressed." (Dom thomas Aquinas - Two Currents, 2012)

Now, it would be fitting to ask:

If "the Newmass is the slave Hagar", why treat her as something legitimate who would still "build the faith"???

If the Newmass "has no rights", how could it have privileges ("Eucharistic miracles")???

If the Newmass "must be suppressed", how could Dom Thomas not criticize Bishop Williamson for recommending it publicly to someone who lives around a resistance territory and has affirmed going to Traditional Masses on Sunday???

If it is a "contradiction" and a "principle of corruption" allowing the two masses, how can Dom Thomas defend Bishop Williamson, the bishop who not only allows but recommends the Newmass, even in public???

One last thing. Upon being asked in a recent interview of March 6th, 2016, to send a message to Tradition/Resistance, Dom Thomas has said:

"A message? Study the works of Archbishop Lefebvre and learn from his examples. Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Le Floch is the Magisterium: It is the love of the Magisterium of the Church. Only this way we'll win over Liberalism and Modernism. Furthermore, read and seek to understand the great anti-liberal authors, above all, the ones who better understood  the errs of the modern world, such as Bishop de Castro Mayer, Bishop Williamson and also bishop Tissier, who expose the strange theology of Benedict XVI with precision (...)"

How can Dom Thomas have the audacity of recommending the "anti-liberal" Bishop Williamson when the Resistance around the globe finds itself in terrible turmoil because of him and his latent liberalism?

Can't Dom Thomas realize how cynical and hypocritical recommending this destructive bishop sounds, specially at the present moment? 

Also, how can Dom Thomas recommend Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier at the same time, in the same sentence? One has promoted the "Bavarian heart" and the "good will" of Benedict XVI", the other has completely exposed the deadly hermeneutical of continuity of Benedict XVI???

Would the ambiguity, cynicism, blindness and confusion of Bishop Williamson have contaminated Dom Thomas?

May God and His Most Holy Mother help us!

Nenhum comentário: