Miracle in the New Mass?

First posted here.

Novena of St Francis Xavier, from the book of Father Juan

Croisset, 1862, pg 74; regarding a reflection taken from the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 5:

"Outside the true religion there can be no miracles. You should consider these as a private language of God, as signs that God alone can avail himself to teach us those truths he wants to instruct us, a language understood by all those who sincerely seek the truth.
What man of reason would doubt those miracles that had as witness the greatest enemies of them who wrought them, the fruit of which was the conversion of the world? One can be sure that only the Church of Jesus Christ is the one that never has been without miracle and that it is useless to seek them outside of her. "

Source: Novena of St. Francis Xavier, p 74

"Poema do Homem-Deus", de Maria Valtorta.......... (E de Dom Williamson!)

Reproduzimos aqui algumas passagens do Livro de Maria Valtorta, tirem suas próprias conclusões se devemos ler este livro todas as noites para nossas crianças, como recomenda Dom Williamson.
Para ver mais do original, clique aqui.

Poema do Homem-Deus (Maria Valtorta)

Resenha do livro "Poema do Homem-Deus" de Maria Valtorta, 10 volumes, edição on-line.

Recentemente um amigo me enviou um e-mail perguntando sobre Maria Valtorta e seu Poema do Homem-Deus. Ela recebeu uma edição recente do Comentário Eleison do Bispo Richard Williamson intitulado "Home Reading" - "Leitura Domiciliar" (20 de outubro de 2012). Nesse Eleison, o bispo recomenda os pais lerem  selecionados capítulos do Poema do Homem-Deus para as crianças todas as noites.

Ele admite que o poema é controverso e que possui muitos inimigos, mas ele defende o enorme livro de Valtorta (4.000 páginas em 10 volumes de supostas visões que ela recebeu da vida de Cristo). O Bispo apoia-o apesar das objeções que ele lista: que contém vários erros doutrinais, que humaniza Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, e que o trabalho foi colocado na lista de livros proibidos da Igreja na década de 1950.

Ele rejeita levemente todos os argumentos contra o livro e conclui que as crianças vão aprender muito sobre Nosso Senhor e Nossa Senhora no poema, que ele irá "fortalecer a sua casa." (...)

Um Cristo humanizado

Creio que minha amiga deva seguir o bom senso Católico dela. O próprio título, Homem-Deus, expressa o espírito da obra. É Jesus como um homem que Valtorta apresenta: um bebê amamentando avidamente os seios de sua mãe, um jovenzinho que parece nem ter consciência de Quem Ele seja, um Homem que ri e brinca com os seus Apóstolos, beijando-os na boca constantemente e abraçando-os bem apertados. Parece ser difícil não suspeitar que esse "aparecido" Jesus, retratado de forma tal, tenha tendências homossexuais.(...)

Jesus de Valtorta

O Poema do Homem-Deus, eu creio, está repleto de banalidades, vulgaridades, blasfêmias e até mesmo erros doutrinários. Há conversas ociosas intermináveis ​​entre Nosso Senhor, Nossa Senhora e os Apóstolos, tudo em um nível natural. Eu acho que a melhor maneira de confirmar estes pontos é simplesmente citar alguns textos, que são tão repugnantes que eles falam por si.

As citações que se seguem são retiradas de uma edição on-line do poema do Homem-Deus. Uma crítica de 48 páginas escrito na década de 1980 (...).

Uma criança concebida com o pecado original

Valtorta retrata o Menino Jesus como uma criança gulosa de Mãe sentimental. É difícil encontrar o respeito que devemos a Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo nesta imaginária e imodesta descrição de uma cena de amamentação:

Jesus e Maria

O Poema do Homem-Deus apresenta uma visão naturalista de Nossa Senhora e o Menino Jesus:

"Jesus abre os olhos, vê sua mãe, sorri e estende as mãozinhas para seu peito."

"[Maria] 'Sim, amor da mamãe. Sim. O seu leite. Antes da hora habitual. Mas você está sempre pronto para mamar no peito da Sua Mamãe, meu pequeno Cordeiro santo! '

"Jesus ri e joga, chutando seus pés para fora dos cobertores, movendo os braços alegremente em um estilo típico infantil, tão bonito de ver. Ele empurra seus pés contra o estômago de sua mãe. Ele arqueia as costas inclinando a cabeça justo ao peito, e depois atira-se para trás e ri, segurando com as mãos os laços que amarram o vestido de Maria no pescoço, tentando abri-lo...

"Maria amamenta Ele e Jesus avidamente chupa o bom leite de sua mãe, e quando Ele sente que apenas um pouco de leite sai do seu seio direito, Ele olha para a esquerda, rindo ao fazer isso e olhando para a  sua mãe. Então Ele adormece novamente em seu peito, Sua redonda e rosada bochecha descansando no branco e redondo peito Dela." (Vol 1, n. 35, p. 106).


Um adulto com tendências homossexuais

O Jesus de Valtorta apresenta suspeitas tendências homossexuais, pois ele está constantemente beijando e abraçando os Apóstolos. Quando Jesus diz á Tiago sobre Sua Paixão estar se aproximando, Tiago reage com grande emoção. Jesus conforta-o assim:

" 'Venha, eu vou te beijar então, vou ajudá-lo a esquecer o fardo do meu destino como Homem. Aqui, eu beijo seus lábios, que terão de repetir as minhas palavras para o povo de Israel e o seu coração que terá de amar como eu te disse, e ali, em seu templo, onde a vida irá cessar. '... Eles permanecem abraçados por um longo tempo e Tiago parece cochilar na alegria dos beijos de Deus que o fazem esquecer seu sofrimento".



Quando Valtorta descreve João, o Apóstolo "favorito", como tendo um rosto de uma jovem mulher com o "olhar de uma amante," dificilmente podemos evitar a impressão de que eles têm uma relação homossexual. Aqui Jesus está beijando João para despertá-lo:

"Jesus se inclina e beija a bochecha de João, que abre os olhos e fica pasmo ao ver Jesus. Ele se senta e diz: "Você precisa de mim? Aqui estou.' …

"João, semi-nu em sua sub-túnica, pois ele usou a sua túnica como manto, como colchas, abraça o 'pescoço de Jesus e coloca a cabeça entre Seu ombro e a bochecha."

Depois João professa sua crença e amor em Jesus como Filho de Deus, "ele sorri e chora, ofegante, inflamado pelo seu amor, relaxando no peito de Jesus, como se ele estivesse esgotado pelo seu ardor. E Jesus o acaricia, ardendo de amor Ele também. "

João implora Jesus para não contar aos outros [Apóstolos] sobre o que se passou entre eles. Jesus responde: "Não se preocupe, João. Ninguém vai estar ciente de seu casamento com o Amor. Se vestir, venha. Temos de sair. "(Vol. 2, n. 165, pp. 57-58)

Jesus sugere um caso de amor entre São Pedro e Nossa Senhora

O próprio Jesus brinca com impropriamente com seus apóstolos. Aqui, Jesus se levanta e grita em voz alta e com raiva a Pedro:

" 'Vem cá, seu usurpador e corruptor!'
"'Eu? Por quê? Que fiz eu, Senhor?
" 'Você corrompeu minha mãe. É por isso que você queria ficar sozinho [com ela]. O que vou fazer com você?"
(...)
"Jesus sorri e Pedro recupera sua confiança. 
"Você realmente me assustou! Agora você está rindo. "(Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)

Como Lutero, Maria pensa: Vamos pecar para ser perdoado

Algumas passagens são equivalentes a heresia. Por exemplo, Valtorta apresenta a criança Maria como se expressando desejar ser uma grande pecadora, a fim de merecer a graça da Redenção:

"[Maria]: 'Diga-me, mamãe, pode-se ser um pecador por amor de Deus?
"[Ana]: 'O que você está dizendo, minha querida? Eu não entendo você.
"[Maria]: 'Eu quero dizer: cometer um pecado, a fim de ser amado por Deus, que se torna o Salvador. Quem está perdido, está salvo. Não é mesmo? Eu gostaria de ser salva pelo Salvador para receber o olhar amoroso ". (Vol. 1, n. 7, p. 23).


Uma Eva sensual tendendo a bestialidade

O trabalho também não é desprovido erros doutrinais, Ex. quando Valtorta afirma que o pecado de Eva não foi de desobediência, mas de um ato sexual. Há, também, uma insinuação de tendência para a bestialidade de Eva. Esta descrição erótica foi supostamente feita por Jesus:

"Com sua língua venenosa Satanás mandou a lábia e acariciou os membros de Eva ... Sua carne ficou excitada ... A sensação é de prazer para ela. E 'ela entendeu'. "Agora a Malícia estava dentro dela e foi roendo seus intestinos. Ela viu com outros olhos e ouviu com novos ouvidos os hábitos e as vozes dos animais. E ela ansiava por eles com uma cobiça insana. "Ela começou a pecar consigo mesma. Ela conseguiu isso com seu companheiro. "(Vol. 1, n. 17, p. 49)

Estes são alguns trechos que eu ofereço aos meus leitores para avaliar a obra de Valtorta. Eu acredito que eles são suficientes para o leitor a fazer um julgamento como um todo.

É, portanto, compreensível que o Santo Ofício tenha colocado o trabalho no Index de Livros Proibídos, que é reproduzida abaixo. É compreensível, também,  que o Salesiano Irmão James tenha concluído sua crítica dos dois primeiros volumes com estas palavras: "O Poema do Homem-Deus é tão demoníaco que, sem uma graça especial de Nosso Senhor Jesus, podemos ser enganados pelas declarações aparentemente inofensivas do Jesus de Valtorta, mas elas incluem mentiras e heresia, contrárias aos ensinamentos da Una e Santa Igreja Católica ".

_____________________

E o pior é constatarmos que ainda existem muitos defendendo este bispo... Blasfêmias contra Nosso Senhor, Nossa Senhora? Tudo bem. Criticar "nosso bispo"? Bravata! Causadores de divisão! Fanáticos!

Pois eu agradeço a Deus por dividir, por não me deixar ter parte alguma com um bispo que indica tão insaciavelmente (todas as noites, e quando terminar, começar novamente) estas leituras para nossas crianças.

Algo de muito podre se esconde nisso tudo...

Aqueles que tiverem olhos para ver, que vejam!

Dom Williamson x Dom Williamson

"A particularidade dos Liberais é a inconsistência."
(Dom Tomás de Aquino, Entrevista na Semana Santa de 2014)



[Legendas em Português]


Agora, comparem com essa outra conferência dada por Dom Williamson:

[Legendas em Português]



'Os piores inimigos da Santa Igreja  são os liberais'. 
(Papa Pio IX)

Rev. Father Altamira: The Situation of the Resistance

(Source)

Google translation with some small corrections.

Dear faithful, I am writing this letter so we can be aware of "¿What is the situation of the so-called resistance?".

[1]
Before the state of affairs in which we find ourselves (the empire of confusion, the damage upon parishioners, all priests fighting each other): The one responsible for all this is Bishop Williamson. I speak objectively; culpability will be judged by God.


We are the laughing stock of the world.

Even Bishop Fellay and his group "die of laughter because of us." Nothing better could have happened to him, because when we are so ridiculous and phonies (for the problems we have), no priest of the Society of St. Pius X (those who are thinking of breaking with Bp. Fellay) will want to come join us .


Faced with what has been caused by Bishop Williamson, we have: In the case of Bishop Faure, the future Bishop Dom Thomas, Father Trincado with  his site Non Possumus, and other priests, to defend the "interest of the group" (interest of the political party), by compliance, or whatever, Bishop Williamson is defended and justified at all costs for the things he said and the things he has done. If Bp. Fellay had said or done these same things, those mentioned above would be "eating him alive." But it was Bishop Williamson! who said it, "ah, then let's not say anything, and defend him publicly."


We are not honest with ourselves nor with our faithful.

[2]
In July from last year, 2015, I received information from Europe regarding Mons. Williamson.


It was said, among other things, Bishop Williamson was telling the priests of the SSPX not to leave the Society. "No, Father. It is impossible Bishop Williamson has been saying that." Is that really impossible? We answer: I can not express myself on these [specific] cases because I don't know these priests. But I do know some other case[s]: "The case of Father Altamira, Father Trincado and Bishop Faure".

In October 2012,  Bishop Williamson was expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X. At that time, Bishop Williamson wrote me [and said] "in one week they'll expelled me from the Society of St. Pius X". I replied with a copy to Father Trincado and a copy to Father Faure: Bishop Williamson, when they expel you, I will publicly manifest; send your orders and we'll do something here. Father Trincado answered from Argentina: Me too. Monsignor Faure said: Me too. And who stopped us from doing it? The answer is: He who stopped us was Bishop Williamson.. Therefore, a year later, I took the step. I still had hopes on Bishop Williamson. Silly me!


In September last year (2015), I wrote a joint letter to Monsignor Faure, Father Pierre Marie (the Superior of the Dominicans in France) and Father Bruno (in charge of the priests of France), saying that if the things reported about Bishop Williamson were true, we had to do something! This letter is here attached (*).

In this letter I told the three of them:


"If it is true that these problems exist or that these things happened, we have to do something(!): Neo-Nazis; Father Bruewieler (Hannover, Germany); Father Jacqmin; Fr. Weber and Fr. González; Fathers Weinzierl, Trauner and Zaby; the situation of P. XX; Father Ramón Anglés (?); what happened regarding the modern Mass in Canada (and USA); the situation of the faithful in England (London); etc.".


In another more recent letter, I wrote to the priests of the so-called Resistance, and told them: "If only half of all these things [the reports] were correct and true, the problem [with Bishop Williamson] is more serious than we think. "


[3]
All this information is known by Bishop Faure and he has them. The future Bishop Dom Thomas (Brazil). Father Trincado (with his site Non Possumus) has them, and almost all priests of the so-called Resistance. Therefore it is inadmissible to continue defending Bishop Williamson publicly. We will explain a little more ahead.


All this shows how bad we are in the Resistance. We are not serious. We are the laughingstock before everybody.


Here we must answer an objection and reject a possible temptation: it is true the Resistance is very bad, but it is also true that the solution is not Bishop Fellay and his path to Modernism, and his way to the Conciliar Church..

[4]
Given all these facts, it would be wrong (and I think it would be a sin) to remain silent. But one might say ad hominem: "Since you [Bishop Faure, Dom Thomas, Father Trincado] do not want to say [condemn] the errors of Bishop Williamson, at least keep quiet and do not defend him publicly; it would've been less unworthy. "

Let me explain more.


Regarding Bishop Williamson we have:


His many tricky and veiled manifestations in favor of the false Conciliar Church and the Religion of Vatican II. His statements about keep going to false Rome. His statements about making an agreement (a legal status, a canonical regularization, "is something very desirable"). His slyly manifestations in favor of the validity of the rite of modernist bishops, in favor of modernist bishops (when in fact there are serious doubts about the validity). His outrageous statements saying that he needs to be named the authority of the Resistance by Francisco (Eleison Comments 420). Its manifestations saying he needs permission from Francisco to found a religious congregation. His manifestations for the modern mass (go to her, the miracles of the modern Mass, the fruits of modern mass: the sanctuary of Poland ... towards the false religion of the II Vatican Council and to make ecumenism within the shrine - as has been published-). His apparitionism, the visionary of Bishop Williamson, her messages. Maria Valtorta (condemned by the Holy Office), the [visionary] lady from United States, the apparitions of Akita, etc. His praise of Putin (complete lack of common sense!: Putin, with Obama, are the two best managers or employees of the devil here on earth, to bring the World Government). In short: The list is endless.

The above mentioned,  completely disqualifies Bishop Williamson, and his public defense cannot be admitted, to the contrary.

This is all too severe, and these attitudes are too scandalous and incoherent as to keep quiet and not say anything.


"But we must defend the interests of group!, the interest of the party must prevail. And take note that the priests who oppose it [and we are almost half already], will be left alone, will be put aside, will be isolated, marginalized; they won't have a Bishop; their seminarians won't be ordained. "

[5]
What is the tragedy we are living in this fight?


All this effort we make is so difficult to accomplish. It is an effort which costs us priests and faithful a lot (I'm not referring to economics, but the effort involved in this fight).


So, we are doing all this for nothing!, we'll fall for the same things as Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson leads us to the same. Attention: We are actually worse off than Bishop Fellay..


Yet with all the defense of the modern Mass and the "miracles" of Bishop Williamson, let's make an  argument ad absurdum, an argument ad ridiculum:

Suppose Bishop Williamson had said in that conference in USA (also from Canada?), and also in the three or four Eleison Comments, that "there can be no miracles in the modern mass". Father Trincado with his Non possums blog, Bishop Faure with his writings and sermons or the future Bishop Dom Thomas, would they be writing articles to justify the miracles of the modern mass? Would they be writing to defend the validity of the modern mass? Would they be writing to justify Bishop Williamson statements regarding going to the modern Mass? Would we be having all this fight against the priests who were opposing?


No; we can not remain silent; we must do something. May the Good God help us out of this swamp, where we were placed by who should have been light, but have only been and sown darkness.


I give you my priestly blessing. In Mary Most Holy.

Father F. Altamira (March 13th, 2016)

_____________




(*) LETTER TO BP. FAURE, FR. PIERRE-MARIE , FR. BRUNO



Bishop Faure,
Father Pierre-Marie,
Father Bruno (coordinator France).



Dear bishop, dear fathers:


I am writing regarding the information which has to do with Bishop Williamson, information I received just over a month ago, before I sent you my other letter.

I'd like to make it clear from the get go that I write with no bad spirit but with a "constructive" spirit. I do it because I think we have a problem on our hands, and if we do not give it a solution, this tiny thing we are (which some call it the Resistance) will eventually disappear and die.


If it is true that these problems exist or that these things happened, we need to do something(!): The Neo-Nazis; (!) Father Bruewieler (Hannover, Germany); Father Jacqmin; Fr. Weber and Fr. González; the priests Weinzierl, Trauner and Zaby; the situation of Fr. XX; Father Ramón Anglés (?); what happened regarding the modern Mass in Canada (and USA); the situation of the faithful in England (London); etc.


I once heard a priest saying something like this: Many superiors in the SSPX do nothing and let things keep going, and then end up worse for not having [done anything] ... I think we should not risk falling into the same [mistake], and this is to help Monsignor [Williamson] himself.



I said in another letter: The problems are already so many that the only "constructive" attitude is not to deny or excuse them, but address them. Perhaps they are the last opportunities Providence gives us to do it. We run the risk of not being honest with ourselves and our faithful.


Our fellow companions from the SSPX (priests, brothers) do not join us, "do not take the step", because they see the problems we have and then they don't think it is reasonable or sensible to join us. I do not know if you can say that maybe this is also happening with the Benedictines of Bellaigue or the Capuchins of Morgon; -there in France- you'll know more about them.


I have the impression, with all these things, Msgr. Fellay is "dying of laughter" because of us.


Dear brothers, please, let us solve these problems.


Cordially I send my greetings. In Mary Most Holy.


Father F. Altamira (Sunday September 6, 2015, Solemnity of St. Pius X)

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? 

QUO VADIS, DOM THOMAS???

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? 

QUO VADIS, DOM THOMAS?

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?

QUO VADIS DOM THOMAS?

"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:

QUO VADIS, DOM THOMAS??? 

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!

Dom Thomas Aquinas vs. Bishop Williamson

By attempting to spread his "speculations" among Dom Thomas Aquina's flock back in 2013 or 2014(?), Bishop Williamson had forced Dom Thomas to interrupt and publicly rebuke him in order to protect the faithful who were presented with the bishop's dangerous ideas.

Transcription in English available at the end.




That was back when Dom Thomas was still seeing things clearly. 

With all due respect, it is a mystery to have Dom Thomas perceiving this speculation of "Benedict having a good will" as a danger deserving of a public interruption and reproach, WHILE, at the same time, overlooking  (and defending!) the more recent and dangerous statements of Bishop Williamson: 

- "Archbishop Lefebvre would publicly say 'stay away' from
the New Mass”; (…) "but I am going to stick my neck out in a long way (…)”

- "I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass"... 

- "The New Mass can be attended with the effect of building your Faith"... 

- "You make your own judgements..."

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

- "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith...”

- "There have been eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass. They are still occurring..."

--------

Since some are prone to believe Bishop Williamson just spews silly words and then "repents" of them, let us look at some recent events to debunk this myth. 

If Bishop Williamson had repented of his words he should have made amendments instead of asking Dom Thomas to remove the video from his 'official' youtube channel... Unfortunately his wish was swiftly granted. Would that be the beginning of Dom Thomas' fall?

In any event, we would like to mention this is not the first time Bishop Williamson is believed to have repented of doing/saying something without apologizing or amending; let us present some other similar episodes:

1. Bishop Williamson has said "he was not proud of having his signature" on those grateful words directed towards Benedict XVI upon the releasing of his Motu Proprio, YET he has not done any amendments which would lead us to believe his repentance was true. As a matter of fact, we have a concrete reason to believe he is not repented at all; otherwise he would not have said --together with his own personal visionary-- the first "Rosary Crusade" were a success. 

*The first "rosary crusade" was a request to free the Traditional Mass, they estimate the endeavor as a success and they credit (blamed, really) Our Lady, along with Benedict XVI as the one who has granted us the Motu Proprio(!).


2. Bishop Williamson has administered Confirmations in the heretical Chapel of the Feeneyites (allegedly without knowing they were Feeneies); upon being informed of this fact he said he was ashamed of it, but no reparation or apology were issued. Someone should let Bishop Williamson know shame is not synonym of repentance. True repentance requires reparation and willingness of not committing it ever again. Shame, by itself, is a sign of pride, as if one were ashamed for being caught, not necessarily for their mistake.

3. Dom Thomas was informed Bishop Williamson was ashamed of the infamous conference.  But instead of apologizing and repairing the mess to some extent, he chose to ask this person to remove the video of circulation and to stop talking about it. Dom Thomas KNOWS about this fact!

Basically, all this mess could have been avoided with a simple acknowlegdement and an apology, but Bishop Williamson is no man of apologies... Well, unless if the ones affected were Benedict XVI and the Jews, that is. 


Anyhow, here we have a reproduction posted on another youtube channel of the episode where Bishop Williamson "charitably speculates" about Benedict XVI's "good will", which prompted a just and necessary rebuke from Dom Thomas.

It is also hard not to notice at the end the very disturbing mockery the Bishop produces in such a serious matter... It reminds me of the "Bloopers" video produced by Fr. Rostand, and that is obviously very unfortunate. People, specially at that time, were suffering immensely, some were losing their faith, others were compromising, some have had break downs, others were hating each other's guts, etc., and that's how Bishop Williamson and Father Rostand were treating the matter... Very telling!

_________

English transcription of the video:

Bishop Williamson: "(...) The heroism is difficult. The heroism is tiresome. And, perhaps, among Traditionalists there is this tiresomeness. They are tired of resisting. I don't know... I don't know. The temptation exists nonetheless. And there hasn't been a clearly resistance regarding this temptation in the past few years. Therefore, how will this all end? I think there's a danger of an agreement before the end of this year. I'm not saying that will be one. I'm not saying that will be one. But I do say there is a danger there will be one. In other words: the Pope wants to make sure, before dying, the religion of his childhood is compatible, that it does not contradict the religion it has been promoted from his seminary. He wants the assurance they are reconcilable. That they do not contradict each other, so he can die with a clean conscience.
I think this might be how pope is reasoning: he's looking to have a clean conscience before dying. And if the SSPX reaches an agreement with the council, the Pope will personally have some peace of mind. It is just my speculation. It is not relevant. But it is possible this is the reason why the Pope wants a deal quickly."

Dom Thomas: But the Pope is smart...

Bishop Williamson: Yes...

Dom Thomas: He knows that if the SSPX comes to them they (SSPX) will accept the Council

Bishop Williamson: Yes!

Dom Thomas: And they (SSPX) will cease to be the Tradition...

Bishop Williamson: Yes!

Dom Thomas: So, It's confusing. There won't be Tradition anymore...

Bishop Williamson: Yes! Yes! Sure. The good will of the Pope towards Tradition could be a calculation...

Dom Thomas: I do not know if would be a calculation. But he's smart enough to know Bishop Fellay will change...

Bishop Williamson: Yes...

Dom Thomas: That the Society (SSPX) will change...

Bishop Williamson: Yes...

Dom Thomas: It is not a contradiction with the religion of his childhood. It is not a reunion with the religion of his childhood, It is an adapted religion.

Bishop Williamson: Who knows? It is my speculation.

It is true that the Pope may have a nobler motivation, to break down the resistance of Tradition, that is. It is perhaps a little more cynical to think that way, but for the modernists this is normal for sure.

Normally, the modernists want to absolutely dissolve the resistance of Tradition. And this may be the main motivation of the Pope. Yes, it can be. God knows. We don't know.

I was speculating in a charitable manner towards the Pope, saying he wants...

For I am gentle... I am emotional... I'm loving... I'm not hard... I'm not terrible as people say... Ah Ah Ah.

No one understands me... Nobody loves me... Ahhhhh...

I don't give a [cucumber] damn!

Attendance at the New Mass? (Dominicans of Avrillé)

Is it permitted to take part in the New Mass?


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.

How can a valid Mass displease God?


Even a sacrilegious Mass celebrated by an apostate priest to mock Christ can be valid. It is however evident that it offends God, and it would not be permitted to take part in it. In the same way, the Mass of a Greek Schismatic (valid and celebrated according a venerable rite) displeases God insofar as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and to the unique Church of Christ.

Can one attend the New Mass however when it is celebrated in a worthy and pious manner by a Catholic priest with a faith that is absolutely certain?


It is not the celebrant who is called into question, but the rite that he is using. It is unfortunately a fact that the new rite has given very many Catholics a false notion of the Mass, which is closer to that of the protestant last supper than that of the Holy Sacrifice. The new Mass is one of the principal sources of the current crises of the faith. It is therefore imperative that we distance ourselves from it.

Can one assist at the new Mass in certain circumstances?


We must apply to the new Mass the same rules we use for the attendance at a non-Catholic ceremony. One can be present for family or professional reasons, but one behaves passively, and especially does not receive Holy Communion.

What can one do when it is not possible to assist every Sunday a traditional Mass?


Whoever does not have the possibility to assist at a traditional Mass is excused from the Sunday obligation. The precept of the Sunday obligation only obliges in the case of a true Catholic Mass. One must however, in this case strive to assist at a traditional Mass at least regular intervals. What’s more, even if one is thus dispensed from assistance at Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not thus so for the commandment of God (“Thou shalt sanctify the Day of the Lord”). One must replace, by one manner or another this Mass which one cannot have, with for example the reading of the text in one’s missal, and uniting the intention, during the time of the Mass to a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and in practicing a spiritual communion.

(Directly translated from “Catéchisme catholique de la crise dans l’Église” [“Catholic Catechism of the crisis in the Church” by Fr Matthias Gaudron SSPX; French translation, subdivisions and revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé.]

=========================
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/attendance-at-the-new-mass/