Pascendi exposes Modernist [and False Resistance] tactics

[Stone]

Fr. Hewko pointing out the modernism within the False Resistance bishops and priests: 

A reminder of what the False Resistance advocates:


From The Recusant: 

Fake Resistance Watch

Which of the following statements is acceptable to you?

The following are in no particular order. Every one of them is propagated today by the fake neo-Resistance.

Some slight editing has been necessary in order to make the meaning more clear, but the meaning has not been altered - read the exact wording and see for yourself!

· The new religion can build your Faith. (1)

· Attending the New Mass can build your Faith. (2)

· Do whatever you think you need to do to keep the Faith, which can include attending the Novus Ordo Mass. (3)

· If you attend the Novus Ordo Mass you have to be careful, but you can find the grace of God there and sanctify your soul. (4)

· Not everyone needs to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass. (5)

· Attending the Novus Ordo may do more good than harm spiritually. (6)

· Not every priest needs to leave the Conciliar church or stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass. (7)

· The Novus Ordo Mass does not always undermine the Faith, though frequently it does. (8)

· The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is that it is ambiguous. It can be made to favour the new religion, but does not have to, it can also be done in line with the old religion. (9)

· The problem with Vatican II is that it is ambiguous. (10)

· By distancing yourself from the Conciliar church, you are putting yourself in danger and risk becoming a Pharisee who is disconnected from reality. (11)

· We must accept the supposed ‘Eucharistic miracles’ of the Novus Ordo Mass as genuine. (12)

· The Eucharistic miracles of the Novus Ordo Mass have lessons for Traditional Catholics, one of which is that the Novus Ordo Mass doesn’t always have to be avoided. (13)

· The Novus Ordo Mass is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but it is still better than nothing. (14)

· If I support the Resistance, it doesn’t mean I’m against the neo-SSPX. I have no intention of doing anything against the neo-SSPX. I don’t want the neo-SSPX to collapse. We should support the good priests still inside the neo-SSPX, though we can also support priest who left as well. (15)

· There might be salvation outside the Conciliar church. (16)

· At Vatican II, the liberals tried to introduce novelty and false teaching, but their attempt was silenced by good men. After the Council, the liberals somehow got into key positions in the Church, and that’s why there is now a new orientation in the Church. (17)

· Archbishop Lefebvre resisted the new orientation which came about after the Council. But he also desired to re-establish union with the Vicar of Christ as soon as possible. That is what he stood for more than anything else. (18)

· There’s still something Catholic in the Conciliar church, so it’s wrong for us to reject it completely. (19)

· Congregations and seminaries are not needed today. They are outdated. God does not want there to be a structure or congregation for the Resistance. (20)

· Seminarians who are ready for ordination should not be ordained, because there is no structure or congregation for them to be ordained into. (21)

· We shouldn’t try to get priests to work together. It’s bound to fail, so it’s better not to attempt it at all. (22)

· People who disagree with or criticise Bishop Williamson should not be made welcome. Priests who disagree with or criticise Bishop Williamson should not be received and the faithful should not go to their Mass. Criticising Bishop Williamson has consequences. (23)

…if the answer is “none of the above”, then you can be happy: you have not fallen for the modernist propaganda and changed with the times.

You are, however, in opposition to Bishop Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, the Dominicans of Avrillé and Dom Tomas Aquinas.

Concordance of Sources:

(1, 2, 3 & 4) – Bp. Williamson, conference in Mahopac, New York, USA, 28th June 2015 (video publicly viewable on ‘youtube’):

Question: “Bishop I go to the Latin Mass on Sundays and … during the week I go to a Novus Ordo Mass.”
Bp. Williamson: “While the new religion is false, it’s dangerous, it strangles grace and it’s helping many people to lose the Faith: at the same time, there are still cases where it can be used and is used still to build the Faith … The essential principle is: do whatever you need to do to keep the Faith. … There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s Faith instead of losing it. … Be very careful with the Novus Ordo … But, exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.”

(5 & 6) - Mahopac, New York (as above):
“Therefore I will not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass. If they can trust their own judgement that attending this [Novus Ordo] Mass will do more good than harm spiritually … [shrug] … The rule of thumb is and will remain: stay away from the Novus Ordo Mass. But, exceptionally - the wise thing would probably be to say in private to this or that person, but here I am saying it in public, that may be foolish …”

(7) – Bp. Williamson, conference in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada, 5th November 2014 (video publicly viewable on ‘youtube’):
“I do not say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!’ ”
[If not every priest “in the Novus Ordo” has to “get out”, what that means exactly will depend on what is meant by “in the Novus Ordo”. It could refer to the Novus Ordo Mass or it could be shorthand for the conciliar church. Therefore, not every priest must either a) stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass, or b) leave the conciliar church. Or both.]

(8, 9 & 10) - Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’, #437, 30th November 2015:
“The Novus Ordo Mass, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church … Doctrinally, the Novus Ordo Mass is ambiguous, poised between the religion of God and the Conciliar religion of man. Now in matters of faith, ambiguity is deadly, being normally designed to undermine the Faith, as the Novus Ordo Mass frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the Novus Ordo Mass does not absolutely exclude the old religion.”

AND

(10) Fr. Zendejas, ‘Blue Paper’ newsletter, #300, November 2015:
“Hence, the apparent conflict between ‘obedience’ and Truth rests on AMBIGUITY. For instance, at the time of Vatican II there were those ambiguous terms, which could be understood in one way by Catholics and in another (contradictory) way by Modernists”

(11) Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 5th December 2015:
“Therefore the NOM and the Novus Ordo Church as a whole are dangerous for the Faith, and Catholics are right who have clung to Tradition to avoid the danger. But as they have had to put a distance between themselves and the mainstream Church, so they have exposed themselves to the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality.”

(12) Eleison Comments #437 (as above):
“Facts are stubborn - as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research... But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008. And a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic.”

(13) ‘Eleison Comments’ #438 (as above):
“However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition … ”

Bp. Williamson, email quoted from ‘Catholic Candle’, December 2015 issue:
“On the Internet can be found cases of Eucharistic miracles involving the Novus Ordo Mass .... How would this be possible if the Novus Ordo Mass was absolutely to be avoided?”

(14) ‘Eleison Comments’ #437 (as above):
“So does it not make sense that in punishment of their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward of their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass?”

‘Eleison Comments’ #438 (as above):
“...while since the 1960’s a mass of Catholic sheep have become too worldly to deserve to keep the true rite of Mass, [yet] they have loved the Mass enough not to lose it altogether.”

“The Novus Ordo Mass may have been allowed by God to make it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith if they wanted to, but not impossible to keep it if they wanted to.”

(15) - Avrillé Dominicans, “The Friary’s Position”, July 2015 (publicly visible at: www.dominicansavrille.us/the-friarys-position):

“We support therefore all the priests still in the SSPX who, not without difficulty, continue the good fight in this spirit. By the grace of God, there are a good number of them, especially in the French District of the Society.”
“If there are priests outside of the Society who, clearly and without ambiguity, continue the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, there is no reason not to support them. To support them does not mean “taking sides” for one Society against another.”
“The ‘Appeal to the Faithful’ of January 2014 was not a declaration of rupture with the SSPX.”
“We have no intention to do anything “against” the Society, and do not wish its collapse: nobody wants that.”

(16) Fr. Zendejas, ‘Blue Paper’ newsletter, #300, November 2015:
“If there could be salvation outside the Conciliar Church, then is there salvation ‘outside the SSPX’ or other traditionalist groups?”

(17) Fr. Zendejas, ‘Blue Paper’ (as above):
“In the days of the Council, the teaching of novelties about humanism (man-centered Church) were opposed and then silenced by more or less honest means and men, but adherents thereof have since been installed in key positions of power during the post-Conciliar period…”

(18) Fr. Zendejas, ‘Blue Paper’ (as above):
“He [Lefebvre] continued to act ‘within the Church and according to the Church,’ resisting the new ecclesiastical tide… Thus, he resisted the Post-Vatican II ecclesiastical orientation (religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality), in order to remain in the one Church of Jesus Christ … and desiring - in spite of many disappointments - that union with the Vicar of Christ can be re-established as soon as possible without having to compromise on any point of doctrine. No matter what, this is what he stood for!”

(19) Bp. Williamson, Eleison Comments #447 – see separate article in this issue.

(20) Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #278:
“It is not clear that the present need is to rebuild a classic Congregation or Seminary. Both may be somehow out-dated. … But God is God, and for the salvation of souls tomorrow it may be that he will no longer resort to the classical Congregation or seminary of yesterday.”

(21) Bp. Williamson, letter to Fr. John Bosco - see separate article in this issue.

(22) Bp. Williamson, Post Falls, ID (USA), 1st June, 2014:
“Even if all the laity want to obey me, even if all the priests want to obey me, […] can you imagine that commanding resistant priests is like trying to herd cats? Can you imagine, is it unimaginable? In which case, is it worth trying if it’s bound to fail? It may be better not to attempt than to attempt and fail…”

(23) Letter of Dom Tomas Aquinas to Fr. Cardozo. “Criticising Bishop Williamson has consequences” is word-for-word his own expression.