Monday, December 28, 2015

What To Do When You're Home Alone--But Not By Choice

"Home Aloners" is the name given to those misguided souls who think that because of a lack of Ordinary jurisdiction in a time of sedevacante, they must stay "home alone" and cannot attend Mass with Traditionalist priests. It's like a spiritual rerun of the 1990 movie "Home Alone" minus the joyful conclusion. I've written on that subject before, especially in regards to the teachings of former Protestant minister turned Feeneyite Home-Aloner, Gerry Matatics. (See my post of 4/8/13)

 My purpose in this post is to address the concerns of my readers who, for reasons beyond their control, do not have access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel. Such people would love to attend a real Mass and associate with fellow Traditionalists, but cannot due to distance, infirmity, etc. These Traditionalists, dear to Our Lord, find themselves "home alone" and  don't want to be. I will discuss the options for such people, so they can make their Traditionalist Catholic way as best possible in this world gone mad during the Great Apostasy. I wish to credit and acknowledge the ideas of Fr. Anthony Cekada and Bp. Daniel Dolan, who have written on this topic before. I have taken from their ideas and have added my own.

  •  The Morality of Staying Home on Sundays and Holy Days
According to theologian Jone,  "Any moderately grave reason suffices to excuse one from attendance at Holy Mass, such as considerable hardship or corporal or spiritual harm either to oneself or another." Therefore, those who would be excused include: the sick, convalescents, those that have a long way to church, people hindered by the duties of their state (e.g. policemen on duty, etc), those who care for the sick, etc. (See Moral Theology, The Neumann Press, Maryland, [1962] pgs. 125-126).

  • Consecrate Your Home to The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Most Immaculate Heart of Mary
 Set up a home "altar" placing on it blessed statues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Include your patron saints too. Have blessed candles when you pray there. How do you get them blessed? You can buy them online and arrange to have them mailed (with return shipping and boxes provided) to a Traditionalist priest that will perform the proper blessing and mail it back to you. You can ask them to send Holy Water and blessed candles, which most will gladly do for a nominal fee.  Perform the Enthronement ceremony to make the Sacred Heart of Jesus the King of your home.(Copies of the ceremony can be obtained from most Traditionalist priests either free or for a nominal fee) This is a good place for you and your family to gather for prayer; especially on Sundays and Holy Days.

  • Make the Most of Sacramentals
 The Church has many sacramentals, most of which are not used as frequently by the faithful as they should. Besides statues and crucifixes, how many of you use: Chaplets (a great way to engender different devotions throughout the year), St. Benedict medal (and Crucifix-Medal), the Cords of St. Joseph, St Francis of Assisi, and St. Philomena, the Five Fold Scapular, the Green Scapular, St. Joseph Oil, St. Philomena Oil, The Pardon Crucifix, etc. Pray the Rosary.

  • Use the Breviary (in English or Latin) and follow the Proper of the Mass
Use of the Breviary and reading the Proper of the Sunday Mass, followed by the Rosary is a great way to Keep Holy the Sabbath. You may want to read and meditate on Fr. Goffine's Devout Instructions on the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays and Holy Days.

  • Follow Mass on the Internet or DVD
 You can follow a live Mass via Internet or by DVD. There is a great DVD put out by the CMRI.

  • Use Social Media to Fellowship with other Traditionalists
 While 34% of the websites are pornographic, and a good percentage more are spreading evils and errors, we can still make good use of technology., is a way you can start a group of Traditionalists seeking to know the Faith and live it. Perhaps you can "meet up" on Sundays at someone's house to pray together and learn the Faith. Remember 1 Peter 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." With all the attacks on religion from the "new atheists," to attacks on Traditionalists in particular, it is important to know your Faith. I suggest reading theologian Ott's one volume Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Then proceed, slowly but surely, through the 12 volume work on dogmatic theology by theologian Joseph Pohle. You can study together.

 Twitter is another way to meet Traditionalists (I'm on it too). Read good websites and blogs. The two best out there are "Novus Ordo Watch" and "Daily" I would caution you to stay off "Catholic" Internet chat sites where there is much disinformation, misinformation, and even heresy. People will often chat with the intention of controversy for the sake of controversy. There are good points, but unless you are both firmly grounded and strong in the Faith, please avoid them.

  • Get a Traditionalist Priest to visit you or even start a chapel
 If you are successful in starting a Traditionalist group in your area, as I described above, perhaps you could get a priest to come out with a portable altar once a month to offer Mass and hear Confessions! If you all chip in for his travel expenses and give him lodging and a stipend, chances are you will get one. Make sure he is reputable, properly trained, validly ordained, and not in union with the Vatican II sect. If enough of you come together, you might even eventually be able to build a chapel. This was done in New Jersey by the congregation following the late, great Fr. Paul Wickens, whom I  knew personally.

  Lastly, thank God for the gift of the Integral Catholic Faith, without which no one gets to Heaven. Offer up your spiritual suffering for the conversion of sinners. I hope this post has provided those of you who are in this situation with good ideas, and given you hope. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw, used to say, "Any true priest who offers the real Mass, even if I never met him, I consider that priest my friend in Christ." In similar fashion, I say to all my Traditionalist readers that I consider you my friends in Christ. I remember you all at the Most Holy Sacrifice every Sunday and Holy Day, and in my daily Rosary. There are not many of us, so let's do well to remember the words of Galatians 6:10, "So then, as we have occasion, let us do good towards all, and especially towards those of the household of faith."

Monday, December 21, 2015


 "Pope" Francis has announced that Mother Teresa, who founded the Missionaries of Charity and became famous for her work among the poor and dying in India, would be declared a "saint" in 2016. Without doubt, Mother Teresa performed many good works and is a great humanitarian. However, people lose sight of what Catholic sainthood is really all about. Mother Teresa, born Anjeze Gonxhe Bojaxhiu in Albania, 1910, was credited as healing a Brazilian man of multiple brain tumors, the second miracle necessary under the new rules of the Vatican II sect for "sainthood." To be a true canonized saint, one must profess the Integral Catholic Faith, and be worthy of emulation for heroic virtue. It is not enough that someone was "good" according to worldly standards, or even made it to Heaven.

 In the absence of a true pope, no one can be canonized. Given the good work she did (including her strong pro-life stand), I certainly hope that Mother Teresa made it to Heaven. "But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8). However, she gives good cover for Frankie's sect, which declares "atheists can go to Heaven" as long as one is "good." "Good" in their sense means "nice" and only concerned with the things of this world--an exaltation of the Corporal Works of Mercy over the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

 There was an eye-opening book written in 2007 entitled, Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause by Mark Michael Zima. This well-researched book raises three serious problems with the nun: 1. Statements that teach the error of Indifferentism; 2. practicing invalid Baptisms stemming from a wrongful "respect" for  false sects; and 3. seeming doubts about the existence of God and other statements which suggest universal salvation.

  •  Indifferentism
Mother Teresa is quoted as saying, "Some call him Allah, some simply God. But we all have to acknowledge that it is he (sic) who made us for the greater things: to love and be loved."  God is not the false moon "god' named "Allah." God created us to know, love, and serve Him in this life, and to be eternally happy with Him in the next.

In another disturbing quote, she claimed her purpose was not to convert others but to "to make the Christian the better Christian, the Muslim a better Muslim, and a Hindu a better Hindu." Addressing the Masonic United Nations in 1985, she said, "No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us. We are all children of God." (Emphasis mine) The purpose of a Catholic religious is to convert others to the One True Church of Christ, not to entrench others in their errors. A better Mohammedan makes for a worse person. And while it is true that God created all humans, we are not all His children. God Wills all to be saved, but He does not force Himself on us. Those who reject Him, are not His "children," anymore than non-Jews before the coming of Christ could be called His "chosen people."

  • Invalid Baptisms
According to Zima, the policy of Mother Teresa and her nuns was to ask those who were about to die "if they want a blessing by which their sins will be forgiven and they will see God." Most replied "yes," and the nuns would put a wet cloth on their heads and quietly recite the form of baptism.

Serious theological problems: (a) Asking an adult for a "blessing" that will "forgive sins" and allow them to "see God." According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "Since the promulgation of the Gospel, it is also necessary as a means that one believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. For he who does not accept these, does not accept the Gospel, whereas Christ says: 'Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth not shall be condemned.' (St. Mark 16: 15, 16)"
This is the more probable opinion. (See Moral Theology, A Complete Course, Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1929, 1: 290)  Furthermore, baptism is to be denied "when it is certain that the dying person is substantially ignorant of the Trinity and Incarnation through his own fault, and is unwilling to hear about them." (Ibid, 1: 293). Why weren't the nuns giving proper instruction? If the dying refuses to so be instructed, baptism must be denied. This alone is a travesty and casts serious doubts on validity.

(b) Placing a wet cloth on the head and reciting the form of baptism in a quiet voice. According to theologian Prummer, baptism requires as the remote matter pure and natural water. The proximate matter is the application of the water "by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring." Furthermore, it must be administered "in such a way that in the common estimation of men an ablution has been performed." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, 1957, pg. 253). Placing a wet cloth on the head is not immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, and it most certainly does not appear to be an ablution or cleansing.

  • Doubts about God and Universal Salvation
According to Protestant minister Sid Burgess, "Thus, it came as quite a shock to the world to learn that for nearly 50 years, Mother Teresa privately experienced doubts over her religious beliefs--doubts which apparently continued until the end of her life. According to the editor of her private papers, who is also the church official directing efforts to have Mother Teresa declared a saint, there were times when 'she felt no presence of God whatsoever,' 'neither in her heart nor in the Eucharist.'" (See True, there are saints who experienced a "dryness of the soul" aka, "the dark night of the soul," but not pervasively until the end of life.

She is reported as telling those in her care that, "we will meet all our friends and family members who died before us in Heaven" regardless of their beliefs. She also told non-Catholics, "You could replace Jesus by God if you are not a Christian." She forgets "Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him this man standeth here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (See Acts 4: 9-13; Emphasis mine).

 Lastly, there's doubts as to the first alleged "miracle" being used for her "canonization." It involved the cure of a young Indian woman, Monica Besra, who claimed that a tumor on her ovary was cured when a medal of Mother Teresa was touched to her body where she felt pain.  Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, the chief gynecologist treating her, claims that it was the four drugs to which she was responding. The Vatican never contacted Dr. Mustafi to investigate, and nevertheless claimed "there was no medical explanation" for her cure.

 Mother Teresa was a great humanitarian. She helped alleviate much human suffering. Unfortunately, she did not preach Christ and His One True Church as the antidote to eternal suffering. As Our Lord said, "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?" (St. Matthew 16: 26)


Monday, December 14, 2015

Heretics Anonymous

 My spiritual father, the late, great Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, the first Traditionalist and a peritus (i.e. "theological expert") at the Second Vatican Council, fought the Modernists alongside Bishop Blaise Kurz and Cardinal Ottaviani. He founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964. When I had inquired as to how the vast majority of prelates could have apostatized at Vatican II, his answer was clear and to the point: "They didn't become bums overnight." Truer words were never spoken. Many Traditionalists think all was dandy prior to the Council (1962) or at least prior to the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

 The "synthesis of all heresies," Modernism, had been brewing for quite some time. Thanks to the efforts of the ecclesiastical giant, Pope St. Pius X, they were driven "underground," but had certainly not been eradicated. They were crafty and cunning, like their master Satan, waiting for  an opportune moment to strike. They did all they could to influence members of the hierarchy with the false teachings and principles of Modernism. One such wolf in sheep's clothing was arch-heretic Fr. Karl Rahner. Few people realize he was called the "mind of Vatican II" and was a driving force behind ecumenism; especially the idea of universal salvation. Few people have heard of this man, and still fewer realize the impact he had on both the creation of the Vatican II  sect as well as the Fenneyite reaction spawned by his pernicious ideas. I thought I would write this post for the benefit of all of us who need to remember the axiom "Know Thy Enemy."

Rahner's Beginnings

  Karl Rahner was born on March 5, 1904, in Freiberg, Germany. He was ordained a Jesuit on July 26, 1932. In the twentieth century (beginning in the late 1930s), Rahner, along with theologians  Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI) began a Neo-Modernist movement that despised the Neo-Scholasticism which had served the Church so well. The movement was called "Nouvelle Theologie" (French for "New Theology") by the great anti-Modernist theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, often pejoratively called "the sacred monster of Thomism" by his enemies because of his love of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his hatred of Modernism.

 In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a scathing criticism of the movement (which liked to call itself  ressourcement ---"return to the sources"), because they claimed they were "returning to patristic thought." Garrigou-Lagrange demonstrated that the theologians of the movement did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own, and a disguised resurgence of Modernism. In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded with his great encyclical Humani Generis which condemned many of their errors, such as rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout Church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (principally Pope Leo XIII).

Rahner's "Anonymous Christians" and Vatican II

 Almost all the theologians of the "new theology" were under suspicion of Modernism by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottavianni. Rahner was no exception. Before the death of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani tried unsuccessfully three times to convince the ailing Pontiff to have him excommunicated. In November 1962, "Pope" John XXIII appointed Rahner as a peritus at Vatican II. The heretic Rahner thus had complete access to the Council and numerous opportunities to share his heresy with the bishops.  Rahner's influence at Vatican II was widespread, and he was subsequently chosen as one of seven theologians who would develop Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which created the Vatican II sect with its damnable new ecclesiology. The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, but it is a separate entity which "subsists in" the Catholic Church, as well as false sects. 

 From this false notion of the Church came Rahner's most infamous heresy, that of the "anonymous Christian." According to Rahner:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity… Let us say, a Buddhist monk… who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." (Karl Rahner in Dialogue, p. 135)

This was encoded in the heretical Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church, citing Lumen Gentium:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, New York: Doubleday, 1995, nos. 839-848)

We DO NOT adore the false "god" of the Mohammedans---"Allah."

In the document Dominus Iesus (2000) written by Ratzinger and (falsely) hailed by "conservative" Vatican II sect members as a "reaffirmation" of the Catholic Church as the One True Church, is really just full of more Rahner-inspired heresy:

"Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself  in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, "does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'". Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain."

In other words, false sects and their false books/teachings, merely have "gaps, insufficiencies, and errors," and yet contain "elements of goodness and grace" from the "mystery of Christ" which will "nourish and direct" the existence of their followers. According to the concept of Anonymous Christianity, the "Mystery of Christ" is contained in varying degrees in non-Catholic religions. Therefore, salvation is also available in those other (false) religions.

This document ostensibly affirms Catholicism as the only way of salvation. However, it also locates Jesus (albeit imperfectly) in other sects, including those that do not even reconize jesus Christ as God. They deny Jesus (Judaism), call him a mere prophet (Islam), an ascended master (Buddhism), or know nothing of him (voodoo, Wicca,  animism, etc.). These other concepts of Jesus are not merely imperfect revelations of Jesus, but are, in fact, various forms of denying Jesus Christ.

 You can see how the Fenneyites began. It was a reaction to the heretics of the "New Theology," teaching that "Baptism of Desire" (BOD) covers anyone. It was a false and distorted (heretical) notion of BOD to which Leonard Feeney was reacting. This led him into the heresy of denying BOD and BOB, even when properly understood, by going to false and exaggerated extremes to defend the truth "No Salvation Outside The Church."

Rahner in his own heretical words

The following quotes are all taken from the book, Karl Rahner in Dialogue his words in red:

How would you characterize the neo-scholastic theology before the Second Vatican Council?

Rahner: It had "a kind of defensive mentality, a certain defensive turning of the Church in on itself against the world… The Church certainly had great missionary success, but in fact only by exporting Western European Christianity to all the world… I also believe that one can say that neo-scholastic philosophy and theology, for all their accomplishments, are quite passé today."

So do you believe that the Holy Spirit works through other religions?

Rahner: "Certainly."

What do you think about the question of the ordination of women?

Rahner: "When the Vatican declaration against the ordination of women (even in the future) came out a few years back, I published an article saying that it failed to convince me. (Of course, it was not an infallible definition). Rome is digging in its heels, it seems to me, against the development that one ought to admit calmly might not be a bad thing."

What about clerical celibacy?

Rahner: "The obligation of the Church to provide sufficient clergy is of divine right and takes precedence over the ecclesiastically desirable law of celibacy. If, in practice, you cannot obtain a sufficient number of priests in a given cultural setting without relinquishing celibacy, then the Church must suspend the law of celibacy, at least there."

There you have it folks. A rabid heretic preaching universal salvation. He died in 1984, just after his 80th birthday. I wince when I think of the most probable fate of his soul, and the millions he has helped lead to Hell.

 In today's world there is no more sin and no more character flaws. There are only "addictions" and "sicknesses" which compel behavior. Hence, when former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught frequenting prostitutes, he wasn't an adulterous sinner in need of repentance, he was a "sex addict." He went to "Sex Addicts Anonymous" and was nearly elected NYC Comptroller only five years later. People seem to take pity and love a poor "victim." You can now be an out-and out sleeze-bag, and be loved in spite of it if you claim a compulsion.

Perhaps the Vatican II sect can go beyond their "anonymous Christians" and start a "Heretics Anonymous" group so they don't need to pretend they are Catholic anymore. I can just imagine the first meeting. An old guy in a white cassock gets up and says, "My name is Jorge, and I'm a heretic." To which the worldly people will respond, "We love you anyway, Jorge."

Monday, December 7, 2015

Bishop Williamson's "Novus Miracle"

 Just when you think Bp. Richard Williamson, the expelled prelate formerly of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), can't get any more confused in his thinking, he's right there to prove you wrong. His last couple of e-letters (entitled Eleison Comments) seek to prove the Vatican II sect is the True Church by citing alleged "Eucharistic Miracles" produced by the Novus Bogus "mass." He links to a video about a "miracle" that happened in 1996 at a Vatican II service in Argentina (home of false "Pope" Francis). The host is supposed to have changed to real human flesh.

 In summation, Bp. Williamson attempts to "prove:"
  • God works Eucharistic miracles to strengthen the Faith in so sublime a mystery as the Real Presence, and to remind people of the reverence due the Sacred Species. Due to the lack of belief in the Real Presence and the profanation of the "host" at the Novus Bogus, we should be wondering why God hasn't performed more of these miracles (!) To his credit, Bp. Williamson does say, at least in one of his missives, "if this (event) is true." However, he certainly seems to think it really took place.
  • Not all Vatican II "masses" are invalid
  • Not all Vatican II priestly "ordinations" and episcopal "consecrations" are invalid
  • Catholics became to worldly to keep the Mass, but loved it too much to lose it completely (whatever this invented idea is supposed to mean)
  • The Novus Bogus is "bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts" so a Eucharistic miracle can happen 
This unsubstantiated nonsense makes one wonder how the website "Traditio" can refer to Williamson as "intelligent."  I shall set forth the Church's teaching on miracles and how it applies in the instant case.

1. Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

Proof: From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

 "Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time."

From the Vatican Council (1870):

"If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema." 

2. While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

Proof: Many events thought to be miraculous were denied as such by the Magisterium of the Church prior to the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II. 

  • Many people claimed that they saw the statue of Our Lady of Assisi move and smile. (1948) The Church later declared there was no apparition of Our Lady in Assisi, and no miraculous events.
  • There are people hundreds of years into the canonization process as of  1958 (death of Pope Pius XII) whose alleged miracles were never confirmed despite large numbers of witnesses.
  • Theresa Neumann (d. 1962) was alleged to have survived only on the Eucharist for 30 years, and claimed the stigmata. The Church has never confirmed nor denied these miraculous claims which were investigated beginning in 1928.

 3. Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology,Desclee Company, 1959, 1:40-45)

In Exodus 7: 8-13, we read:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." (Emphasis mine).


   Bp. Williamson wants us to believe that there is a partially defective hierarchy, with a partially defective "mass" and sacraments, replete with partially heretical teachings. God will then attest to this mishmash by performing Eucharistic miracles. 

Salient problems:
  • In the absence of a pope and hierarchy, we can't give credence to any alleged miracles. However, given Williamson's assertions, if they were miracles, to what would God be attesting? Is He showing that this particular priest can confect the Eucharist? This particular way of using the Novus Bogus is valid?  After all, if it is "partly good, partly bad, and bad as a whole" wouldn't God be attesting to something that is "bad as a whole?"
  • Who discerns which priests and bishops are the valid ones? Bp. Williamson? His episcopal buddy, Bp. Faure? Do we simply wait for confirmation by way of miracle?
  • If the Vatican II sect's "sacrament" of Holy Orders is only invalid sometimes, what makes it so? The form and intention have been rendered substantially defective. How does a valid priest or bishop "slip in through the cracks"? again, who decides which ones are valid? The SSPX claims Francis as "pope," yet they have been acting as an "Uber-Magisterium" for years by "reviewing" Vatican II sect annulments and deciding which ones they got correct. Perhaps Williamson could do the same for Vatican II "priests" and "bishops." 
  • The only valid episcopal consecration in the Vatican II sect since 1968 (of which I am aware) took place in 2002. The Society of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil defected to the Vatican II sect, betraying their holy founder, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. All the priests of the Society had been validly ordained to the priesthood in the traditional rite of the Church by Bishop de Castro Mayer (himself having been consecrated by order of Pope Pius XII in 1948). Fr. Licinio Rangel was chosen to replace Bp. de Castro Mayer when the bishop passed, and was consecrated in the traditional rite by Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX as principal consecrator (Bps. Alphonso de Galaretta and Richard Williamson as co-consecrators), on July 28, 1991. After they apostatized, Wotyla (John Paul II) allowed Bp. Rangel to choose a successor. He picked Fr. Fernando Rifan, of the Society. On August 18, 2002, the traditional rite of episcopal consecration was used. Despite the fact "Cardinal" Dario Castrillon Hoyos (principal consecrator) and "Archbishop" Alano Maria Pena (co-consecrator) were themselves invalidly consecrated, Bp. Rangel was a true bishop and second co-consecrator.  Hence, Rifan's consecration was valid through the episcopal lineage of Rangel. Notice how my conclusion is based on solid principles of theology applied to the facts. Bp. Williamson gets his theory from....well, any place BUT Catholic theology applied to the facts. 

The heresy of Modernism produces no miracles; it even eschews the very notion of such. The fact that Bp. Williamson can claim alleged "Eucharistic miracles" in defense of a partially evil "mass" means he is a heretic that believes that the Church can defect and give that which is evil.  As theologian Van Noort teaches:
"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115; Emphasis in original)

 The "church" of Richard Williamson has some valid "masses" and some invalid. Some valid priests and bishops, some invalid. And which is which, well, nobody knows! Maybe someday Bp. Williamson will come to his senses, and apply real Catholic theology and principles to the facts at hand to come to the correct conclusion of sedevacantism. Then again, I'm starting to believe that would take a real miracle