New Radio Show — Listen Free

III: Intentional Irreverence – The New Mass (1)


Isn’t it time you too headed for the exit?


Restoration Radio’s new show “Escape from the Novus Ordo” returns with Fr. Michael Oswalt, a former Novus Ordo “priest” of the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, who converted to traditional Catholicism (sedevacantism) and was ordained a true priest in 2011. He has penned an open letter to his former diocese of Rockford, Illinois, in which he explains why he left the Novus Ordo religion. The letter is available in English and Spanish:

Born in 1972, no one is a better fit than Fr. Oswalt to help you see the errors of the Vatican II Church (aka Novus Ordo Sect) and advise you on how to exit this false establishment and become a real Catholic, that is, someone who is Catholic in the same way everyone was Catholic until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 (just before the Second Vatican Council). Fr. Oswalt currently serves as the pastor of St. Benedict Catholic Church in Huntsville, Alabama. 

Novus Ordo Watch is pleased to be the sponsor for Escape from the Novus Ordo throughout this year, which means you will be able to listen to all episodes of this program in 2015 free of charge, without having to have a subscription to Restoration Radio.

Listen on Demand at any time, FREE:

In page that appears, scroll down to where it says “Podcast Player”
and click to play or download to your computer.

Show Description:

If you attend the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI), are you worshiping God or man? How is the “Mass” you are attending forming your beliefs? Our actions bespoke what we believe. How is it that the changes that Martin Luther made to the Traditional Mass were the same changes made after Vatican II to create the New Mass?

Have you finally awakened to the reality that the Novus Ordo Sect is not the Catholic Church? How do you now, armed with the knowledge of Roman Catholicism, escape the impostor religion? This month on Escape from the Novus Ordo, Father Michael Oswalt reflects on his experiences with the Novus Ordo Missae in the Vatican II Church.

Join Fr. Michael Oswalt and host Jason Guardiano as they discuss the Traditional Latin Mass versus the Modern “Mass” of a Novus Ordo parish.


This mockery of our Redemption would have never been possible without the Second Vatican Council and the new religion that it produced

As Novus Ordo Watch is sponsoring the entire first season of
Escape from the Novus Ordo, we are no longer sponsoring the ongoing Francis Watch broadcasts.

Other select Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:

Contribution to a discussion...

The Poison of the Novus Ordo “Mass”: Catholic Theology refutes Neo-Trad Bloggers


Novus Ordo Missae: The Modernist Worship Service in Action

If you want to have a stellar example of the warped theology and mental gymnastics you have to embrace in Neo-Traditionalist Wonderland, look no further than the issues being discussed by Mundabor and Louie Verrecchio on whether the “New Mass” (
Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI) is evil and/or sinful to attend. There we have two individuals who use Catholic principles very selectively and/or turn a blind eye to what is right in front of them, in order not to have to embrace that which would otherwise follow necessarily: Sedevacantism. 

Here are the posts of the discussion in chronological order — you may want to read them before continuing with our critique below:

Why does it not occur to these individuals to begin with true premises, based on Catholic principles and known empirical facts, and then draw whatever conclusion follows? In the case of Mundabor, an anonymous English blogger who is explicitly anti-sedevacantist, we know that he will reject, a priori, any set of premises that leads to the conclusion that Francis isn’t a valid Pope. This cart-before-the-horse mentality is, alas, all too common among Neo-Traditionalists. They tend to begin with a desired conclusion and then try to find arguments that somehow back up this conclusion, and Mundabor in particular is a perfect example.

So, let’s have a look at what Verrecchio and Mundabor are arguing, each of them coming to a slightly different but still equally flawed conclusion. In essence, the conundrum for the Neo-Trads is this:

  1. The Catholic Church cannot give what is evil/harmful/sacrilegious.
  2. The Catholic Church gave us the New Mass.
  3. The New Mass is evil/harmful/sacrilegious.
  4. Paul VI was a true Pope.

As you can see, these four theses cannot all be reconciled with one another. Each one of them contradicts at least one other. Therefore, at least one of these statements has to go. Both Mundabor and Verrecchio agree with Statement 1, as they must per Catholic doctrine. But because they also want to retain Statement 4, that only leaves either Statement 2 or Statement 3 to be discarded. Knowing this, Mundabor discards Statement 3, whereas Verrecchio jettisons Statement 2. Both contenders thus take a manifestly absurd position.

Of course, Statement 2 is indeed false — the Catholic Church did not give us the New Mass — but this is because the man who imposed it, Paul VI, was not in fact a valid Pope. Therefore, denying Statement 2 necessarily implies also denying Statement 4, since the Novus Ordo definitely came from Paul VI. Verrecchio, however, wants to retain Statement 4 (as does, of course, Mundabor), and so he comes up with some outlandish justification for why we can hold Statement 2 to be false while holding Statement 4 to be true. We will address this in detail later.

Right now, let’s first review the evidence for Statement 1 by looking at what the Church actually teaches about her own infallibility in her general discipline, that is, in those things that pertain to the external worship of God and the governance of the Church. Take a good look at these quotes and ask yourself if you can seriously apply them to the Modernist Vatican II Sect:

“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.”

(Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7; Denz. 954)

“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.” 

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 66)

“ if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism.” 

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Denz. 1578)

“[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.” 

(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 9; underlining added.)

“The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church... By the term 'general discipline of the Church' are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living... The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. 'This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals'; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.' This is a decree of practical judgment.”

(Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, Christ's Church, 1957; underlining added.)

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

(Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258; underlining added.)

This teaching is not only beautiful but also makes perfect sense. There is no use for a Church that is infallible only in dogmatic teaching (expounded in rare obscure magisterial documents that most people will never read or hear about anyway),
but not also in the rites and laws that are imposed upon all the faithful throughout the world, which is where the common man comes into daily contact with his religion. The Church is, after all, the ark of salvation, the divine embassy to which sinners can turn without having to fear for the safety of their souls (cf. 1 Tim 3:15; Eph 4:14). She is where the waters of salvation spring up in abundance, so that sinners may drink and be eternally refreshed (cf. Jn 4:13; 7:37). She cannot turn away from her divine mission: Our Lord assured us that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18), and Pope Pius XI gloried in “the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy” (Encyclical Quas Primas, n. 22).

Of course, if you try to apply this to the Novus Ordo Sect, you end up in complete absurdity, because if there is one thing the New Church does well, it is lead souls to impiety, heresy, apostasy, and immorality, and thus to eternal ruin, both in her laws and in her external worship, not to mention her teaching.


So, there can be no doubt that Statement 1 above is correct — the Catholic Church cannot give to her children that which is evil, harmful, impious, or in some other way detrimental to souls, in her universal discipline, in her rites of worship or the external governing of the whole Church. This much is acknowledged both by Mundabor and Verrecchio.

We will skip Statement 2 — “The Catholic Church gave us the New Mass” — for a minute and instead consider Statement 3, that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se harmful, sacrilegious, dangerous, etc. This is denied by Mundabor but affirmed by Verrecchio. On this point, the argumentation is as follows: Mundabor sees himself bound to conclude that the Paul VI worship service is in and of itself Catholic, because the Church cannot give what is evil and he refuses to believe that the New Mass did not come from the Church because he knows that the only way to reasonably maintain such a position would be to say that Paul VI was not a true Pope, and this he refuses to concede because he does not want to be a Sedevacantist. So by the force of deductive logic based on the premises he has made for himself, the English blogger has no choice but to conclude that the New Mass is not harmful to souls. However, this conclusion comes at a dear price: He must entirely refuse the evidence in front of his eyes, the evidence that proves the Novus Ordo Missae to be evil and harmful.

In his post, Mundabor entirely sidesteps any discussion of evidence regarding the spiritual disaster that is the New Mass, focusing instead on denouncing Sedevacantism, which is where any concession regarding the evil of the Novus Ordo would lead him. But this is a rather curious way of defending the Modernist worship service: “The New Mass is good, because you don’t want to be a Sedevacantist, do you?!” (summarizing and paraphrasing Mundabor’s argument). This is the depth of the man’s theology — it’s pathetic.

So what is the evidence regarding the liturgical abomination known as the New Mass? Here is a sample for starters:

The above links demonstrate clearly that the Novus Ordo rite itself is deficient, heretical, sacrilegious, even certainly invalid at least in the vernacular. Mundabor must deny all this because he refuses to give up his pet thesis that Sedevacantism is false, and everything must bend to this gratuitous belief of his. Is this the way to do Catholic theology? Hardly.

But it gets worse. Not only does Mundabor call the New Mass good, he even insists you have an obligation to assist at it even when liturgical abuse is rampant, that is, when it is not offered according to the rubrics (and it usually isn’t) but when there is open liturgical chaos instead. To justify this aberrant view, our Englishman introduces a completely novel and certainly anti-Catholic principle: You can assist at a sacrilege or false worship as long as it’s valid and you receive Holy Communion worthily. Mundabor says verbatim: “If you have a valid Mass you can attend to, you have a Mass obligation.… do not come on this blog and tell me that you know Christ is there in the miracle of Transubstantiation, but you are too fine a Catholic palate to drink of His blood” — you know, as though Holy Mass were only offered in order to allow us to receive Communion: “If any one saith, that in the Mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 1).

The obligation to worship God in a worthy manner is dispensed with in this blogger’s theology, as long as you get something: Holy Communion. (Not that it’s actually valid, but he believes it to be.) Can Mundabor quote a Church teaching to this effect, that we can or even must attend a liturgical rite that dishonors and displeases God, as long as a valid Eucharist is confected? Of course he cannot — which is why he doesn’t. Instead, he opts for a Coca-Cola analogy:

With V[atican] II the Church gave us, together with many other mistakes, a second-class Mass. Second-class, not sinful. Second-class, not something that would be even a grave matter to attend.

Speaking of drinks (and letting aside the sacramental aspect at the Mass) we were accustomed to wine. One day, the Church told us wine is a drink for stuffy old people, and Coca Cola is the new drink the Church gives to you: bubbly, fizzly, young, dynamic, in tune with the new times, good for young and old, and apt to have many more people get at the table.

Coca-Cola is sugary, superficial, vastly inferior to wine in everything, pretty much of a child’s drink compared to it. But it can never be a sin to drink Coca-Cola; particularly so, when the Church gives it to you as the standard drink.


Let others argue about this as much as they please. Let other pewsitters allow their pride to have the better of themselves, and their desire for purity to lead them to the rejection of what their Mother gives them. I live in a very simple world, a world in which my sensus catholicus not only rebels, but recoils shivering from the very idea that a layman would know that the Body and Blood of Our Saviour are dished to him, and answers: “no thanks, I think something very wrong is going on here. Actually, my mother is trying to poison me”.

This is all very cute, but it has nothing to do with Catholic theology. For Mundabor, this is a recurring problem: He likes to argue his case not based on Catholic theology but based on an analogy he dreams up from secular life — in this case, likening the New Mass to Coca-Cola and the true Catholic Mass to wine. This is, of course, much more convenient and practical than engaging in the tiresome business of researching and understanding Catholic doctrine. Why would you bother doing this when you can just use your own pseudo-theology instead, right?!

We have reached pseudo-traditionalist Absurdistan, ladies and gentlemen. 


“High Mass”

With the American blogger Louie Verrecchio, things aren’t that much different. Unlike his English counterpart, Verrecchio does not shy away from 
accepting reality as it is regarding the New Mass: The rite itself is not Catholic but evil and dangerous. Verrecchio cannot deny the obvious regarding the Modernist worship service, so he asserts, quite correctly, that the New Mass is impious, evil, and harmful, not merely in how it is actually carried out (“liturgical abuse”) but in fact in the very rite itself, the way it is found “in the book.”

So then, how does Verrecchio escape the logic that Mundabor views himself bound by? (Since, when it comes to asserting that the Novus Ordo Sect is identical with the Catholic Church and Paul VI was a true Pope — Statement 4 — the two contenders see eye to eye.) The answer is that Verrecchio denies Statement 2, that the Catholic Church gave us the New Mass. How does he do so, when he also believes that Paul VI was a true Pope and the New Mass obviously came from Paul VI? Answer: He adopts the preposterous argument that somehow the Novus Ordo Missae came not from the Church but from "weak and sinful men who abused their exalted positions”. Clever! 

Which Catholic principle does he use from which to deduce this conclusion? None, of course — he sees himself forced to argue this way only because he “must” avoid the conclusion that Paul VI was not a true Pope, just like Mundabor. So here too we have a classic case of theology done backwards: Start with the conclusion, then reason your way back to absurd premises, in this case, the idea that Paul VI was a true Pope, the sect he headed was the Catholic Church, but still the worship service he imposed somehow did not come from the Pope or the Church. It is insane, and entirely driven by the desire to avoid having to believe that Paul VI was in fact an impostor and the Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church.

This idea that even though the Vatican II Sect is the Catholic Church and Paul VI was a true Pope, nevertheless the Novus Ordo “Mass” did not really come from either the Church or the Pope is not new and was advanced, in somewhat different fashion, many years ago by Fr. Francois Laisney of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X. The argument was made that Paul VI’s imposition of the new rite was not valid or at least did not have the force of lawand hence it did not come from the Catholic Church inasmuch as it was never actually mandated. Unfortunately for Fr. Laisney and like-minded Neo-Trads, this argument runs contrary to the facts, as the following article proves:

Indeed, Verrecchio too proves himself to be a follower of the theology of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991) rather than that of the Catholic Church when he conveniently distinguishes “present day ‘Rome’ as understood through the actions of Pope Francis and company” from “‘Eternal Rome’ as understood through tradition as expressed over the course of many centuries” and then asserts that the Novus Ordo rite did not come to us from Holy Mother Church. Oh, how convenient! Which magisterial document does Verrecchio cite or quote that permits this distinction that underlies his argument? None, of course. In fact, Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII taught the exact opposite: 

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5)

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885)

If you haven’t heard this from the Society of St. Pius X & Co. lately, ask yourself why that is. Really, it is time to stop reading Abp. Lefebvre, Michael Davies, The Remnant, Catholic Family News and The Latin Mass Magazine! Start reading real Catholic theology and magisterial teachings. Hit the pre-Vatican II books yourself. Enough of the propaganda tracts!

Unfortunately, the discussion between Mundabor and Verrecchio is characterized by a lack of appeal to Catholic theology all throughout. It is an emotional shooting from the hip, with some valid reasoning and astute observations added to the process somewhere that is overall, however, entirely lacking in an understanding of the principles involved in resolving a question surrounding religious worship.

For example, Verrecchio asks the following absurd question, based on the novelty introduced by Mundabor that one must attend a sacrilegious liturgy if it is valid: “Should I forgo the Eucharist in order to avoid participation in a poisonous rite, or should I tolerate a poisonous rite in order to avail myself of the Eucharist?”

Although Verrecchio’s answer to this query is quite different from Mundabor’s, nevertheless, like his English blogging colleague Verrecchio doesn’t bother to even attempt to use Catholic theology to come to a resolution of this query. Instead, he too opts for the much more convenient way of using non-theological analogies, as though this were an acceptable way to arrive at theological truth: “To maintain that we are obligated to attend the Novus Ordo nonetheless is tantamount to suggesting that the Church can be likened to a mother who would feed her children broccoli tainted with cyanide simply because that is the only vegetable currently available,” says Verrecchio.

Okay, you two make-it-up-as-you-go-along bloggers, here’s some advice from Novus Ordo Watch, free of charge: How about we stop all the talk about Coca-Cola, wine, broccoli, and cyanide and actually deal with real Catholic teaching for a minute?! What is lacking from all this drive-thru theologizing is Catholic teaching. In fact, in all three blog posts (the one by Mundabor and the two by Verrecchio), not a single Church teaching was quoted anywhere. Not that the mere quoting of Church teaching makes an argument valid or sound, of course, but when attempting to analyze and understand what a Catholic ought to do with regard to the New Mass, there’s just no way around Church teaching. Sure, you can talk about a Coke-serving waiter who’d rather be serving wine, or a mother who offers poisoned broccoli to her children, just don’t trick yourself into thinking that this has anything to do with Catholic theology.

Instead, the correct way for a layman to approach a question like this is basically to look it up in a pre-Vatican II theological manual or catechism. What a concept, right?!

What are we to look up? For starters, we must look at what the Church teaches regarding our obligation to worship God by giving Him true and proper worship, which is enjoined upon us by the First Commandment. Holy Mass, after all, is first and foremost not a way for us to receive something, but an act of worship of Almighty God; in fact, the most excellent and perfect act of worship that exists. Somehow this essential and most important point is entirely absent from our two disputing bloggers — again, because they are not grounded in Catholic theology.

Man’s obligation to worship God being the subject of moral theology, we turn to an authorized pre-Vatican II Catholic manual of moral theology. Here’s what we find there under sins against the First Commandment:

…[T]he sin of superstition may be committed by worshipping the true God in the wrong way or by worshipping false gods…. 

1. God may be wrongly worshipped either by false worship or by superfluous worship being paid him. Worship of God is false when its meaning is not in accordance with fact, or when the falsehood is in the person who performs the act of worship, as when a layman performs the duties of a priest, or when someone tries to gain credence for false miracles or false relics….

2. Anything in the worship of God which does not tend to his honour and glory, or which is against the ordinances and practice of the Church, to whom the regulation of religious worship exclusively belongs, is superfluous worship and superstition. This sin is committed by attributing an infallible effect to a fixed number of prayers or acts of piety, or to the mere material wearing of the scapulars or medals, or by unwarrantably acting against the rubrics while saying Mass or administering the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church.

(Rev. Thomas Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. 1, 5th ed. [1925], p. 140; underlining added.)

This is Catholic theology. Notice how far removed it is from talk about Coca-Cola and broccoli with cyanide. 

It is our obligation, then, to worship God, and we must do so with true worship, not with false or superfluous worship. This is the first principle which Mundabor and Verrecchio ought to have utilized in their analysis. Why couldn’t either of them manage to look this up? Why this attitude of “Blog first, ask questions later”?

Verrecchio says to find out if a valid Mass can ever be “poisonous” (which, by the way, is not a theologically meaningful term and entirely vague), “we need only use reason, logic and simple observation”. Notice that apparently “Catholic teaching” is no longer even on the menu of the pseudo-traditionalist cafeteria.

After presenting a tortured analysis, Verrecchio concludes by harking back to his original Lefebvrist contention, framed as a question: “ it really the case that Holy Mother Church has given the Novus Ordo to us, or did it come from the hands of weak and sinful men who abused their exalted positions?” Sorry, Louie, but if you believe the Modernist Vatican II Sect to be the Catholic Church, then you have no choice but to conclude that the Novus Ordo worship service comes from the Catholic Church, because this convenient but artificial distinction between “the Church” on the one hand and “the sinful men in the Church” is entirely contrived and certainly not backed by any Catholic teaching, which, again, is why none is cited. We are not, after all, talking about the personal conduct of a Pope, which can be moral or immoral, but about the offical acts of a (putative) Pope, in his capacity as supreme legislator and head of the universal Church.


Still, Verrecchio does not leave his position entirely unjustified. To defend the idea that the Novus Ordo did not come from the Catholic Church but only from “weak and sinful men who abused their exalted positions” in the Church, he appeals to Pope St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum (1570), to which he claims Paul VI even as a true Pope was bound. This refusal on the part of Paul VI to obey Quo Primum, so Verrecchio believes, made the Novus Ordo Missae a “schismatic rite”, and as the great theological justification for such an absurdity — as though a true Pope could institute a schismatic rite for the entire Church — he presents a video of a 2-hour talk given by the colorful “Fr.” Gregory Hesse (1953-2006), a one-of-a-kind Austrian traditionalist “priest” who always managed to sound convincing while he dished out the craziest pseudo-theological theses that were usually quite unique to him and certainly did not represent the (Vatican II) Church in which he claimed to be an authority.

Alas, a lot of people are easily swayed by externals, and of these Hesse had more than enough. His beautiful traditional garb with all the bells and whistles, the aura of authority he exuded, his eccentric personality, his articulate rhetoric, his knowledge of Latin, the appearance of fine scholarship, the fact that he held two doctorate degrees from the Novus Ordo Angelicum and worked inside the Vatican for a few years, having received his “ordination” in St. Peter’s Basilica… what more could the traditionalist heart desire, right? We may perhaps surmise that if Hesse hadn’t been such a colorful individual — he openly drank wine as much as most other people drink water — his ideas might never have found much traction.

For all those who are so impressed with Hesse they’re about to keel over, here are some sobering blog posts that refute some of the things he has argued:

In the New Church, this is a recurring phenomenon: Every so often some unique individual who seems to be a friend of the confused conservatives/trads and has “all the answers” appears on the scene — he is dressed up really nicely, puts on a good show, and, voila, the people tend to follow him and accept whatever he says. They will cling to him in relief, treat him as their last hope, and gladly outsource to him their understanding of Catholic theology, if not their entire intellect and will.

There are a few figures like this in the New Church who fill this role in varying degrees and for different audiences. Certainly we may number among them the notorious blogger “Fr. Z”, John Zuhlsdorf, who has a similar cult following, as well as “Fr.” Paul Nicholson, an Opus Dei presbyter who glories in all the beautiful externals as he puts on quite a theatrical show in his YouTube videos, even, if need be, with indecent show titles and gratuitous images of young men with their upper bodies exposed (examples of both here). It is a sign of the spiritual destruction and despair people experience in the New Church that they cling to individuals and put their trust in them rather than in simply following the teaching of the Church, no matter what inconvenience may result therefrom.

But back to Verrecchio. For him to outsource the justification of his position to Mr. Hesse is rather convenient, of course, but we can demonstrate Hesse’s position to be entirely preposterous. Think about it: Assume for a minute that the Novus Ordo Sect is the Catholic Church (which isn’t true, but that’s what Hesse believed). According to Hesse, the Pope can give to the entire Latin Church a rite of Mass that is not in fact a legitimate Catholic rite (even though the Pope authoritatively decreed it to be) and that is not in fact a revision of the rite formerly in use (even though the Pope explicitly said it was) — and to know this we need to consult an obscure wandering cleric from Vienna whose highest position ever held was that of secretary to an archivist and librarian in the Vatican, and who travels to different countries giving lectures full of arguments that are widely unheard-of and not shared by anyone else. Here we see, once more, the Gallican recognize-and-resist idea at work: Anyone can trump the Pope, as long as what he says sounds convincing and gives justification to what people would like to believe. But this is not how it works in the Catholic Church (which is what they believe the Vatican II Sect to be): When the Pope issues a decree establishing discipline for the entire Church, this is not subject to review, criticism, or validation by anyone, least of all some Vatican librarian’s Austrian secretary.


In any case, Hesse makes the claim that when “Pope” Paul VI decreed in an “Apostolic Constitution” that he was promulgating a “revision of the Roman Missal”, this was not in fact a revision but the establishment of a new “schismatic rite” (Hesse’s words), and when the same “Pope” decreed that his “Apostolic Constitution” was to have the force of law (“We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year [1969]”) and that any prior legislation was to be considered superseded (“notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation”), then this is a lie, has no value, does not bind anyone, and must be ignored, apparently under pain of schism. This would mean that a Catholic can no longer take papal legislation and Church governance at face value but must first have things checked by his local Austrian librarian assistant. This is absurdity on stilts.

Alas, such is the state of “traditional Catholicism” today. Unfortunately it is way beyond the scope of this blog post to start giving a full critique of Hesse, which would take quite a while, but suffice it to say, once more, that his outlandish positions were usually unique to him, such as the idea that Vatican II — remember, he believed the Novus Ordo Sect to be the Catholic Church — was not in fact an ecumenical council at all. The absurdity of the whole thing is glaring. There is no way you can say that the Vatican establishment after Pius XII is the Catholic Church but somehow Vatican II was not an ecumenical council. Consult the “magisterium” of the post-1958 period and you simply cannot get around the fact that Vatican II was an ecumenical council, whether you like it or not. It simply doesn’t matter what some wine-drinking know-it-all in impressive clothing said in a video tape.

So, what are we to make of Hesse’s argument that Paul VI (treating him, for the sake of argument, as a true Pope) was bound by Quo Primum, since Pope St. Pius V decreed it to be valid and binding “in perpetuity”? If this claim proves anything, it proves that Hesse didn’t know what he was talking about. In papal legislation of a disciplinary character, the phrase “in perpetuity” simply means that the law being imposed has no “expiration date”, if you will — it does not mean that it can never be changed or rescinded by the competent authority, that is, by another (or even the same) Pope. (This differs essentially from a definition of dogma, which cannot be changed or abrogated by any Pope after it has been made; but dogma refers to what must be believed, whereas discipline refers to what must be done.)

Can we prove this? Yes, we certainly can. For, example, when Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuit order in 1773, he issued a decree in which he declared that this suppression was to be “perpetually valid” (perpetuoque validas) and ordered that it be “inviolably observed by each and every man whom it concerns and by anyone whomsoever it will concern in the future” (Pope Clement XIV, Bull Dominus Ac Redemptor, p. xxix). This rather clear and forceful language did not stop Pope Clement’s successor Pius VII from rescinding the suppression and reinstating the Jesuit order on August 7, 1814, declaring that whosoever would dare to contravene his decree would “incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” (see Pope Pius VII, Decree Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum, p. 14). So, Hesse’s argument that true Popes are bound forever by Pius V’s Quo Primum is simply false. (For more on this, see Fr. Cekada’s blog post Quo Primum: Could a True Pope Change it?”)


Hesse in Rome in 1988, wearing a biretta while working at his desk — and the bottle of wine always close by (on far right).

One other argument the Austrian “expert” dished up is that Paul VI (again, assuming him to have been a true Pope for the sake of argument) was bound by this infallible declaration of the Council of Trent: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema” (
Trent, Session 7, Canon 13; Denz. 856). Hesse asserts — without any serious evidence — that “any pastor of the churches” includes the Pope himself. In his attempt to sound convincing, he claims that the Latin word used for “any [pastor whatsoever]” by Trent is quiscumque, but not only is this factually incorrect (the word used by Trent is quemcumque, which you can verify here), but the word he claims Trent used — quiscumque — does not even exist in the Latin language at all (a similar word, quicumque, does; perhaps he meant that). Nor is his contention true that the word used by Trent has only one single translation. So Hesse is not just wrong but wrong in triplicate.

The Pope, of course, is not simply “any pastor of the churches” but the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church, and there is really no reason why the Pope should not be able, allowed, or sufficiently competent to make changes to the liturgical rites of the Church, as long as such changes are not in themselves harmful, dangerous, heretical, or somehow impious; in fact many Popes have made changes to the liturgical rites after Trent and after Quo Primum, including Clement VIII, Paul V, St. Pius X, and Pius XII. 

The anti-Modernist American theologian Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, too, was unaware that Trent supposedly forbids even the Pope from changing liturgical rites, because he wrote just before the beginning of Vatican II that the council “can change much of the rite of the Mass” (Fenton, “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council”, American Ecclesiastical Review 147 [Oct. 1962], p. 263). So we see that even though Hesse’s case may sound convincing and impressive at first, it turns out to be false. 

It is actually not difficult to ascertain how wrong Hesse’s claim is about the Pope allegedly not being allowed to change sacramental rites. Once again, all that is required is that one bother to actually look it up. In the popular manual Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Fr. Ludwig Ott observes: 

To be distinguished from the essential rites of the Sacraments based on Divine ordinance are the accidental rites, ceremonies and prayers, which, in the course of time, became current by custom or by the positive prescription of the Church, and which have the purpose of symbolically representing the sacramental operation of grace, of expressing the dignity and sublimity of the Sacraments, of satisfying man’s need for external forms of worship and of preparing him for the reception of grace.

(Rev. Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [1954; reprinted by TAN Books, 1974], p. 338)

With this distinction in mind, we turn to the very Council of Trent Hesse claims supports his aberrant theses:

It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. Moreover, the Apostle seems to have intimated this in no obscure manner, when he said: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God” [ 1 Cor. 4:1]; and that he himself used this power is quite manifest in this sacrament as well as in many other things, not only in this sacrament itself, but also in some things set down with regard to its use, he says: “The rest I will set in order when I come” [ 1 Cor. 11:23].

(Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2; Denz. 931; underlining added.)

This is sufficiently clear, but the definitive refutation of Mr. Hesse’s absurd claims comes from Pope Pius XII himself. In his landmark encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, the Sovereign Pontiff teaches as follows:

The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about -- during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors -- that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation. This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites [!!!], as also to modify those he judges to require modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, nn. 57-58; underlining added.)


Thus we see that when Trent anathematized the idea that the sacramental rites of the Church could be changed by “any pastor whomsoever”, or new ones could be drawn up, it obviously did not mean to include the Pope himself, the Supreme Legislator, who is not a pastor “of the churches” but of the Church.

Unfortunately for “Fr.” Hesse, all this evidence, which thoroughly refutes his idea that the Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V bound all future Popes to refrain from making any except the most minor changes to the sacramental and liturgical rites of the Church, destroys the entire basis for his contention that the Novus Ordo Missae is a “schismatic rite” from a true Pope, which in turn was the essential support for his claim that his own 1981 Novus Ordo “ordination” was valid on the grounds that Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, which would render it doubtful (see PDF here), only applied to Catholic, not schismatic, rites.

Oh well. Exit Mr. Hesse…

Having thus thoroughly demolished the false arguments of Mundabor, Verrecchio, and Rev. Hesse, let us summarize:

At the outset of this post, we presented a conundrum of four statements that cannot all be true because each statement contradicts at least one other. Neither Mundabor nor Louie Verrecchio have managed to resolve it in an acceptable fashion because of their (in the case of Mundabor, stubborn) refusal to countenance the idea that Statement 4 (“Paul VI was a true Pope”) is actually false. This refusal leads, for the American blogger Verrecchio, to outright theological absurdity, whereas it leads for the English blogger Mundabor to a willing suspension of disbelief with regard to the facts about the New Mass.

The only way to resolve the conundrum in a Catholic way is to deny Statement 2 and Statement 4, that is, we must say that the New Mass did not come from the Catholic Church, and this is only because Paul VI was not a true Pope. That the Catholic Church cannot give what is evil is undeniable Catholic doctrine; that the New Mass is evil is a verifiable fact established beyond all doubt. But that Paul VI was a true Pope is neither necessary to believe by any Catholic teaching nor is it established beyond doubt — on the contrary, we have definite proof that he was an impostor. It is, in fact, the only way to keep from having to conclude that the Catholic Church has done the impossible, namely, promulgate a rite of Mass that is harmful to souls.

In short: That Paul VI should have been a false Pope is entirely possible; that the Catholic Church should give her children an evil rite of Mass, or that a Pope’s laws and teachings should be subject to review by an Austrian smart aleck, is not possible.

Our general advice with regard to such theological issues being debated on “traditionalist” blogs is simple: If you wish to adhere to Catholic teaching instead of Lefebvrian fairy tales, bite the painful bullet and look it up yourself: Do the necessary research by consulting approved Catholic books from before Vatican II (so many are now available online for free), rather than listen to people who dream up their own theology in an effort to justify a position they already hold. For them, it is a desired conclusion that drives their acceptance of premises, not the other way around, as it should be. Let this be a red flag to you: When you see no Church teaching quoted or cited and instead are presented with analogies from secular life (Coke, broccoli, a bad father is still a father, a bad captain is still part of the ship, etc.), then you know that what you are reading is probably just malarkey dressed up as Catholicism.

This post you have just read took more than 15 hours to compile. Real research into Catholic theology and magisterial documents takes time — it usually does not permit the cranking out of quick blog posts to impress or satisfy a demanding audience. However, spending the time required to understand things is simply necessary because the subject matter is so important. The Son of God lived, suffered, and died for us so that we would know the truth, which He said would make us free (see Jn 8:32; cf. 2 Jn 1:9).

There is no substitute for the real thing. Don’t exchange your birthright of genuine Catholicism for a lousy pot of bloggers’ lentils.

Image sources: Internet photos;

See Also:


     Published March 27, 2015

Black Friday Stampede at Walmart? No, installation of Chilean “Bishop” Juan Barros, accused of covering up sex abuse

It’s Wojtyla Land, that explains it...

Liturgical Mayhem in Poland


If some things are better left uncommented, this would have to be one of them. The video below is a liturgical disaster on Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday of Advent) in a Novus Ordo parish in Katowice, Poland. This is perfect to show anyone who thinks that Modernist chaos liturgies are confined to the United States, Germany, and Austria. It is not so.

In case you’re wondering why the “Pope” isn’t doing anything about this sort of thing, that’s because… umm… well… see this link here.

We recall that when the same “Pope” Francis proceeded to declare Karol Wojtyla a “saint” — the Polish superstar who invented extravagant “papal” liturgies — the hideous Crucifix of Cevo, dedicated to John Paul II, collapsed and killed a pilgrim who was on his way to the “canonization”.

He who has eyes to see, let him see.


On Bp. Faure’s recent Consecration

Resistance Madness: A Sedevacantist looks at Bp. Williamson’s Justification for Consecrating Bp. Faure


We do not typically simply republish other people’s blog posts, but in this case, we will make an exception as the post shows the anti-Catholic ideas inherent in the justifications given by Bp. Richard Williamson for his recent episcopal consecration of Bp. Jean-Michel Faure, both formerly with the Society of St. Pius X.

The following is a repost from the blog Introibo ad Altare Dei. With a few minor exceptions, all formatting has been retained as in the original post, which is entitled Pater Noster?.


On the feast of St. Joseph, March 19, 2015, Bishop Richard Williamson consecrated Fr. Jean-Michel Faure as a new Traditionalist Bishop. Pseudo-Traditionalist is more accurate. Bp. Williamson was one of the four priests consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The position of the SSPX has always been a rejection of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. They hold the "recognize and resist" idea that you can recognize the post-Vatican II "popes" as legitimate Vicars of Christ, and yet "resist" their errors. In 2012, Bp. Williamson was expelled from the SSPX for his criticism of General Superior Bp. Bernard Fellay in his efforts to reconcile the SSPX to the Modernist Vatican. In reaction to Bp. Fellay's "dialogue" with Rome, Williamson founded the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance (SSPX-SO).

Did Bp. Williamson, and the priests who followed him out of the SSPX, embrace sedevacantism? No! They simply will do what the SSPX has been doing without the negotiations with "Pope" Francis. I've criticized Bp. Williamson quite a bit in my posts for his inconsistent positions and (at times) whacky ideas/behavior. The priest he consecrated, Bp. Faure, is only two years Williamson's junior at age 73. You would think he would choose a successor a bit younger. That being said, why the need for this consecration? Remember, if there is a pope, you need a papal mandate for a bishop to be consecrated. Therefore, Williamson and Faure find themselves excommunicated from their "pope." (For Bp. Williamson it's the second time; the first was by [John Paul II] after his 1988 consecration, and it was rescinded by Ratzinger in 2009). In place of a mandate from Francis, Bp. Williamson produced one of his own making (!) which reads as follows:

We have a Mandate to consecrate from the Roman Church which in its fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition – namely the Deposit of the Faith – to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.

For indeed, on the one hand, the authorities of the Church of Rome from the Second Vatican Council down to today are driven by a spirit of modernism which undermines in depth Sacred Tradition to the point of twisting its very notion: There shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, turning unto fables, as St Paul says to Timothy in his second Epistle (IV, 3,5). What use would it be to ask such authorities for a Mandate to consecrate a bishop who is going to be profoundly opposed to their most grave error?

And, on the other hand, to obtain such a bishop the few Catholics who understand his importance might have hoped, even after Vatican II, that he could come from the Society of St Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the four consecrated for them in 1988 by a previous emergency Mandate. Alas, when the authorities of that Society showed by their constant turning towards the Roman authorities that they were taking the same modernist road, that hope proved to be vain.

From where then could these faithful Catholics obtain the bishops essential to the survival of their true faith? In a world making political war day by day more on God and on His Church, the danger for the Faith seems such that its survival can no longer be left to depend on a single fully anti-modernist bishop. The Church herself asks him to appoint an associate, who will be Father Jean-Michel Faure.

By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted, and as soon as God intervenes to save His Church, which has no more human hope of rescue, the effects of this consecration and of its emergency Mandate will be without delay put back in the hands of a Pope once more wholly Catholic.

You might ask, "How does this jive with the "recognize and resist" idea that Francis is pope? Answer: It doesn't. Bp. Williamson continuously makes gratuitous assertions without one iota of theology and canon law to back them up. Everything he does runs strictly counter to what the Church teaches through Her approved theologians.

Here's what the Church teaches:

1. The Pope has Universal and Complete Primacy Over the Entire Church

The name "pope" comes from the Greek word for "father." Like an earthly father rules over the family, the Holy Father does the same for the Church in a more absolute manner. As taught by theologian [Mgr. Gerard] Van Noort, the pope's power (as defined by the Vatican Council in 1870) is:

  • binding authority which demands obedience
  • universal in regard to place (everywhere) and business (faith, morals, discipline, and government)
  • ordinary--i.e., he possess his jurisdiction over the Church by virtue of the office he holds and may exercise it at any time he chooses
  • direct and episcopal--he can act not only on individual bishops but also on the faithful without any episcopal mediation
  • supreme--there is no other person (or persons taken collectively) that have a power greater than or equal to his
  •  absolute and complete in itself. He possesses in himself alone the plenitude of power, and not merely a portion of that power (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2:280-282)

2.  The Church, with the Pope as Her visible Head on Earth, is indefectible. Her teaching cannot change, and because She is infallible, Her laws cannot give evil

Again, from Van Noort:

"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). Therefore all of what the Church 
[universally] legislates with papal approval is infallible; it cannot be evil or in error.

3. Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:

  • Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something (e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.
  • Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey. 
  • The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology 1:542-543)

Now, let's consider the "mandate" of  Williamson when analysed under these principles. 

Para. #1: We have a Mandate to consecrate from the Roman Church which in its fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition – namely the Deposit of the Faith – to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.

The Roman Catholic Church acts through Her visible Head, the pope, under normal circumstances. How can you get a mandate from the Church when you recognize Francis and he has not consented to give you one?  Are you suggesting the pope gave something evil? See principle #2 above. 

Para. #2 For indeed, on the one hand, the authorities of the Church of Rome from the Second Vatican Council down to today are driven by a spirit of modernism which undermines in depth Sacred Tradition to the point of twisting its very notion: There shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, turning unto fables, as St Paul says to Timothy in his second Epistle (IV, 3,5). What use would it be to ask such authorities for a Mandate to consecrate a bishop who is going to be profoundly opposed to their most grave error?

The authorities--including the man they consider "pope" is in "grave error" that needs to be opposed? See principle #2 above. The Holy Ghost would not permit the pope to teach a "most grave error" and to be driven by "a spirit of Modernism" which is heresy.

Para. #3 And, on the other hand, to obtain such a bishop the few Catholics who understand his importance might have hoped, even after Vatican II, that he could come from the Society of St Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the four consecrated for them in 1988 by a previous emergency Mandate. Alas, when the authorities of that Society showed by their constant turning towards the Roman authorities that they were taking the same modernist road, that hope proved to be vain.

Lefebvre made up a "mandate" too! Salvation came not from the pope and his hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction established by Christ, but through the SSPX set up in opposition to the appointed hierarchy! Now they "defected" by----wanting to be united to the pope??

Para. #4 From where then could these faithful Catholics obtain the bishops essential to the survival of their true faith? (How about from the pope?) In a world making political war day by day more on God and on His Church, the danger for the Faith seems such that its survival can no longer be left to depend on a single fully anti-modernist bishop. (You mean the pope is not ant-Modernist? That would make him a heretic! But a heretic can't be pope, so he's either anti-Modernist, or a false "pope.") The Church herself asks him to appoint an associate, who will be Father Jean-Michel Faure. (The Church--apart from the pope--asked for Fr. Faure to be consecrated? Imagine that!)

Para. #5 By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted, and as soon as God intervenes to save His Church, which has no more human hope of rescue, the effects of this consecration and of its emergency Mandate will be without delay put back in the hands of a Pope once more wholly Catholic."

You mean we have a "partially Catholic" pope? Sounds like Vatican II ecclesiology! Doesn't Williamson reject the idea of non-Catholic sects being in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church ---as the heretical teachings of Vatican II tell us? Yet it seems Mr. Bergoglio can be in "partial communion" with the office of the papacy!

Bp. Williamson, and the newly consecrated Bp. Faure are of a Protestant mind-set. They recognize a man as pope, then apply their own made-up principles (alien to the Catholic Faith) to justify doing what they want. Then they go about as they please in the hopes that some day Bergoglio (or his successor) will do what they think is right. How sad... Only when there is a general rejection of the errors of Vatican II sect and its false "pope" can we come closer to an imperfect general council electing a real Pontiff whom we can obey and call "our father."

[taken from]


Novus Ordo Watch Commentary: The recognize-but-resist position is a dead-end, where each individual does as he pleases as long as he thinks himself justified by his understanding of Tradition, or what he thinks the Church would have done, all in opposition to — and this is the most important point — the (supposedly) legitimate and functioning hierarchy of the Catholic Church. It is this part that most essentially distinguishes the resistance traditionalist from the sedevacantist. For those who object that Sedevacantism has its own share of difficulties, we readily acknowledge that it is so, yet there is an essential difference: Difficulties in Sedevacantism are due to the absence of a reigning Pope, whereas Neo-Trad problems exist in spite of a Pope and a functioning hierarchy. Sedevacantist difficulties exist because the authority that can resolve them and is acknowledged as valid is absent, whereas Neo-Trads oppose and contradict the authority they acknowledge as valid and functioning. All sedevacantist problems are resolved, in principle, as soon as a true Pope is once again reigning. On the other hand, the resisters’ difficulties can never really be resolved because any solution is dependent, in principle, upon each resister’s personal agreement with the resolution. (For more on this particular issue, please see our powerful response to Fr. Francois Chazal, “You Can’t Have It Your Way”, and the article “When the Shepherd Is Struck”.)

For more on Bp. Williamson’s episcopal consecration of Bp. Faure, we also highly recommend the following article by Tom Droleskey:

There is no way out of the Novus Ordo absurdity except by positing that the “Popes” after Pius XII have been impostors. Only once this is recognized can everything else begin to fall into place. Any other attempt to understand or solve this crisis is doomed to failure from the outset.

See Also:

Worshipping God in church is so pre-Vatican II...

“Night of Lights” Profanes Catholic Church Building

“They have set fire to thy sanctuary: they have defiled the dwelling place of thy name on the earth.” (Ps 73:7)

Watching this 14-minute video above will send shivers down your spine. Once more a traditional Catholic church building — you know, the kind built by Catholics for the sake of adoring God Almighty in the Most Blessed Sacrament — has been abused by the Novus Ordo Sect for anything other than Catholic worship. In the above clip, what you see is a presentation of Nacht der Lichter (“Night of Lights”) in St. Laurentius Church in Holzkirchen, Germany. In a spooky voice, the narrator reads a summary of salvation history, beginning with the story of creation, Noah’s ark, etc. 

There is, of course, nothing wrong with doing an audio-visual presentation on the Old Testament, but it cannot be done inside God’s sanctuary, which is not a multi-purpose room but set apart for offering Sacrifice to God. Nor is there any reason to narrate the story in such a way as to sound sinister, which this presentation most definitely does. 

God has commanded from the beginning to keep His place holy: “Keep ye my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary” (Lev 19:30). However, in the Novus Ordo Church, as we know, God’s commandments are taken as mere suggestions, subordinated to the “rights” and “dignity” of man, the fruits of the French Revolution. This cult of man, officially enshrined by the false pope Paul VI at Vatican II, was condemned by true Catholic Popes long ago: “The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’ Let it hear something of the rights of God” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Tametsi, n. 13).

Profaning God’s house is nothing new. The Psalmist implores God: “Lift up thy hands against their pride unto the end; see what things the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary” (Ps 73:3); and of course our Blessed Lord Himself, filled with righteous anger at the profanation He saw in the Temple, made “a scourge of little cords” (Jn 2:15) and “began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the chairs of them that sold doves. And he suffered not that any man should carry a vessel through the temple; and he taught, saying to them: Is it not written, My house shall be called the house of prayer to all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves” (Mk 11:15-17).

Since Vatican II, Catholic churches are no longer used to worship God, but rather to worship man, and man likes to be entertained. In case the above “Night of Lights” isn’t entertaining enough for you, we present…


The good news is: The Novus Ordo Church is currently in its lame-duck session — it will soon be no more, as it does not nearly have enough children or converts, so the whole thing is on its way out, which is perfect for the true Catholic Church to once again be fully restored in all her glory!

May God hasten the day!

See Also:

Bp. Williamson ordains new bishop

Bp. Jean-Michel Faure:
Neo-Traditionalist ‘Resistance’ gets a new Bishop, SSPX condemns, Vatican expected to announce Excommunication


Image Source: Non Possumus Blog

The do-your-own-thing religion of Neo-Traditionalism, more specifically the camp of the “
really-really-bad Resistance trads” (i.e. those who split from the SSPX because the SSPX was no longer SSPX enough), has gotten a new bishop: Fr. Jean-Michel Faure, 73, was consecrated on March 19, 2015, by Bp. Richard Williamson, 75, in Nova Friburgo, Brazil, near Rio de Janeiro. (We had blogged on the impending consecration here.)

Williamson is one of the original four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Econe, Switzerland, on June 30, 1988 (see video here), which was the official date of the beginning of what has come to be known as the “Lefebvre schism” in the Novus Ordo Church. On July 1, 1988, the Vatican announced that Lefebvre, Williamson, and the other four bishops (de Galarreta, Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais, and de Castro Mayer) had incurred an automatic excommunication. This excommunication — entirely bogus, of course, since the Novus Ordo Sect has no power to excommunicate anyone — was declared lifted by “Pope” Benedict XVI on January 21, 2009. In October of 2012, Bp. Williamson was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X for — quite ironically — disobedience to supposedly lawful authority (more on that here). With the SSPX’s overt attempts to achieve a reconciliation with Modernist Rome and Bp. Williamson’s expulsion, a number of people, both priests and laymen, began to leave the SSPX and formed what has come to be called the “Resistance”, or “SSPX of the Strict Observance”, or — the official title — “SSPX Marian Corps”.

A number of photos of and an initial report on Bp. Faure’s episcopal consecration of March 19 have been posted at the Non Possumus blog of the “Resistance”, as well as an interview with the new bishop:

So far, the Vatican has remained silent, but as the consecration has gotten enough publicity in the mainstream secular and Novus Ordo press, they will probably issue a decree soon to announce that Bp. Williamson and Bp. Faure have both incurred automatic excommunication for participating in an episcopal consecration without the required ‘papal’ mandate.

Meanwhile, in a press release issued the same day, the Society of St. Pius X has condemned Bp. Williamson’s consecration of Bp. Faure as “not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988”:

It is interesting to look back at how 24 priest superiors of the Society of St. Pius X reacted to the declaration of excommunication by the Vatican in 1988. See the following excerpt of an open letter to “Cardinal” Bernard Gantin dated July 6, 1988:

…we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.

(“Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops”, in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, ed. by Rev. Francois Laisney [Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 1989], pp. 136-137; underlining added; available online here.)

The clergy who signed this letter include the now-Bishop Faure, as well as the Superior General of the SSPX at the time, Fr. Franz Schmidberger.

As is easily apparent, the content of the letter reveals that the SSPX holds a most warped and contradictory theological position: On the one hand, the signatories claim to belong to the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” and believe that the Vatican II Sect is a Modernist “counterfeit church” in which they want to have no part, but then they also insist that the authority who declared their expulsion — “Cardinal” Gantin — is a legitimate authority of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church! They believe their “excommunication” to have been null and void, yet then in this letter they state that they “ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly”! 

This is the kind of madness you get when you try to force the square peg of Modernist apostasy into the round hole of legitimate Catholic authority. Such a position must necessarily produce adherents who are in constant tension, as it is based on contradictory ideas: false doctrine emanates from the true Church, which is therefore a false church, so you must be out of communion with the authorities of the true church lest you be contaminated by the false church. And this is a guarantee for and proof of your orthodoxy! Huh?!?

This is theological absurdity at its finest. Thus it is quite understandable why at some point people who subscribe to this position will unavoidably split into at least two factions: those who put more emphasis on union with Rome (“because the Roman authorities are authorities of the true church!”) versus those who put more emphasis on safeguarding true doctrine (“because the teachings coming from Rome are heretical!”). This, of course, is a hopeless endeavor, for it is not possible that the true Holy See should ever be at odds with true doctrine: “...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord...” (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus; Denz. 1836). That’s actually the whole point of having a Catholic Church to begin with, “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), so “that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14).

On this matter, we have recently published an intriguing challenge to the SSPX, which no one in the resistance camp has answered so far:

Only the sedevacantist position can resolve this absurdity: The religious sect that currently occupies the Vatican is not in fact the Roman Catholic Church and its authorities are not valid Catholic authorities. This consideration alone can put an end to the “recognize-but-resist” madness, which is a hopeless muddle of confusion and contradiction. As a matter of fact, the press release issued by the SSPX General House on March 19, 2015, has it exactly right when it accuses Bps. Williamson and Faure of “no longer recogniz[ing] the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner.” This is known as schism, but here the accuser (the SSPX) itself is guilty of it, subjectively speaking (for they believe Francis and his five predecessors to be legitimate Popes — even though they are not in fact — and yet refuse them submission). Certainly, they can say that they at least “dialogue” with the people they claim are the lawful Catholic authorities, and that they attempt to find common ground, that they are willing to negotiate, that they only resist them “when really necessary”, etc., but ultimately this is still only the same type of “rhetorical” submission they accuse Williamson and Faure of, because at the end of the day they will not allow the “Holy See” to rule them or to teach them, except in whatever circumstances they decide it is acceptable. As Pope Leo XIII made clear, this does not constitute genuine submission to one’s lawful superior. Thus the difference between the SSPX proper and the “Resistance”-SSPX with regard to submission to the “Holy See” is one of degree, not of kind. Our suggestion to both factions of the SSPX is: Try Catholic theology some time — you obviously haven’t tried it yet.

So the “Resistance” has a new bishop now. At age 73, the Most. Rev. Faure will be looking to consecrate his own successor fairly soon. Let us pray that at least one of these two will finally come to realize that the only way to successfully fight the Vatican II disease is to begin with the correct diagnosis: the Apostolic See has been occupied by impostors since 1958.

See Also:

You can’t make this stuff up...


March Madness: Francis to Lunch with 10 Transsexual and 80 other Prison Inmates on Saturday

What do you know… Mr. Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) is reportedly planning to meet and have lunch with 90 detainees in a prison in Naples on Saturday, March 21, ten of whom will be transsexuals. The following report is taken directly from the so-called National Catholic Reporter:

ROME — Pope Francis is reportedly to have lunch Saturday with ten transsexual persons, as part of a visit with prisoners in the southern Italian city of Naples.

The transsexuals are part of a group of about 90 prisoners the pontiff will eat with and won their spots after a raffle among some 1900 detainees, according to a report posted late Tuesday on the Italian news website Vatican Insider.

That article refers to a separate report made on the matter by Tv2000, an Italian television network operated by the country's Catholic bishops' conference and known for broadcasting most papal events.

Francis is visiting Naples Saturday as part of a packed day in which the pontiff will first stop in the historic city of Pompeii. After praying at a sanctuary in Pompeii, the pope will hold six different events in Naples, including an outdoor Mass and meetings with diocesan clergy and religious, sick persons, and young people.

According to the Vatican Insider report, the pontiff's lunch with the prisoners will be cooked by the prisoners themselves and will include detainees from two nearby institutions.

Naples, located about 150 miles south of Rome, is the capital of the Italian region of Campania and the third largest city in the country.

The visit will be the pope's eighth inside Italy since his election in March 2013, following visits last year to the northern Italian city of Redipuglia and the southern Italian cities of Caserta, Molise, and Cassano all’Jonio.

(Joshua J. McElwee, “Francis to reportedly Lunch with 10 Transsexuals Saturday”, National Catholic Reporter, March 19, 2015)

As this news is just breaking in the English-speaking world, we can only give you more information from Italian sources at the moment:

Now, please, let no one say that this can’t be seen as Francis endorsing transsexuals since these were only chosen by lot from all inmates, that is, by means of a raffle, and there are 80 others. Bergoglio’s endorsement of and invitation to a woman-surgically-altered-to-look-like-a-man earlier this year made very clear what he thinks about perverts and their disordered lifestyles and desire for bodily mutilation. This woman (posing now as a man) came with her female “fiancée” and told Francis they want to “have a family”, which he was reportedly pleased to hear (see full story here).

Of course, the likes of Mark Shea and other Novus Ordo apologists are going to immediately accuse anyone objecting to these scandals as being pharisees, quoting Holy Scripture: “And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Lk 15:2). What this fails to address, however, is that although Christ did indeed meet with sinners, He did so exclusively in order to convert them; He sought them out to bring the Gospel to them and restore them to a life of sanctity: “…go after that which was lost, until he find it” (Lk 15:4); “Go, and now sin no more” (Jn 8:11); “They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick” (Mk 2:17); etc.

Francis doesn’t do this; on the contrary, he has a history of confirming sinners in their sins and unbelievers in their unbelief, while constantly spanking people in his church who try to be good Catholics, as we have amply documented throughout this web site — so much so that unreprentant public sinners like Elton John and Madonna have made known their endorsement for the Argentinian apostate.

Francis likes to meet and eat with all sorts of people he shouldn’t be meeting with: For example, Protestants, whom he told they “have the Holy Spirit within” them and to whom he made clear he is not interested in seeking their conversion to Catholicism; as well as Jews, in whose presence he hid his pectoral cross and for whom he had the Vatican’s Santa Marta kitchen turned kosher as part of his “Day of Judaism” at the Vatican. Yes, Mr. “Preach the Gospel always” definitely knows how to refrain from preaching the Gospel.

Under Francis, the Modernist madness in Rome is reaching unprecedented proportions and uncharted territories. There is no doubt that that FranciSchism is coming, folks. Things won’t go on like this without someone blowing a fuse soon. Such an intra-NovusOrdo schism, however, will not be a good thing in the long run, objectively speaking, because it will create the illusion that by adhering to the anti-Francis faction, one has escaped the clutches of the Modernist sect and retains Catholic orthodoxy, which is precisely what one Novus Ordo anti-Francis group is already claiming. This will not be in fact so. A schism within the Novus Ordo Sect, with Ratzinger/Wojtyla “traditionalists” on the one side and Bergoglio liberals on the other, will only serve to keep people adhering in one way or another to the false church and away from the hard truth that the Catholic Church has been without a Pope since Pius XII died in 1958. Thus, even though a schism would weaken Francis tremendously, it would ultimately only help the Modernist revolution, because those of the misled who in good faith adhere to the anti-Francis faction will think themselves to have escaped the deception, when they will in fact but adhere to a different side of it.



     Published March 17, 2015

They call it “Renewal”...

Episcopal Consecration on March 19

Former SSPX Bp. Richard Williamson to
 Consecrate Fr. Jean-Michel Faure a Bishop


At age 73, Fr. Faure, right, is only two years younger than his consecrator.

The following report is a repost from the Novus Ordo / indult 
Rorate Caeli web site (original post here):

It was only a matter of time. Ever since Bishop Richard Williamson eventually caused the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to force his own expulsion from that Society in 2012, the watch has been on for him to consecrate one or more bishops. This became even more inevitable as he has failed to recruit any significant number of clergy or faithful away from the SSPX in a so-called "Resistance" attempt.

Rorate can now report at least one consecration will occur on March 19 (Feast of St. Joseph).

According to our sources, Bishop Williamson plans to consecrate Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the monastery of Santa Cruz (that also broke with the SSPX in 2012) in Nova Friburgo, a city in the state of  Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Fr. Faure, who is 73, entered the SSPX seminary of Ecône in 1972 and was ordained a priest by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1977.

He had previously been Superior of the SSPX District of South America and Rector of the Seminary of La Reja in Argentina. He openly manifested his disagreement with Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, and left the Society in 2013.

We have also heard, but cannot confirm, that Bishop Williamson may also consecrate Fr. Innocent Marie. 

Fr. Innocent Marie was ordained at Ecône by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1982. He is the founder of the convent of Avrillé in France, of Dominican spirituality, which also recently broke ties with the SSPX.

Note that the SSPX is absolutely and completely unrelated to any activities of Williamson since his removal from that Society in 2012. 

The penalties eventually related to the 1988 consecrations on those who were then the four bishops of the SSPX (currently three, after the expulsion of Williamson) were lifted by the Holy See on January 21, 2009, by order of Pope Benedict XVI. It was in fact the specific inclusion of Williamson in the list of those whose penalties had been lifted that ended up causing great anguish and pain to Benedict XVI.

Now, in case of violation of Canons 1013 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, a new penalty of excommunication will fall upon Williamson (just Williamson, who is not anymore a member of the SSPX) and those priests he consecrates.

[the above report from the Novus Ordo / indult web site Rorate Caeli]


Fr. Jean-Michel Faure, left, with Abp. Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. (later Bp.) Alfonso de Galarreta
Click for larger image

Novus Ordo Watch commentary: It comes as no surprise, of course, that Bp. Williamson, at 75 years of age, has decided to consecrate at least one bishop to be his “successor”, more or less. Nor should it come as a surprise that he considers (quite rightly) the threat of Novus Ordo excommunication to be null and void. But what is a bit stunning is that the priest he chooses to consecrate, Fr. Jean-Michel Faure, is only two years his junior. Surely it won’t be long before the newly-consecrated Bp. Faure will be looking to consecrate his successor.

See Also:

Looking for More? We only keep the 10 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive... well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

2013: 01/1302/13
2012: 01-03/1204/1205/1206/1207/1208/1209/1210/1211/1212/12
2011: 02/1105/1108/1110/11
2010: 01/1002/1005/1006/1007/1008/1010/1012/10
2009: 01/0902/0903/0904/0905/0907/0911/09   
2008: 01/0802/0803/0804/0805/0806/0809/0810/0812/08

2007: 01/0706/0707/0708/0709/0710/0711/0712/07
2006: 01/0602/0603/0604/0605/0606/0607/0608/0609/0610/0611/0612/06
2005: 01/0502/0503/0504/0505/0506/0507/0508/0509/0510/0511/0512/05
2004: 01/0402/0403/0404/0405/0406/0407/0408/0409/0410/0411/0412/04
2003: 01-03/0304-05/0306/0307/0308/0309/0310/0311/0312/03

2002: 10-12/02

We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Google Analytics Alternative