Well, Bishop Williamson only thinks he shouldn't have said this publicly.  This sounds to be a hair's breadth removed from the Bergoglian doctrine where you can denounce divorce / remarriage as wrong or sinful objectively and in the "external" forum, while "discerning" a different outcome in the "internal" forum by working it out with your Confessor.

You seem to get dumber every day.  No conception of the necessary distinctions, as usual.  Objective vs subjective; in se vs quoad nos; pastoral vs doctrinal/dogmatic; all right over your big head...as usual.


This is subjectivist moral relativism, and it's surprising to me coming from a man who has long (and rightly) denounced the subjectivism as the foundational error of Vatican II. 

Which ought to indicate to you that you don't know what you are talking about (just like your Catharinusian errors on ministerial intention). 


It's partly due to how Bishop Williamson formed my own mind regarding subjectivism that I find current attitude toward this issue to be troubling.  He instilled in me a contempt for subjectisim in all its forms, and now is engaging in a fair bit of it himself here.

No doubt it has nothing to do with your sedevacantism, the alleged invalidity of the new Mass, and the alleged invalidity of its ministers.  That couldn't possibly factor into your incomprehension.

#4 - unfortunately we don't have the Archbishop with us to clarify this claim. Without any evidence, BW is probably mistaken.

Here's +Lefebvre being "subjective" in an Econe spiritual conference (i.e., New Mass is poison, but you can eat it in necessity...and it gives grace...precisely as +Williamson says):

"The father of Mr Pazat who is here told me yesterday that right now, there is not a single mass of St Pius V in Madrid. If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions, as I will mention, quite a few circuмstances in which we cannot attend these masses.

But there are still priests who believe, there are still priests.. the mass is not always invalid, certainly not ! If it was always an invalid mass, of course we cannot go there, if it was always a sacrilegious mass, a mass regularly sacrilegious, evidently, a mass that has a net protestant tendency, it would be evident. But I think there are at the same time circuмstances in which.. we do not know, because there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !

If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]"

He changed his mind then, in 1976 he called the no mass illegitimate

Little by little, the archbishop’s position hardened: this Mass with its ecuмenical rite was seriously ambiguous and harmful to the Catholic Faith.

This is why one cannot be made to assist at it to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.”

In 1975 he still admitted that one could “assist occasionally” at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a long time.

However, in 1977, he was more or less absolute:
To avoid conforming to the evolution slowly taking place in the minds of priests, we must avoid—I could almost say completely—assisting at the New Mass."

A poisoned liturgy

Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals [this is also true for marriages—Ed].

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.
...
All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

"Illegitimate" can mean many things: It can mean the new Mass does not come from competent authority, or that competent authority has no authority to issue it, or that competent authority did not properly promulgate it, or that it is defective, or that it does not serve the common good, or is not Catholic, or all of these, etc.

https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass
Archbishop Lefebvre:  November 8, 1979: