Every Resistance priest that I know said at the time 'Bishop Williamson is wrong'. It precipitated the split in the Resistance with Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko launching at outrageous attack, which betrayed a lack of respect and good will, being joined by Greg Taylor of The Recusant. Fr Chazal told us that he saw BW soon after the event and the Bishop asked him if he should apologise. Father told us that he told the Bishop "No, it's not for the General to humiliate himself, leave the damage control to the foot soldiers". I was very disappointed when I heard that, because I think that a clarification at the time could have easily resolved the issue and reassured many priests and faithful.
The important points that I take from this interview are:
1. There has been no change in principle.
2. This is primarily a pastoral question, not a dogmatic one.
3. It is absolutely untrue to make the statement that "Bishop Williamson encourages attendance at the NOM". Rather, he would give permission in private, under very exceptional circuмstances (certainty of valid priest and sacrament, a reverent priest who has the Faith, a reverent Mass), to particular individuals (isolated from the true Mass, feel a great need to be strengthened by the Holy Eucharist, for whom it would not be a danger to their faith...)
4. BW admits that what he said in public should have been said in private, as he says the Archbishop did on at least two such occasions that he can recall.
5. BW says he would give this advice even more today, than ABL did, as the situation in the Church is so much worse.
For me, it is this last point which he makes that I still find altogether unsatisfactory, for two reasons: If the Church is in so much more chaos today than it was in the 70s and 80s, as he says, then isn't it almost impossible today to be certain of the ordination of any given priest? The doubt over the validity of the Holy Orders has been compounded by the multiplication of doubtful consecrations and ordinations over a period of fifty years. And then there is the issue of finding a true Mass. I would have thought that it was much harder to find one in those early years after the Council. Today, I would have thought, the Latin Mass is more widespread than it was then. I am sure that if these points were made to the Bishop, we would receive fully Catholic answers that do not pose any threat to the Faith or the Resistance. And this is where Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko erred... but now we know, there was another agenda...
Unfortunately I did not hear the so-called foot soldiers clarifying anything publicly. Perhaps they did privately, who knows.
Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledged in 1980-1981 that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Novus Ordo, while simultaneously stipulating none could be forced to do so. Shall I consider him guilty of promoting the new Mass?
In the Christian Warfare book under the Examination of Conscience section, attendance at the NOM is considered sinful.
False. The old/original edition made that claim, but the new version eliminated that claim. The neo-SSPX evidently no longer believes this.
Obviously souls that are ignorant of the NOM's protestantized dangers have no culpability, but the same can't be said for souls frequenting traditional chapels since the dangers of the NOM are frequently mentioned in SSPX literature.
You mean like the lady at the 2015 Mahopac conference (who mostly attended a daily Novus Ordo, and an insult Mass on the weekends, and was only at the +Williamson conference because a relation was being confirmed)?
Therefore, I don't understand how BW can still "give permission".
Can you cite a single example of Williamson giving such "permission" to a trad?
#3 is problematic. How can the NOM be called a reverent Mass?
Archbishop Lefebvre, while acknowledging all Novus Ordo Masses defective, himself distinguished between sacrilegious and reverent NOMs.
But perhaps your inquiry would be better directed toward +Fellay, who in Rome told Cardinal Canizarez’s Secretary that had Lefebvre seen the reverent Mass Fellay had just witnessed, he never would have done what he did?
#4 - unfortunately we don't have the Archbishop with us to clarify this claim. Without any evidence, BW is probably mistaken.
Sorry, but to call into question the statements of a man with such a manifest reputation for honesty is scarcely credible. We’re his honesty not impeccable, he need not have caused himself this trouble attempting to explain the matter to wrongly scandalized souls.
#5 - the advice of SSPX priests where there are no TLMs…
Noted: The SSPX says attending indult Masses is acceptable…
…available on Sundays and days of obligations is to stay at home and pray your Rosary and follow the prayers of the missal to sanctify the Lord's Day, rather than saying it is probably ok to go to the NOM, no matter how "reverent" it may look. I've never heard anything else from Society priests.
To pretend Williamson directs trads to attend Novus Ordo Masses on Sunday and Holy Days where there are not TLMs available is libelous. Williamson never said that. But as regards reverent NOMs, I would redirect your attention to the comment of Fellay to Cardinal Canizares' secretary above.
"Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledged in 1980-1981 that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Novus Ordo, while simultaneously stipulating none could be forced to do so."
Complete and total confusion.
Nothing in the statement confuses me. I understand the fallacy completely.
Read it again, Sean. I'm sure you'll get it.
:jester:
Seriously, Sean. I have faith in your abilities. Read it again. I'm sure you can figure it out. You can do it bud!!
What part confuses you? The Archbishop's position itself, you mean (i.e., You find it inherently contradictory and inconsistent)?If the Sunday obligation can be fulfilled by attending the NO mass, would not Catholics be "forced to do so" by the first Precept of the Church, assuming the NO is the only mass available to them?
If the Sunday obligation can be fulfilled by attending the NO mass, would not Catholics be "forced to do so" by the first Precept of the Church, assuming the NO is the only mass available to them?
"Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledged in 1980-1981 that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Novus Ordo, while simultaneously stipulating none could be forced to do so."
Complete and total confusion.
Cherry-picking +Lefevre quotes from the early 1980s is not helpful or honest ... and can backfire on The Resistance because that's precisely where neo-SSPX get their ammunition from as well.
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.I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt on this. But if ABL made a point of advising attendance at the NOM privately, what made him do so? Why not publicly?
I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt on this. But if ABL made a point of advising attendance at the NOM privately, what made him do so? Why not publicly?
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):Such wisdom from the Archbishop, we were so blessed to have him. Undoubtedly a chosen soul predestined by God for this mission from all Eternity, to save His Church and be a light shining in the darkness. Those who deny it have a very dim view of Divine Providence. Separate from him at your own peril.
"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]"
What part confuses you? The Archbishop's position itself, you mean (i.e., You find it inherently contradictory and inconsistent)?He changed his mind then, in 1976 he called the no mass illegitimate
He changed his mind then, in 1976 he called the no mass illegitimate
Yeah, and in the early 1980s, he was also begging Rome to be allowed to make "the experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon. That is the same era from which the neo-SSPX pluck quotes from +Lefebvre about wanting a practical arrangement with Rome, etc...There is no problem here, whatsoever. The early 80s was a very different situation from 2012.
Cherry-picking +Lefevre quotes from the early 1980s is not helpful or honest ... and can backfire on The Resistance because that's precisely where neo-SSPX get their ammunition from as well.
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.
There is no problem here, whatsoever. The early 80s was a very different situation from 2012.
"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.
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.Ladislaus, I think there is a problem with your moral theology. Now I am not a theologian either, so I need to be careful here. I would invite any priest who is on the forum to clarify the theology for us.
This is subjectivist moral relativism
but it's either objectively right or wrong to assist at the NOM.
If I don't know it's forbidden to eat meat on Good Friday, I wouldn't sin by eating meat. But if I ask a Priest or Bishop in public whether it's permitted to have a steak dinner on Good Friday, the response can't be "Well, if you think it's OK to eat meat on Good Friday, then make sure to get a good quality steak." Said Bishop/Priest must inform the ignorant or otherwise malformed conscsience.
https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-massGood quotes, Ladislaus, and it is true that the Archbishop was sometimes speaking more strongly on the subject than at other times. As Bishop Williamson says, the Archbishop was stricter on the matter than he.
Archbishop Lefebvre: November 8, 1979:
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.
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. 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.
Sure, it's true that someone who doesn't believe it's wrong to attend the NOM wouldn't sin subjectively by attending the NOM, but it's either objectively right or wrong to assist at the NOM. If I don't know it's forbidden to eat meat on Good Friday, I wouldn't sin by eating meat. But if I ask a Priest or Bishop in public whether it's permitted to have a steak dinner on Good Friday, the response can't be "Well, if you think it's OK to eat meat on Good Friday, then make sure to get a good quality steak." Said Bishop/Priest must inform the ignorant or otherwise malformed conscience.
Objectively it's either permissible or it isn't permissible to attend the NOM. It either offends God or it doesn't, per se. Alternatively, it's OK if offered well (with all the right "trappings"). But the objective truth falls into one of these categories.
Of course, none of us can BIND other people's consciences. I would say that it's my opinion that it's offensive to God to attend the NOM under any circuмstances, but that I have no authority to bind their conscience. I wouldn't accuse someone of sin for having disagreed with me. Bu that doesn't mean I would say it's OK when asked.
I'm in full agreement with the above comments.The reason I disagree, is that we are not talking about a Commandment of God (Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery) or the Church (forbidding the eating of meat on Friday), as in the examples given here.
It is true to say, in general, that it is very dangerous to attend the New Mass, and to give the general advice that one should not attend.
Perhaps this is at the root of the disagreement or debate. Is it wrong to attend the NO merely because it's "dangerous" to one's faith or because the NOM is objectively offensive and displeasing to God, a Great Sacrilege? If it's just a question of "danger," then there is a certain amount of pastoral "relativity". But I hold there's more to it, and many Traditional Catholics do ... which is why Bishop Williamson's comments caused a stir.How is a truly Catholic mass ever a "danger" to one's Faith?
When you look at some of the statements of Archbishop Lefebvre, at least the ones I found from the late 1970s, he said that we cannot attend the NOM because it entails a communicatio in sacris with a non-Catholic religion, but then later he spoke about the danger of attending "Indult" Masses (when those came about). So I think he would put the two, attendance at NOM and attendance at Indult Masses, into two different categories.
How is a truly Catholic mass ever a "danger" to one's Faith?
If the Sunday obligation can be fulfilled by attending the NO mass, would not Catholics be "forced to do so" by the first Precept of the Church, assuming the NO is the only mass available to them?Well, no. It appears that assisting at the NOM can only sometimes keep the Sabbath Day Holy.
As "Real McCoy" said on the other thread....It's a danger for traditionalists to fall for the lie that piety is greater than charity.
And Ladislaus correctly replied:
THIS^^^. And, even more, the confusion of being "nice" with charity. In many cases, charity REQUIRES being blunt, direct, and harsh. We could read some of the works of St. Jerome wherein he ruthlessly excoriates heretics. With heresy, due to the profound harm it causes, the destruction of souls, the gloves must come off. St. Pius X, the epitome of charity, said that Modernists needed to be beaten with fists. To be "soft" on it is in fact to condone it and to give the impression that "it's not so bad" or "you're OK, I'm OK". That would be a lie, and charity must, first and foremost, be grounded in truth. To be nice about heresy would be a LACK of charity by failing to communicate the gravity of this evil.
Everything said above applies directly to the new mass and +Williamson's erroneous comments. The Bishop was being "too nice". He downplayed the evils of the new mass to "emotionally support" an old lady, instead of preaching the truth, in charity. V2 and new the mass are heretical. If we condone such, however small, we have compromised charity. And let's not forget what "charity" means; it comes from "the love of God" first and foremost. So true charity = love of God = love of truth. God is ALL LOVE and ALL TRUTH. When we speak God's Truth, we are speaking God's Love. You cannot separate the two; they work together.
Yes, I wish +Williamson would've apologized long ago. And shame on Fr Chazal for telling him not to. And shame on +Williamson for making multiple, public statements supporting his original "allowance" in videos that were posted to this site. He doubled-down on the error. But most of all, shame on him for only regretting that his comments were PUBLIC, which means that he still believes it's ok to believe such in private. Which means, he doesn't see any error at all.
Aside from this error, which is happening in the worst crisis in the History of the Church, and in which satan *seemingly* rules the Church, +Williamson is a wonderful bishop and we are lucky to have him. One error, on an EXTREMELY complex issue, in an EXTREMELY choatic and stressful situation, doth not tarnish all the good he has done and still is doing. God will have mercy on us all, especially +Williamson.
But, the fact remains that the sspx has always been weak in the area of EENS, due to sentimentality. And the error of condoning the new mass is also one of sentimentality. The facts are the facts. If one does not die a baptized catholic, they will not be saved. If one attends/supports the new mass, they commit a sacrilege.
How God judges all of this, on a person-by-person basis, is up to Him and only He can do it. Our job is preach the simple truth; not try to water down doctrine because of human emotion.
No, he wasn't being too nice. And the lady that he was speaking to when he said she could attend the NO was not old. She was young.Well said, Meg.
It's okay for us to have an objective opinion on the new mass and V2. But then we are the laity. It's quite another thing for a bishop to give pastoral advice to someone who did not at that time have a full understanding of the Crisis situation in the Church. Even +ABL said that in giving pastoral advice, one might have to work with where a person was at in regards to their understanding about the Crisis.
At the end of the day, it is the Bishop who will have to account to God for his advice to souls. And like he said, he should have done it in private, under exceptional circuмstances. So let's take this video for what it is - an admission of a mistake, not an encouragement to attend the NOM.
It is possible to have a priest with a solid Faith, who says a reverent Novus Ordo Mass. The danger in such Masses comes above all from the omissions. The idea of its being a sacrifice, devotion to the BVM etc, everything specifically Catholic. Lex orandi, lex credendi: if we stop praying as Catholics, we stop believing as Catholics. However, that doesn't mean it cannot ever be attended,Total BS. Your theology is as warped and deficient as the Protestant bogus ordo mess. You need to read (or re-read) Fr Wathen’s 1971 book “The Great Sacrilege”. You can find it free on this site and on the web.
Meg, your application of morality to the new mass is “cloudy” at best. You would have us all believe that after 50 years of clown masses, sacrilegious communions in the hand, and abominable mocking of the holiness of Christ's sacrifice of Calvary, that all of this can be ignored when it comes to “pastoral advice” or “good intentions”. This is a complete lack of logic and a deficiency in grasping the theology of what the Mass truly is. Your defense of +W in this matter is pitiful.
Had +W been a bishop in the 70s would he have told these priests to stay in their dioceses and say the new mass “reverently”? One wonders.Quite a statement Pax Vobis.
I think it betrays a great ignorance of Bishop Williamson, and the point he is here trying to make us understand.His "point" is obviously convoluted and unclear since he's admitted it was a mistake. You and Meg keep defending +W's original comment yet even +W is backtracking. ?? Is this bizarro world, or what?
I invite you for a moment to lay aside your belligerent attitude - a very necessary one these days, surrounded as we are by so many enemies of our soul - and listen to the Bishop speak again (did you actually listen to the video?), keeping in mind that the Supreme Law of the Church is the Salvation of Souls. You are at the level of principles, which you could never articulate on this matter as clearly as BW, but there is such a thing as pastoral prudence, less necessary for you than a bishop...I don't believe the new mass involves any "exceptional circuмstances", especially when the advice comes from a Traditional Bishop. One should EXPECT to hear traditional orthodoxy from traditional bishops, wherein they would support traditional liturgies. Except, +W gave the opposite advice.
This post is about the Bishop admitting a mistake, and about such advice as was given being possible in private under "exceptional circuмstances".
If you truly love truth, love Tradition, and hate what is anti-Tradition, then you will love souls and understand how Holy Mother Church is unyielding in Her principles (and who more so than BW) yet gentle with the souls of Her children.
You appeal to the pioneering priests of Tradition of the 70s. Would it be possible to find a churchman of the 70s who had the combination of authority, learning, holiness and missionary zeal of Archbishop Lefebvre?That's an unfair question because +ABL was basically the only Trad Bishop in the 70s. But there were MANY Trad priests who were WAY more hardline against the new mass than +ABL. Just because he was a bishop doesn't mean his theology was better, or his application of it.
He refused to offer the New Mass. He saved Tradition for the Church. It was in large measure due to him that we have the "Ottaviani Intervention".He HELPED to save Tradition. But there were many, many other priests who worked independently of the sspx in the 70s to "save Tradition". One cannot discount his leadership and efforts but he was far from the only one. +ABL wouldn't have had any priests to ordain in the 80s if the many, many priests across the US/Europe had not started small chapels and educated the faithful on the errors of V2. God used all these priests/laymen to build Tradition, not just +ABL and the sspx.
Yet it is also from him that we heard the advice in his spiritual conference in the 70s posted above by Sean:See, here is the problem. We don't live in the 70s anymore. This advice is outdated. The past is the past. Back in the 70s, 80s, (and even 90s) many novus ordo priests were still valid priests. But now? 99.9999999999% of novus ordo "priests" are doubtful. Including FSSP, ICK, and any "traditional" dioceses. +ABL's advice doesn't apply anymore. No amount of "reverence" or even the 1962 missal can correct an invalid priest. Everything connected to new-rome is doubtful. But in the 70s and 80s, there was still gray area. +W did not correct his "advice" based on current circuмstances.
"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....
So clearly, you not only challenge Bishop Williamson, but Archbishop Lefebvre also. Would you say to Archbishop Lefebvre what you said to Meg: "You don’t know history and you don’t truly love Tradition because you don’t hate all that is anti-Tradition"? That would be a big call indeed!If +ABL gave +W's advice today (or in 2015) I would say the same thing. Our job as Catholics is to preach the Truth. We are the salt of the earth. If someone asks a Bishop, in public, about the new mass, his response should be:
No doubt you find here, also, the answer to your "I wonder", above. Giving such advice to abandoned souls has nothing to do with compromising on principles. The Archbishop never said the New Mass, in spite of the fantasies of some recently spreading this calumny. So why wonder about Bishop Williamson when he gives the same explanation? If you or anyone else enjoys today the privilege of assisting at the Tridentine Mass, it is thanks to the great Archbishop who gave this advice. Don't forget it!Advice from the 70s no longer applies 40+ years later. We have the advantage of historical facts, better theological answers, and more importantly....WAY more access to the True Mass than back then. If this "poor lady" can't find a True Mass today, then she isn't looking for it.
In fact, for her to come to a "Traditional Conference" and ask such a "sob story" question about the new mass makes me think she was an infiltrator of some sort. She didn't come for the truth, otherwise she would have asked "where can I find a Latin Mass?". Instead she asked for "permission" to go where SHE WANTED TO GO. She didn't love Tradition and +W should've corrected her and called her out on it.I never thought of it that way. Very interesting.
In a public forum, at a Traditional venue, her question was subversive.
Meg, +Williamson’s comments are contrary to every major Trad pioneer priest of the 70s, who refused the new mass, was kicked out of their diocese into the street by their Modernist bishops, and who started saying the True Mass in “modern day catacombs” (ie garages, basements and hotel rooms). These priests lost everything to refuse the new mass!
Had +W been a bishop in the 70s would he have told these priests to stay in their dioceses and say the new mass “reverently”? One wonders.
You don’t know history and you don’t truly love Tradition because you don’t hate all that is anti-Tradition (ie every, single new mass, no matter how “reverent”). No amount of reverence can make up for its offense to God and it’s Protestant poison.
If you, or +W or anyone else thinks that you can save your soul going to the new mass, then you have no business being a Trad. You must join new rome. It’s been 50 years. Pick a side already.
And let's not forget what "charity" means; it comes from "the love of God" first and foremost. So true charity = love of God = love of truth. God is ALL LOVE and ALL TRUTH. When we speak God's Truth, we are speaking God's Love. You cannot separate the two; they work together.PV, I wanted to thank you for this because I needed to hear it the day you wrote it. It helped give me the courage to say something to someone in my life knowing full well it wouldn't go over well. Long story short, it paid off.
You don't think it's possible that anyone can be confused by the present Crisis?Of course. And that lady was obviously confused because she attended a Trad Conference but still wanted to go to the new mass. And +W's job (and any Trad's job) is to UN-CONFUSE those who need help. Our job is to tell those in error to "Stop what you are doing, do this instead and I will help you." You don't let them stay in error.
You believe that the situation is completely black and white, with nothing in-between, for everyone? Or that all a person needs to do is to hear the truth about the Crisis, and they automatically follow Tradition from the moment they hear the truth, without ever looking back? If you believe these things, then you aren't realistic when it comes to human nature.This lady knew enough about Tradition and +W to come to a conference. She knew enough to mention a "reverent new mass" (vs an irreverent one). She knew enough to hear the "plain and simple truth" - that is, the new mass is the 'great sacrilege' of our times and it is not catholic and you should not go, ever again, if you want to save your soul.
If our neighbor asks for the Truth, we must "let him hear what the Spirit saith". That is, we must preach the PLAIN and WHOLE TRUTH, as it comes from the Holy Ghost. No sugar-coating it, no delays, no compromise.
Of course. And that lady was obviously confused because she attended a Trad Conference but still wanted to go to the new mass. And +W's job (and any Trad's job) is to UN-CONFUSE those who need help. Our job is to tell those in error to "Stop what you are doing, do this instead and I will help you." You don't let them stay in error.
Action comes before knowledge.Pax Vobis, do you realise what you said here?
Action comes before knowledge.In the context of my rant, I meant (natural) action comes before (spiritual) knowledge. That is, you teach children obedience first (action), then as they get older, they will understand "why" certain rules exist. It's the same way with the 10 commandments. God didn't explain them to Moses or the Jєωs in the Old Testament. And when He writes the natural law on all men's hearts, He doesn't explain it. He expects us to follow our conscience first (action), as an act of Faith and (childlike blind) obedience. Then, as we get older and wiser, we can begin to comprehend "why" (knowledge) God made these rules and how they are beneficial for us.
Is it really a good idea to preach the WHOLE truth to someone who is asking for the truth? I mean, what if they knew nothing at all about Catholicism? How would they know the context of what constitutes Truth? I think it's a good idea to tailor the Truth to what a person's background is, and how much they understand about Catholicism. Though perhaps you can tell us of interactions you've had with your neighbors where you told them the WHOLE Truth, and they got it. No problem. Can you tell us about some of those experiences with your neighbors?This is a question irrelevant to the current topic. The lady in question had PLENTY of understanding of the present crisis. The fact that she asked about a "reverent" new mass, means she knows enough about V2 vs Tradition to be given the "plain truth". She needed to be corrected and encouraged to do the right thing, not educated.
In your vast experience (which you obviously have), is it always the case that a person seeking the Truth is always going to understand it by using only words to explain the situation?:facepalm: One could also use telepathy, hindu mediation, or "speaking in tongues".
If that's the case, then maybe the Prots are right. One only needs to read the Bible in order to understand Truth. Words, in and of themselves, are sufficient to make Truth understandable. Nothing else required.:facepalm:
I think it comes down to this question:This is an important question, but the problems go deeper. The question of "intrinsically evil" was already answered by +Ottaviani when he said that this rite "represents a striking departure from the theology of Trent". +Ottaviani (one of the top theologians in Rome in the 60s) and (ghostwriter +ABL) taught that the intrinsic theology/doctrine of the new mass is protestant and heretical. Anyone who has studied this should agree. Which is why +W's comments are so odd.
Is active attendance at a Mass offered using the Novus Ordo Rite in Latin an intrinsically evil act?
If one answers "Yes", then it cannot be actively attended for any reason whatsoever.
If one answer "No", then he agrees with Bishop Williamson.
Of course. And that lady was obviously confused because she attended a Trad Conference but still wanted to go to the new mass. And +W's job (and any Trad's job) is to UN-CONFUSE those who need help. Our job is to tell those in error to "Stop what you are doing, do this instead and I will help you." You don't let them stay in error.It is not at all clear that this lady was confused.
Let's apply this logic to a simple moral issue.
Example - You find out a relative has an addiction to alcohol and a potential major health issue due to drinking. The relative goes to an AA meeting and asks all those present if he should keep his job at the local pub or find a new one (where he won't be tempted). If the AA leader tells the guy "Hey, you should keep your job but just start reading articles about the dangers of alcohol abuse. You need to educate yourself before you make any changes. Take your time and make a decision when you're ready."
Wouldn't you say this advice is HORRIBLE? Wouldn't you criticize the AA leader for not telling your relative the straight truth? Wouldn't you be angry at the AA leader for not correcting your relative and helping him change NOW?
The correct advice is - "Hey, I'm sorry you have a health problem and I want to help you. Alcohol is causing your problems and if you don't change, you are going to die.
In the context of my rant, I meant (natural) action comes before (spiritual) knowledge. That is, you teach children obedience first (action), then as they get older, they will understand "why" certain rules exist. It's the same way with the 10 commandments. God didn't explain them to Moses or the Jєωs in the Old Testament. And when He writes the natural law on all men's hearts, He doesn't explain it. He expects us to follow our conscience first (action), as an act of Faith and (childlike blind) obedience. Then, as we get older and wiser, we can begin to comprehend "why" (knowledge) God made these rules and how they are beneficial for us.I agree, Pax, I would have liked to have heard Bishop Williamson come out unequivocally, on that day, with an answer that clearly addressed the issue of the gravity of the liturgical reform and the very serious reasons for avoiding it altogether, including the fact that we can almost never be certain of the validity of a Conciliar priest.
In the same way, when a person is confused about the present crisis, you treat them like a spiritual child. You lovingly tell them what to do (avoid the new mass) and you don't complicate it by too much explanation. If this person has meekness and humility, then they will follow their conscience and start attending the latin mass. Then, as time goes on, you can explain this or that, tell them what to read, etc. And God will enlighten them, as only He can, and they will "understand" (knowledge) the errors of the new rite.
It is not at all clear that this lady was confused.I'm assuming she was confused out of respect and charity to +W. If she was NOT confused then he bears MUCH MORE responsibility for not correcting her and condoning her attachment to a heretical liturgy, which will eventually erode her Faith.
You don't know what Bishop Williamson said to this lady before and after the conference.Neither do you. All we can comment on is the public conversation.
In this video, Bishop Williamson acknowledges that he should not have made these public comments. He also acknowledges that he may not have said what he meant to say, if you listen.That's good. +W should rightly apologize and correct the record that the new mass in an abomination and should never be attended, for any reason.
If we take your example of alcohol, we can learn something applicable to this case. Alcohol is only an evil/poison when abused. St Paul tells us that "a little wine is good for the stomach",No one in the history of Tradition has ever argued that "a little novus ordo, or a little of V2 is good for the soul". :jester: Your analogy fails.
and of course, it is matter for the Sacrament. In counselling someone regarding alcohol intake, we need to be cognizant of certain circuмstances. You tailor the advice to the circuмstances of the individual, that is what any good physician or friend would do. The alcoholic you would advise to abstain completely, whereas your advice to others may be different. To continue the analogy, you are presuming that this lady in question is an alcoholic. You just shoot from the hip, and before you know it, you've killed someone.The analogy is only applicable as I framed it, related to a dying alcoholic. There are no circuмstances where the new mass can be good, or nourishing, or spiritually beneficial. Go read +Ottaviani, Fr Wathen, Fr Cekada, etc.
This lady may not be able to attend the TLM.Maybe she is able. You don't know this. Even if she isn't able to attend the TLM, the advice to stay away from the new mass stands. No exceptions.
She may be easily able to attend a reverent New Mass offered by a certainly valid priest.1. A reverent novus ordo is still theologically/doctrinally anti-catholic.
It is possible that attending this Mass, for her, would not be a danger to her faith - she may have kept the Faith for the last twenty years attending the same.I think you have a watered-down, V2 understanding of what "keeping the Faith" means. This is your main problem.
Ceasing attendance at her local Church may be for her a danger to her Faith - we ought not to presume that we know all the circuмstances. And the Holy Eucharist is not a poison, but life-giving. "If you don't change, you are going to die" - In spite of your good intentions, you may end up killing the person you thought you were going to save. This is where pastoral prudence comes in.See, you have a too-naturalistic view of salvation. In my case of the alcoholic, were he to quit his job, give up alcohol that very minute and die 3 days later, he might save his soul, because God would see that he ACTED to move towards morality. He took CONCRETE STEPS to change his situation, and this implies contrition for sins.
I am not saying that any of these conditions are even likely. Neither is Bishop Williamson: "in certain exceptional circuмstances".Heresy is heresy. Sacrilege is sacrilege. Truth is truth. Our job as catholics is to preach the truth, pure and undefiled. We cannot create exceptions, as we are not God. Jesus preached His Eucharistic mystery in John chapter 6. Most left Him that day, forever. Jesus let them walk; he did not clarify, minimize or make exceptions "in certain circuмstances". This tells us all we need to know about how God handles Truth. "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no."
Let it be understood that this is in no way a defence of the liturgical reform, nor a downplaying of its gravity.
Likewise, in the context of his comments, I would like to have heard Bishop Williamson give much more emphasis to why, in general, we should shun the New Mass,+W doesn't have time to reiterate the evils of V2 at every public meeting. Fr Wathen's book from 1971 is over 50 years old. Go read that. +W does not need to re-invent the wheel, nor does he have time to. Nor does any Trad Bishop/priest.
and I would like to hear his explanation of how and where, in 2023, we could be certain of the validity of just about any priest who says the New Mass (excluding the odd one who might have defected from the SSPX, for example...).Certainty does not exist. All new rite priests are doubtful, so their "masses" are doubtful.
Maybe he is just presuming that his Trad audience already is fully convinced of this.Yes, they should be.
The problem is, you and Meg keep defending +W's ORIGINAL allowance of the new mass, even when he himself has abandoned it. So both of you are at odds with +W's current view. ?? It's quite the contradiction.That is a false statement, pure and simple. You are very confused Pax. It is unbelievable that you could say such a thing.
There are no circuмstances where the new mass can be good, or nourishing, or spiritually beneficial. Go read +Ottaviani, Fr Wathen, Fr Cekada, etc.It's good to know your theological position, Pax Vobis.
If you believe that the new mass can be "circuмstantially" good, then you are not, and cannot be a Traditionalist. You are, by definition, part of the novus ordo church, part of the new ecuмenism, part of the conciliar revolution. The new mass was invented to lead catholics into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and the coming new age, one-world religion for antichrist. Wake up before it's too late!
Maybe she is able. You don't know this. Even if she isn't able to attend the TLM, the advice to stay away from the new mass stands. No exceptions.
1. A reverent novus ordo is still theologically/doctrinally anti-catholic.
2. It still violates Quo Primum.
3. It is still doubtfully valid.
4. No one ordained in the new rite can be "certainly valid". That's an oxymoron.
I think you have a watered-down, V2 understanding of what "keeping the Faith" means. This is your main problem.
See, you have a too-naturalistic view of salvation.
All new rite priests are doubtful, so their "masses" are doubtful.
I agree, Pax, I would have liked to have heard Bishop Williamson come out unequivocally, on that day, with an answer that clearly addressed the issue of the gravity of the liturgical reform and the very serious reasons for avoiding it altogether, including the fact that we can almost never be certain of the validity of a Conciliar priest.This wasn't the point of the conference and it has all been said before.
Keep in mind, though, that this video is admission of a 'mistake' and a correction 'what I meant to say' and an admission that it should have been said in private where he could take into account all the particular circuмstances of this lady.1. I agree that what +W said, should not have been said in public.
It is also likely, given the breakdown of authority resulting from the crisis, that there are very few of us who are meek, humble, 'spiritual children' of any given authority that we trust entirely in any of these matters. We are all grown-ups who know too much!BS. All those good, faithful, Traditional Catholics who rightly reject all things V2 and the new mass, and who cling to Tradition are humble, 'spiritual children' of the 2,000 years of the Communion of Saints. The current V2 crisis is a indirect persecution of those who cling to the Faith. Those who make allowances for V2 and the new mass, are like the early fake-christians who offered their "pinch of incense" to the false-gods, to stay alive.
We need information so that we can make our own judgement about what is right and wrong.This information has been available for 50+ years. Go read Fr Wathen's book "The Great Sacrilege".
It's not as easy as the Ten Commandments for children.For those with the humility to hear the Truth, it is. It requires more explanation, but adults can handle more complex topics. The errors of the new mass are as simple for an adult to understand as a child with the 10 commandments. God enlightens those who will listen.
But yes, I agree, when asked a question like this, give the necessary truth unapologetically from the pulpit, and if necessary, gently apply the principles in private to the particular need of any given soul."Particular needs" of a soul do not alter the Truth.
That is a false statement, pure and simple. You are very confused Pax. It is unbelievable that you could say such a thing.It's not a false statement at all. +W originally made an allowance for the new mass. This caused scandal and he finally repented of the mistake. Therefore, the allowance no longer exists.
Let it be clear to everyone, that you are not a follower of Archbishop Lefebvre.As i've already said, +ABL made allowances for the new mass in the early 70s/80s because of the following reasons:
For you, the Archbishop 'cannot be a Traditionalist', was 'part of the novus ordo church, part of the new ecuмenism, part of the conciliar revolution'.
You don't know what Bishop Williamson said to this lady before and after the conference.
In this video, Bishop Williamson acknowledges that he should not have made these public comments. He also acknowledges that he may not have said what he meant to say, if you listen.
None of this type of situation exists today. It can't because new rite priests aren't valid priests...That is not true, but it would certainly be much less common, and much more difficult to ascertain the validity of Holy Orders.
It’s confusing. Maybe bishop w didn’t want the woman to become an atheist and leave the church totally ….or maybe there was zero traditional Church where she lived.If a person is told that they should reject 100% everything from V2, or else go to hell, then if they become an atheist, that is their fault and not the priest/bishop's.
The video has been removed, so I confess I do not know when it was taped. However, it is now 2023. Is +W addressing this issue EIGHT years later? Or was the now-removed video from another year?You would do well to read my opening post. No one is defending any hero, nor explaining anything away, but discussing Catholic principles, and yes, perhaps showing a little due respect for the one bishop in Tradition who has followed faithfully Archbishop Lefebvre and given us Operation Survival II to ensure that Tradition will continue. That seems to be lost on some small minds who imagine themselves to be the champions of Tradition. Bishop Williamson did not see fit to revisit anything. He granted an interview and gave an honest answer to a question.
FWIW, no one has any reason to believe he said anything at all to the lady, either before or after. All we can do is assess what he did, in fact, say to her publicly on film. He went on at length, as I recall. Why would he have said even more to her afterwards? What he said was what may kindly be styled "no bueno."
"I may not have said what I meant to say..."
Not exactly solid or reassuring or bluntly honest, especially if such a halfhearted admission only came after several years.
What he said back then was nonsense and his apologists, despite their best efforts, could not and still cannot explain it away. I am embarrassed for them that, rather than admit their hero was just plain wrong (who isn't from time to time?), they keep making excuses for the inexcusable. Stop it; move on. He's an exceptionally good man who was wrong -- something demonstrated a fortiori by the fact that he saw fit to revisit the matter at all.
That is not true, but it would certainly be much less common, and much more difficult to ascertain the validity of Holy Orders.Difficult to ascertain = positively doubtful = per canon law = required, under pain of mortal sin, to avoid.
You do not follow the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre on the validity of the New Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood.There is no such "teaching". He's not a pope. His own fellow sspx bishop, +Tissier, wrote a lengthy "teaching" about how new rites are invalid. Look it up.
You would do well to read my opening post.I did. I posted it below. It is theological garbage.
The important points that I take from this interview are:
1. There has been no change in principle.
2. This is primarily a pastoral question, not a dogmatic one.
3. It is absolutely untrue to make the statement that "Bishop Williamson encourages attendance at the NOM". Rather, he would give permission in private, under very exceptional circuмstances (certainty of valid priest and sacrament, a reverent priest who has the Faith, a reverent Mass), to particular individuals (isolated from the true Mass, feel a great need to be strengthened by the Holy Eucharist, for whom it would not be a danger to their faith...)
4. BW admits that what he said in public should have been said in private, as he says the Archbishop did on at least two such occasions that he can recall.
5. BW says he would give this advice even more today, than ABL did, as the situation in the Church is so much worse.
Difficult to ascertain = positively doubtful = per canon law = required, under pain of mortal sin, to avoid.Only a Pope teaches? You are good at twisting what a person says Pax Vobis.
There is no such "teaching". He's not a pope. His own fellow sspx bishop, +Tissier, wrote a lengthy "teaching" about how new rites are invalid. Look it up.
I did. I posted it below. It is theological garbage.Pax tecuм, Pax Vobis. Have a good Lent and God be with you. Oremus pro invicem.
1. The fact that +W has not changed his principles towards the new mass is a crying shame and will be a conundrum that historians will never understand.
2. +Ottaviani would totally disagree.
3. +W did not question (nor get answer to) whether this "poor lady" was going to a valid priest. So, facts dictate, we must assume the priest was invalid, as 99.99% are.
4. Private advice to attend the new mass is on the cleric's soul, whom God will judge.
5. How can you say that +W would "give this advice even more today" when the ENTIRE THREAD is about +W "admitting a mistake"?
a. Do you understand what "admitting a mistake" means?
b. Do you understand that +W is saying his advice was wrong?
c. Do you understand that +W implies he WOULD NOT give this advice again, today?
Do you understand basic, human english?
If it cannot be known, then yes there is doubt, and one must presume invalidity.Right. Did +W ask the lady who her priest was? No he did not. Therefore, since we don't know, we must presume invalidity.
Pax tecuм, Pax Vobis. Have a good Lent and God be with you. Oremus pro invicem.I pray that you will open your heart to God's truth, so that He may enlighten you as to His Holy Will and His love of an all-pure, all-holy Liturgy, which He deserves and which we owe Him due to our nothingness.
If a person is told that they should reject 100% everything from V2, or else go to hell, then if they become an atheist, that is their fault and not the priest/bishop's.
That is not true, but it would certainly be much less common, and much more difficult to ascertain the validity of Holy Orders.
You do not follow the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre on the validity of the New Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood.
Do you then believe that all of the Novus Ordo Catholics who are fine with V2 are going to Hell?I can't place anyone in hell, but those who go along with V2 are heretics. What happens to heretics when they die? That's up to God. Generally speaking, they will not be saved.
Or are they only going to Hell if they have been told to reject V2, and they don't do so after being told?God enlightens all men to the Truth, at some point in their lives. This is infallible Scripture. So everyone will have the opportunity to accept/reject the Truth. Thus all who are not saved are lost because of their own choice. Again, this is a doctrine of the Faith.
I can't place anyone in hell, but those who go along with V2 are heretics. What happens to heretics when they die? That's up to God. Generally speaking, they will not be saved.
God enlightens all men to the Truth, at some point in their lives. This is infallible Scripture. So everyone will have the opportunity to accept/reject the Truth. Thus all who are not saved are lost because of their own choice. Again, this is a doctrine of the Faith.
You're right. The hardliners here, IMO, do not hold the same view as Archbishop Lefebvre. That's okay, in a way, but they should just admit that. And it's usually some sort of sedevacantist view that is held by the hardliners. They seem to believe that there is nothing Catholic left in the conciliar church. Nothing at all. But +ABL and +W have not ever believed that.There's still catholicism left in the Anglicans and Orthodox too. Can they be saved if they die in heresy? If so, then you deny EENS. If they cannot be saved, then V2 catholics are in the same boat.
There's still catholicism left in the Anglicans and Orthodox too. Can they be saved if they die in heresy? If so, then you deny EENS. If they cannot be saved, then V2 catholics are in the same boat.
If you deny 1 doctrine, you are a heretic. A "90% catholic" is still a heretic. And if they are THAT close to orthodoxy, we should be waking them up and telling them to come to Tradition, instead of letting them stay in the novus ordo sinking ship.
Like I said in the OP, all the Resistance priests I know said at the time "Bishop Williamson is wrong". I am very glad to hear his clarification, and I would have liked to have been interviewing to clarify it further still... with the question: "Wouldn't it be almost impossible now, fifty years on, to be certain of the Ordination of any of these priests?".
Then they are all going to go to Hell, right? Is this what +ABL taught? I think not.??? The Church has said the Anglicans and the Orthodox, being heretics, cannot be saved. This is part of the "outside the Church, there is no salvation" dogma which you and everyone must believe, to be saved. +ABL has nothing to do with this. He's not infallible.
??? The Church has said the Anglicans and the Orthodox, being heretics, cannot be saved. This is part of the "outside the Church, there is no salvation" dogma which you and everyone must believe, to be saved. +ABL has nothing to do with this. He's not infallible.
:jester: Disagree with Meg on any topic and she’ll call you a “sede”.
Who are all of the Resistance priests who believed that +W was wrong? How many of them do you know exactly?Good question, Meg. I won't name names :) but, excepting the then-Resistance priests of Frs P and H, there were four others with whom I had immediate contact (still Resistance priests). Fr Chazal told us the story I related above where BW asked him if he should apologise and Fr C told him to leave that to the "foot soldiers". The Dominicans of Avrille promptly posted the traditional general advice on their website, from memory, as did other Resistance sites, the exact details of which now fail me. Bishops Faure and Thomas Aquinas were asked about the issue in conferences soon after, and they both maintained a respectful reserve, from memory, with Bishop Faure contenting himself with the comment: "I have never encouraged anyone to attend the NOM" (or words to that effect).
I don't think that +W wants to appease the many sedevacantists on this forum by posting his correction. Rather, maybe he wants to appease priests in the Resistance who disagreed with him. But who are these priests? I don't think that's ever been revealed.Good point, Meg, but can I ask if you know of any Resistance priest who thinks that what Bishop Williamson said in that conference was okay? I don't. It rightly raised eyebrows, and that is why I am glad of the clarification. I do understand the point BW is making, but it was not made well or appropriately at the time.
Who are all of the Resistance priests who believed that +W was wrong? How many of them do you know exactly?Just remembered one more, that's five!
Who are all of the Resistance priests who believed that +W was wrong? How many of them do you know exactly?All of those priests also disapprove of my attending the SSPX when no Resistance Mass is available. I understand their general advice, but I disagree with their particular advice, as it applies to me. This is where I agree with BW's advice "if you know yourself"... but it was not good advice, in public, regarding the NOM; it was not the appropriate way to answer the question... There may be exceptional circuмstances, as the Bishop now clarifies, where this sort of permission may be given in private.
Good point, Meg, but can I ask if you know of any Resistance priest who thinks that what Bishop Williamson said in that conference was okay? I don't. It rightly raised eyebrows, and that is why I am glad of the clarification. I do understand the point BW is making, but it was not made well or appropriately at the time.
as dreadful as the New Mass is.You really don't believe this.
You really don't believe this.I think she does, but ladislaus laid out the issue previously on another thread
those who think it tends to endanger faith but that it isn’t inherently sacrilegeThis is a contradiction in principles. Anything contrary to the Faith, is necessarily inherently evil, because anything contrary to God (however small the contrary-ness is) is not of Him. Anything which endangers the Truth, or doctrine, or Divine Law, is a compromise of it. Because God does not deceive, nor can He be deceived. He who is not 100% with God, is against Him, as He tells us in scripture.
This is a contradiction in principles [i.e., to say that the New Mass is a valid mass celebrated by genuine Catholic popes and bishops and yet endangers the faith or is a sacrilege]
What God creates is spotless, pure and holy (like Our Lady), as ONLY He can. He would never force us to accept/condone that Divine things be defiled, dirtied, or abused.
So....you, the sedevacantists, and Five Anonymous Resistance Priests believe that +W was wrong in what he said in that conference. I guess that's the final and most authoritative judgment then.The final and most authoritative judgement can only come from the Church. The Shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered. We have only Catholic principles that we do our best to apply in the meantime. The sad result of this situation is the many and varied judgements that you read on this thread, including yours Meg! Do you not believe your judgement right, just as the rest of us do? Beyond the borders of this Traditional forum there are many other judgements...
"Well, rather than starve, I better take a bite out of the rotten apple." This analogy does not carry. The man who lives in a city with no Latin Mass will not starve. It might be inconvenient, he might need to rely on his rosary, his missal, his private prayers, etc., but he is not going to starveI agree with Bishop Williamson's analogy, similar to the one ABL used, posted earlier. This is where prudence and pastoral experience come in. You may well think that a man who lives in a city with no TLM will not starve, but you do not have this vast pastoral experience and knowledge of souls. Souls are very different, and what may be an occasion of sin, (e.g. discouragement, despair) for one, is not an occasion for another. It's not general advice. It's particular advice to a given soul under certain exceptional circuмstances. It is not encouraging the faithful to seek out a reverent NOM. That is very different. That's my opinion, I agree with BW.
As we all know, it's the laity who really control Tradition. It seems to work on the same model as Opus Dei in that regard.Do you control Tradition where you are, Meg?
Let us not forget that He allowed His Only son to be abused, tortured and crucified, for us.:facepalm: You missed the point of the analogy. Did Christ ever sin or become spiritually corrupt, even 1%? No, when we speak of the Mass, we are speaking of Christ on the altar, who can never sin, or become spiritually (doctrinally, theologically) "deficient".
This is a contradiction in principles. Anything contrary to the Faith, is necessarily inherently evil, because anything contrary to God (however small the contrary-ness is) is not of Him. Anything which endangers the Truth, or doctrine, or Divine Law, is a compromise of it. Because God does not deceive, nor can He be deceived. He who is not 100% with God, is against Him, as He tells us in scripture.To be honest I don’t know the history of the debate that way. Maybe you’re right and Meg is wrong. Or vice versa. But it seems to me like a BIG part of the subtext between sspx and resistance debate is “who is representing archbishop Lefebvre correctly” and since Lefebvre did sometimes tell certain people they could attend certain NO in private, it’s NOT shocking to me that Williamson would defend the same thing. And I wouldn’t be shocked on an sspx Resistance forum that a number of people would agree with archbishop Lefebvre. It doesn’t seem to be that Williamson just compromised, but that he had a different principle than you to begin with
In human morality, acts and intention can blur, and thus you can have gray area. In matters of Doctrine, Theology and the Faith, there can be no gray area. God will not allow a circuмstance, nor will He allow us to be tempted, in such a way. He does not trivialize Himself, His Religion or Truth in such a manner. What God creates is spotless, pure and holy (like Our Lady), as ONLY He can. He would never force us to accept/condone that Divine things be defiled, dirtied, or abused.
+ABL and +W aren’t theologians and we shouldn’t treat them as such, especially when their views are contrary to historical theological views.The Archbishop was awarded a doctorate in theology in 1930, after a previous doctorate in philosophy. He was appointed seminary professor in 1932, and during the 30s and 40s he served as rector of two seminaries.
No, this is not (and should not) be a debate of +ABL vs +W or old-sspx vs new-sspx. Catholic principles on this issue have been around for centuries and centuries. Those who don’t know such principles, or how to properly apply them, generalize and summarize the arguments into “+ABL said this or that”.Are you yourself a theologian?
That’s a gross misrepresentation of doctrine and Church history. +ABL is not infallible but catholic principles (which theologians derive from doctrine) usually are, especially in regards to the sacraments.
So when we criticize +ABL or +W, we are criticizing their application of principles, which is easily shown to be contrary 1) to their own PRIOR personal sermons and 2) to the hundreds and hundreds of saints and theologians of history whose sole job was to develop and study such things.
+ABL and +W aren’t theologians and we shouldn’t treat them as such, especially when their views are contrary to historical theological views.
:facepalm: You missed the point of the analogy. Did Christ ever sin or become spiritually corrupt, even 1%? No, when we speak of the Mass, we are speaking of Christ on the altar, who can never sin, or become spiritually (doctrinally, theologically) "deficient".
Meg, if you want to be like the Joos and Roman pagans, and crucify Christ again, then attend the new mass, where Christ is blasphemed, mocked, etc. Or make allowances where others can go.
If you want to be like Our Lady, and St John, and the others at the foot of Calvary, then we don't take part in the sacrilege of the new mass, but we pray (and educate) those to stop hurting Our Lord and we console Him by attending the True Mass.
The english martyrs didn't go to the anglican heretical rite and they CERTAINLY wouldn't go to the new mass (which is far, far worse).
Compare Bishop Williamson's words today regarding the New Mass vs. what he said in the following audio. He has changed his public position. Furthermore, with what he states in the audio, I cannot see how he could even privately permit one to attend the New Mass under any circuмstances.Good point, CK, Bishop Williamson says here that even if the NOM is valid, it is illicit, and then he gives the analogy of a Satanic Mass and says one may no more attend the NOM than attend a Satanic Mass. That sort of very strong language was the typical general advice given by the SSPX of old, and the sort of advice that should be given publicly, even if one does not have to be very clever to understand that there is in fact a very big difference between a Satanic Mass and many a NOM, not least of which is the intention of any true priest in good faith who offers it. So it was very heartening to hear the clarification from BW in the OP that if he were going to give contrary advice to a particular soul, in exceptional circuмstances, it is something that should be done in private. The other analogy he used in the video you posted to explain valid and licit, that of jumping the fence to steal an apple to eat being valid but not licit: well, in cases of extreme need/starvation, such an action in moral theology is also licit. As BW said in the OP, there has been no change in principle, but he admitted the mistake of giving the advice in the manner that he did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gV0qyZN50
Good point, CK, Bishop Williamson says here that even if the NOM is valid, it is illicit, and then he gives the analogy of a Satanic Mass and says one may no more attend the NOM than attend a Satanic Mass. That sort of very strong language was the typical general advice given by the SSPX of old, and the sort of advice that should be given publicly, even if one does not have to be very clever to understand that there is in fact a very big difference between a Satanic Mass and many a NOM, not least of which is the intention of any true priest in good faith who offers it. So it was very heartening to hear the clarification from BW in the OP that if he were going to give contrary advice to a particular soul, in exceptional circuмstances, it is something that should be done in private. The other analogy he used in the video you posted to explain valid and licit, that of jumping the fence to steal an apple to eat being valid but not licit: well, in cases of extreme need/starvation, such an action in moral theology is also licit. As BW said in the OP, there has been no change in principle, but he admitted the mistake of giving the advice in the manner that he did.You are not correct. There was a change in principle, at least publicly, on Bishop Williamson's part. He said in that audio that the New Mass is always illicit and that it is intrinsically evil. Therefore, there can be no circuмstances whatsoever that can justify attending it.
Good point, CK, Bishop Williamson says here that even if the NOM is valid, it is illicit, and then he gives the analogy of a Satanic Mass and says one may no more attend the NOM than attend a Satanic Mass. That sort of very strong language was the typical general advice given by the SSPX of old, and the sort of advice that should be given publicly, even if one does not have to be very clever to understand that there is in fact a very big difference between a Satanic Mass and many a NOM, not least of which is the intention of any true priest in good faith who offers it. So it was very heartening to hear the clarification from BW in the OP that if he were going to give contrary advice to a particular soul, in exceptional circuмstances, it is something that should be done in private. The other analogy he used in the video you posted to explain valid and licit, that of jumping the fence to steal an apple to eat being valid but not licit: well, in cases of extreme need/starvation, such an action in moral theology is also licit. As BW said in the OP, there has been no change in principle, but he admitted the mistake of giving the advice in the manner that he did.I respect your posting style PV (especially noted in your posts in the Validity of NO thread), but it seems dangerous to equate a Satanic Mass with a mass (supposedly) promulgated by Holy Mother Church.
You are not correct. There was a change in principle, at least publicly, on Bishop Williamson's part. He said in that audio that the New Mass is always illicit and that it is intrinsically evil. Therefore, there can be no circuмstances whatsoever that can justify attending it.
A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.
When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but... because of the rite’s official promulgation,...
How is it possible that the Catholic Church can officially promulgate, and force upon the faithful, anything that is both objectively and intrinsically evil?
It seems that you are incorrect, as I find +Williamson using the same principle way back in 1996 (and basing it on +Lefebvre himself):
”Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfils one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.
When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfil their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)”
1) Can you explain how +Williamson’s Mahopac advice to the ignorant conciliar woman was any different than the application of Lefebvre’s principle above?
2) Can you explain how Lefebvre can say one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by committing -as you claim- an intrinsically evil moral act?
Clearly, the Williamson of 2015-2023 is the same as that of 1996 (and the same as Lefebvre).
PS: I’ll let you flounder with #2 for a couple hours, before explaining and resolving your confusion, since this seems to be your foundational error.
When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.
And Michael Davies was absolutely correct on this point. His problem was in begging the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and Montini a legitimate Catholic pope.
Sed contra: https://sspxpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Episode36-37.pdf
See especially pp. 14-17.
Entire docuмent is attached (you must be logged in to see).
Non-Catholic garbage. It's astonishing to me how many so-called R&R have lost the Catholic and have embraced repackaged Old Catholicism.
Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit and incapable of foisting such evil upon the faithful. Unfortunately, of those who claim to be his heirs and his followers, many of them openly deny this basic Catholic truth, without which there is no Catholic Church.
So....you, the sedevacantists, and Five Anonymous Resistance Priests believe that +W was wrong in what he said in that conference.
I would add two additional impediments to infallibility of the Novus Ordo:
1) It is not a universal law (i.e., it applies only to the Latin [Roman???] rite, but not to any of the Eastern Catholic Churches;
For, Paul VI, in a discourse to the general audience of Nov. 26, 1969, stated that:
'The rite and the respective rubrics [of the new Order of Mass] ARE NOT by themselves A DOGMATIC DEFINITION: they are SUSCEPTIBLE OF THEOLOGICAL QUALIFICATION OF VARYING VALUE, according to the liturgical context to which they refer; they are gestures and terms which are related to a religious action, lively and living, of an ineffable mystery of the divine presence, which is not always realized in the same manner, an action which only theological criticism can analyze and express in doctrinal formulae which are logically satisfactory” (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. VII, p. 1123).'"
Arnaldo da Silveira in "Theological and Moral Implications of the new Ordo Missae:"Thanks, good information Sean.
"These three points—the existence of errors in liturgical texts, the dubitability of certain teachings in liturgical texts, and the analogy of these texts to dogmatic ones—demonstrates that liturgical texts are not infallible of themselves, unless there is a manifest intention to teach infallibly. Now, in the attempted promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, this intention to teach infallibly is lacking. For, Paul VI, in a discourse to the general audience of Nov. 26, 1969, stated that:
'The rite and the respective rubrics [of the new Order of Mass] ARE NOT by themselves A DOGMATIC DEFINITION: they are SUSCEPTIBLE OF THEOLOGICAL QUALIFICATION OF VARYING VALUE, according to the liturgical context to which they refer; they are gestures and terms which are related to a religious action, lively and living, of an ineffable mystery of the divine presence, which is not always realized in the same manner, an action which only theological criticism can analyze and express in doctrinal formulae which are logically satisfactory” (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. VII, p. 1123).'"
https://sspxpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Episode36-37.pdf (pp. 16-17).
To the observations of da Silveira, I would add two additional impediments to infallibility of the Novus Ordo:
1) It is not a universal law (i.e., it applies only to the Latin rite, but not to any of the Eastern Catholic Churches;
2) It runs contrary to the common good, and consequently could not be considered a legitimate law in the first place (per St. Thomas Aauinas), and consequently the issue of engaging infallibility is pre-empted.
Doesn't his own revisiting of and apologizing for the situation indicate that he himself believes what he said was wrong?
Otherwise, why revisit it at all?
I admit that I haven't read most of the posts in this arguably-silly thread, but it seems clear his initial comments were problematic -- and he knew/knows it. Why do others need to defend him on that score? At least I respect the man enough to let him speak for himself and do not feel the need to pretend he didn't really say what he said, then or now.
Does anyone know if Matthew has ever chimed in on this matter (then or now), or has he wisely allowed +W's (blind?) fan-kids to endlessly clog and redirect the discussion, rendering a rational and definitive conclusion morally impossible?
What +W said back then was UTTER NONSENSE. Face it; accept it; move on; Ess.Tee.Eff.Yoo. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, despite any emotional difficulties.
Does anyone know if Matthew has ever chimed in on this matter (then or now), or has he wisely allowed +W's (blind?) fan-kids to endlessly clog and redirect the discussion, rendering a rational and definitive conclusion morally impossible?
Why revisit this? Because the hardliners here want everyone to believe that everything that is Catholic is completely gone from the conciliar church. Absolutely everything. I don't believe that everything is completely gone. That's really what this debate is about.
As I said previously, it's not really about the new mass, IMO, even though I cannot stand the new mass. The new mass is horrible, but I don't believe that it's evil in an absolute sense, but it is totally dumbed-down. It's more about what is missing, and it misses a lot. It's all about 'the people of God,' rather than God.
It's bordering on schismatic to believe that everything Catholic is gone from the new mass, and from the conciliar church.
What does Ess.Tee.Eff.Yoo mean? You wrote that above, and it doesn't sound good. It sounds rather childish.
The new mass is missing any sense of propitiation. It also has enough of what could be described as liturgical quicksand that invites laity to slight, in effect, one or more of the first three Commandments (and the Fourth too since its scope includes ecclesial authority). A major example is Communion in hand and also the use of "extraordinary ministers" even when the number receiving is too low for the suspect claim that the priest even needs their unconsecrated meddling. Communion in hand got popular back when I was a teenager, when I wouldn't have known what the liturgical changes were really about, and our catechists sure did avoid explaining any of it to us. But Communion in hand even to a young me was so weird and utterly wrong that it's what drove me away for a very long time. Still, there had to have been plenty of priests who went through those years wondering whether they were the targets of a top-down gaslighting scheme, and I don't blame every one of them for not being able immediately to resist.
It's worse than merely dumbed-down. But I don't think that everyone still associated with the new mass is positively and irredeemably complicit, nor do I think that anyone who avoids it like the plague is necessarily schismatic. It's not my place to speak for anyone else's soul.
As for Ess.Tee.Eff.Yoo, here's the unfortunate advantage of having been cast out into the nastiness of the world. One instantly recognizes the content of such a statement, and it ain't pretty. It's a common social media acronym, often imposed as a dismissive and silencing sneer, of which the third word in that sequence is a vulgarity pertaining to the Sixth Commandment.
everything that is Catholic is completely gone from the conciliar church.
No one argues this. All we're arguing is that if the V2 church/new mass supports even ONE heresy (and it supports many multiples of them), then those who attend/support it, are supporting anti-catholic activities. And heretics can't be saved, this is another doctrine (unless one also rejects this).
All it takes is one heresy. Is there still catholicism left in V2/new mass? Sure, but who cares? There's also still catholicism left in Anglicanism, Protestantism, Lutheranism, etc
V2/new mass is schismatic and heretical. They've setup a "conciliar church" in place of the True Faith. The True Church is not gone, but "eclipsed" as Our Lady of LaSallete told us.
Do the Lutherans and Anglicans still say the Creed? Do they really believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? Do they honor Our Lady? How many Anglican and Lutheran churches pray the Rosary? I don't think that they do, but maybe you know better than I do in that regard.Many Lutherans and Anglicans still have a priesthood. They still have communion rails and stained glass windows in their churches. They still dress respectfully, still believe in baptism, still believe that Christ started a Church. ...but none of this matters, because they're still heretics.
You believe that there isn't any difference between Prot Sunday services and the new mass. I disagree.There's a big difference. But the important similarity is that they're both heretical services.
Again, one can be 95% catholic, yet if they deny 1 dogma, they are a heretic.
Your whole point about "still having catholic elements" is meaningless.
The point is, is that there are still enough Catholic elements in the conciliar church to conclude that the Catholic Church has not defected.Do you actually deny that the V2 church is heretical?
No doubt I'll get a lot of flack for this, but here's an example of how the conciliar church still has Catholic elements, elements that the Anglicans and Lutherans don't have. I occasionally check the bulletins of the local conciliar churches, to see if by chance they will ever have a TLM anywhere near me. They never do, but I'm still hopeful, since right now I stay home on Sundays due to not having any TLM anywhere near here.
Anyway, I was surprised to see that the local conciliar diocese hosted a prayer for Fatima a few weeks ago. I had no interest in attending of course, but I glad to see that there is still a devotion to Fatima and Our Lady, even though there were some goofy elements in that Fatima Rosary event (like the idiotic Divine Mercy devotion). I'm a little shocked that the local conciliar bishop (Bp. Tyson) allowed such a thing, since he seems to be a liberal. I'm only including a link to show that there still are Catholic elements in the conciliar church. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone attend it.
I strongly doubt that the Anglicans or Lutherans would ever hold a Fatima Rosary event.
Yakima Diocese Hosts 5th Worldwide Rosary Feb. 20, 2023 - Diocese of Yakima (https://yakimadiocese.org/2023/02/02/yakima-diocese-hosts-5th-worldwide-rosary-feb-20-2023/)
Not flack, just a point of information: The Blue Army Shrine (https://bluearmyshrine.com/visit/) in New Jersey is a fully NOM setup. From May to October, they have HUGE events on the 13th of each month with guest bishops and other high-profile clergy officiating. It's not a scene that ever interested me, it's just something that turned up on old internet search. They used to have one TLM low mass weekly on Thursdays at noon, but that disappeared from their calendar, I know neither when nor why.
The NOM crowd is totally into Fatima, as they also are into lots of other devotions both popular and more obscure, especially at the larger and more ethnically attended parishes. Yet they rank the DM Faustina stuff on par with Fatima. The liberal bishops don't mind because it keeps this contingent loyal and showing up for novenas, etc., otherwise some of them would go over to the Pentecostals instead.
Anyway, I was surprised to see that the local conciliar diocese hosted a prayer for Fatima a few weeks ago. I had no interest in attending of course, but I glad to see that there is still a devotion to Fatima and Our Lady, even though there were some goofy elements in that Fatima Rosary event (like the idiotic Divine Mercy devotion). I'm a little shocked that the local conciliar bishop (Bp. Tyson) allowed such a thing, since he seems to be a liberal. I'm only including a link to show that there still are Catholic elements in the conciliar church. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone attend it.
While a rosary event and Fatima are obviously good, it's a pious exercise - crippled by the Mercy devotion - and has little to do with the mother-of-all-issues, the destruction of Catholic Dogma. Catholic Doctrine has been absolutely obliterated by the Novus Ordo Missae. With it's New Theology, New Priesthood, New Sacraments, New Vestments, New Modernist Heresy Spew, letting the few believers left say a crippled rosary is just what the apostates want - they recognize it hardly poses any threat.
Yes, they tend to mix error and proper Catholic elements.That's called heresy.
That's why it's best to avoid them. But that's not to say that there are not true Catholic elements.Not 100% catholic = heresy.
Or that it's not ever possible that the Church can right herself someday, and return to Tradition.If the V2 church has to "return to Tradition" that means it's heretical.
That's called heresy.
Not 100% catholic = heresy.
If the V2 church has to "return to Tradition" that means it's heretical.
See, the SV's don't generally like to talk about the specific heresy of Modernism.
It seems that you are incorrect, as I find +Williamson using the same principle way back in 1996 (and basing it on +Lefebvre himself):
”Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfils one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.
When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfil their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)”
1) Can you explain how +Williamson’s Mahopac advice to the ignorant conciliar woman was any different than the application of Lefebvre’s principle above?
2) Can you explain how Lefebvre can say one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by committing -as you claim- an intrinsically evil moral act?
Clearly, the Williamson of 2015-2023 is the same as that of 1996 (and the same as Lefebvre).
PS: I’ll let you flounder with #2 for a couple hours, before explaining and resolving your confusion, since this seems to be your foundational error.
https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-massThis quote by ABL is pretty clear.
Archbishop Lefebvre: November 8, 1979:
I hold that the NOM is objectively offensive and displeasing to God, a great sacrilege and a blasphemy, an affront to the Catholic faith ... and that assisting at it would not be merely a question of danger to one's personal faith.Well said Ladislaus.
Apart from the fact that the theology behind the NOM is thoroughly Protestant, and that this is an affront to those martyrs who were killed specifically for refusing to attend Cranmer's service (very similar to the NOM), but more than anything I look at the destruction of the Catholic Offertory, which is the part of the Mass Luther despised the most. Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about this at length, this destruction of the Offertory. While the Archbishop mentioned that it's watered down into this new offering of gifts, it has since come to light that the NOM Offertory is nearly verbatim a тαℓмυdic "blessing", and I can't help but thinking of the words of Our Lord to Marie Julie Jahenny, that those who crucified Him (aka Jєωs) were preparing a New Rite of Mass that is hateful to Him and which contains "words from the abyss" ... undoubtedly a reference to the replacement of the Catholic Offertory with these passages from the тαℓмυd.
I do find it strange that Bishop Williamson is into nearly every purported private revelation: Garabandal, Akita, Valtorta, NO "Eucharistic" "miracles", etc. but has never (to my knowledge) mentioned these private revelations to Jahenny.
This quote by ABL is pretty clear.The link doesn't work for me. Was it there when you posted it ?
Heresy mixed with truth. That's how Modernism works. And ambiguity.Hi Meg,
See, the SV's don't generally like to talk about the specific heresy of Modernism. They just call it heresy and that's that. End of story. But Modernism is a strange kettle of fish, because it can sometimes give a semblance of truth. It seems to be different than, say, Arianism or semi-Arian heresy. A council was called in order to define and condemn Arianism, but that's not yet happened with Modernism. I don't know why Pius X didn't call a council for this purpose, maybe because Modernism was too entrenched by then - I don't know. Maybe God wanted to punish lukewarm Catholics by taking away the True Mass. Or something like that.
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):Why doesn't Fr Hewko and the Hewkoknights read this?? All they do is quote Chapter 3 of the "Open Letter To Confused Catholics".
"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]"