Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12

Author Topic: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015  (Read 17742 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trento

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 797
  • Reputation: +219/-143
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2023, 10:48:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2023, 01:45:45 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #31 on: March 06, 2023, 04:41:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: trento on March 05, 2023, 10:48:59 PM
    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. 

    I think this is more a question of a prudential moral judgement. Bishop Williamson says in the interview that in his opinion it is predominantly a pastoral question, not a dogmatic one.

    Now don't misunderstand what I am saying. Just because it is a prudential judgement, doesn't mean to say it's therefore okay to do as you please. If it is gravely imprudent to do something, then you sin by doing it. For example, placing Tradition in the hands of neomodernist Rome! However, prudence takes account of circuмstances. That is, circuмstances may alter the prudence or otherwise of a given decision/action.

    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. Just as it is true to say that it is dangerous for men to go to the beach, and to give the general advice to Catholics to stay away from such places, as I explained in my post above. I would go further and say, that today, it is almost always gravely imprudent to attend the New Mass, for someone who is well informed on the matter. 

    However, there are circuмstances relating to the New Mass and circuмstances relating to the individual which can change the morality/prudence of attending or not. Not every New Mass is the same. Not every individual is the same. Just as not every beach is the same, and it does not necessarily represent the same danger to every individual, and any given individual may have some other necessity which would make it permissible, even advisable, for him to go to such a place. What Bishop Williamson mentions in this interview is "certain exceptional circuмstances".

    Take again the example I tried to make above. A starving pauper jumps the fence to take an apple from the orchard to keep himself alive. A wealthy prince jumps the fence to take an apple from the orchard to satisfy his love of apples. Exact same action, different circuмstances. The former is virtuous. The latter a sin.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46361
    • Reputation: +27286/-5040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #32 on: March 06, 2023, 06:59:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 06, 2023, 04:41:01 AM
    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.

    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.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46361
    • Reputation: +27286/-5040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #33 on: March 06, 2023, 07:06:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.

    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.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11328
    • Reputation: +6296/-1092
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #34 on: March 06, 2023, 07:09:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 06, 2023, 06:59:13 AM
    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.

    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?

    Bishop Williamson's comments didn't just cause a "stir".  They were scandalous.  And that is why they should have been made privately (if at all).
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46361
    • Reputation: +27286/-5040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #35 on: March 06, 2023, 07:12:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on March 06, 2023, 07:09:01 AM
    How is a truly Catholic mass ever a "danger" to one's Faith?

    Of course, the argument is that the danger from the New Mass comes from how "badly" it's offered, and the claim (such as made by Cardinal Seper to +Lefebvre) that a well-offered NOM is no danger.  Another angle would be from the context where a Truly Catholic Mass offered in the context of the Indult/Motu would be a danger because of the environment in which it's offered (i.e. the Conciliar religion).  But it's true that there can be no danger per se from a truly Catholic Mass, even if there can be from the accidents surrounding how and where it's offered.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11328
    • Reputation: +6296/-1092
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #36 on: March 06, 2023, 07:42:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on March 05, 2023, 01:08:26 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11995
    • Reputation: +7532/-2269
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #37 on: March 06, 2023, 10:32:31 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11995
    • Reputation: +7532/-2269
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #38 on: March 06, 2023, 10:44:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #39 on: March 06, 2023, 02:28:47 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 06, 2023, 10:44:11 AM
    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.

    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.

    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.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #40 on: March 06, 2023, 02:31:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 06, 2023, 10:32:31 AM
    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.

    Maybe ordained men have a different understanding than that of us laity. We usually think that we have full knowledge of every situation, and in that sense we believe, as V2 said, that we are part of the priesthood too. It's very V2 to believe that we know everything.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #41 on: March 06, 2023, 04:13:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on March 06, 2023, 02:28:47 PM
    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.

    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.
    Well said, Meg.

    It is a very complex situation, and there is no doubt BW should have spoken to this lady in private as he admits in this video.

    The reality is, though, that the overwhelming majority of people who come to Tradition, come from the Novus Ordo. In spite of all the reforms, for decades these families have found nourishment enough to keep their faith (and presumably their hope and charity) alive. It seems inconceivable to many of us who have been so long in Tradition, that there could be people only just now discovering it. Now if such people of good will, with the Faith, who have all their life known only the NOM are suddenly told not to attend it, especially if they are not near a TLM, it could potentially lead to disastrous consequences such as giving up the Faith altogether, as described by Archbishop Lefebvre in the spiritual conference posted earlier on this thread by Sean Johnson.

    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, and Archbishop Lefebvre gave the example of Cardinal Mindszenty simply pronouncing the words of consecration over some bread and wine in his prison cell, truly offering the Mass. Many souls may be in a similar spiritual cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ and may still receive the benefit of the Mass and Sacrament even from the NOM in spite of all its omissions.

    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.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #42 on: March 06, 2023, 04:29:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 06, 2023, 04:13:53 PM
    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.

    I'm not so sure that he should have done it in private. But that's just my opinion. He knew that he was saying something that trads would be upset about, because I recall that he prefaced his statement to the lady with.... "I know that some will think that this is trad heresy to say this, but...(or words to that effect).

    I don't think it's a bad thing to upset trads on occasion, so that they (we) might have to get out of our comfortable place and think about a subject in a different light. 

    I never thought that +W was trying to encourage everyone to attend the new mass, and I viewed that video a few days after it originally came out, along with a lot of folks here. It seemed evident to me that he was speaking to her situation. I do not have bad will against +W. I trust that he has good intentions. Though he can be wrong at times of course. 



    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline bvmariae

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 5
    • Reputation: +5/-9
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #43 on: March 06, 2023, 06:16:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • It's never too late for a retraction ...His Excellency is more than capable.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11995
    • Reputation: +7532/-2269
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #44 on: March 07, 2023, 09:01:06 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.  
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
    « previous next »