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.

You do not follow the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre on the validity of the New Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood.

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?

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.

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.

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?".

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.

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?  

I did.  I posted it below.  It is theological garbage.



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? 

Pax tecuм, Pax Vobis. Have a good Lent and God be with you. Oremus pro invicem.

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. 


Any "liturgy" which is less than perfect, or deficient, or unorthodox is not pleasing to Almighty God, as He is deserving of all Praise and all perfect-worship!

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Sure, you can't place any particular Novus Ordo person in Hell, but you believe that in general, they are all going to Hell.

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.

Then they are all going to go to Hell, right? Is this what +ABL taught? I think not.