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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12

Author Topic: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015  (Read 18541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #90 on: March 09, 2023, 09:38:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 08, 2023, 09:01:47 PM
    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?".

    Who are all of the Resistance priests who believed that +W was wrong? How many of them do you know exactly? 
    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

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12261
    • Reputation: +7766/-2366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #91 on: March 09, 2023, 10:21:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    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.
    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 #92 on: March 09, 2023, 10:23:49 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 09, 2023, 10:21:03 AM
    ???  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.

    +ABL has everything to do with it. And none of us has ever said that he was infallible.

    Maybe you believe that you speak for all of Tradition, but you do not speak for all of Tradition. Sedevacantists have never spoken for all of Tradition, despite their best efforts to do so. You are not infallible either.

    I have to wonder about how many of the Resistance priests are really sedevacantists who are hiding out in the Resistance. And how many of the faithful who attend Resistance chapels are sedevacantists? Chances are, quite a few. 
    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

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12261
    • Reputation: +7766/-2366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #93 on: March 09, 2023, 03:28:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • :jester:  Disagree with Meg on any topic and she’ll call you a “sede”.  
    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 #94 on: March 09, 2023, 06:37:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 09, 2023, 03:28:15 PM
    :jester:  Disagree with Meg on any topic and she’ll call you a “sede”. 

    You aren't a sedevacantist? I thought that you were. 
    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: 1558
    • Reputation: +1275/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #95 on: March 09, 2023, 09:16:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on March 09, 2023, 09:38:03 AM
    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).
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1558
    • Reputation: +1275/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #96 on: March 09, 2023, 09:23:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on March 09, 2023, 08:51:47 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1558
    • Reputation: +1275/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #97 on: March 09, 2023, 09:28:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on March 09, 2023, 09:38:03 AM
    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!
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1558
    • Reputation: +1275/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #98 on: March 09, 2023, 09:38:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on March 09, 2023, 09:38:03 AM
    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. 
    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 #99 on: March 10, 2023, 02:25:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 09, 2023, 09:23:46 PM
    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.

    No, I don't know of any Resistance priest who thinks that +W was correct in that conference, But then, I've never claimed that I do, and I've never bothered to count those laymen who do agree with +W's original stance. And if I did, I wouldn't hesitate to post a name to the priest. It seems that you feel very strongly about this issue, in that you have a lot of knowledge about it.

    How many of your Five Anonymous Resistance Priests would agree that there have been eucharistic miracles in the NO, as Bishop Williamson does? No doubt +W has opposition with that view too. Maybe, under pressure from y'all, he'll cave on that next. 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.

    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. I confess that I'm a little disappointed that +W caved on this issue. I believe that Charity is his reason for stating what he did. That's what I care about too. It's not really about the New Mass, IMO, as dreadful as the New Mass is.
    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

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12261
    • Reputation: +7766/-2366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #100 on: March 10, 2023, 02:36:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    as dreadful as the New Mass is.
    You really don't believe this. 
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #101 on: March 10, 2023, 02:46:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 10, 2023, 02:36:59 PM
    You really don't believe this.
    I think she does, but ladislaus laid out the issue previously on another thread

    All Trad Catholics agree that the new mass should be avoided (otherwise you’d probably call them something else, maybe “conservative” or something) But some Trad Catholics think the NO is a Great Sacrilege That inherently offends God, others think that it’s not inherently a sacrilege but that it tends to be a danger to the faith and thus is generally better to avoid to avoid one’s harm to the faith

    Those who believe it is inherently a sacrilege are also going to believe you can’t go for any reason or you are committing a sin, much like you would be committing a sin if you wotshipped  a false God

    those who think it tends to endanger faith but that it isn’t inherently sacrilege are going to agree with Williamson at least on principle , and they may or may not think it was good advice in this specific case or that it was really imprudent to say publically

    (I’m not debating or interested in debating which position is right.  But that’s the difference and what it all comes down to)

    Logged

    Offline OABrownson1876

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 707
    • Reputation: +579/-27
    • Gender: Male
      • The Orestes Brownson Society
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #102 on: March 10, 2023, 02:52:50 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
    • In seminary I talked with +W about the NM because he knew I was a promoter of Fr. Wathen's "The Great Sacrilege."  He explained, "The NM is like an apple which is rotten on one side; I can still take a bite of the other side."  I disagree with this analogy.  What man, knowing that there is a poisonous worm embedded in one side of the apple, will just decide to take a bite out of the other side.  Some of you in this thread will argue, "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 starve, hence he does not need to attend the NM.  Some of the NM promoters- emotionally inclined-  argue that Catholics must find a reason to search out a "reverent NM."  This is just not the case.  This is the poisonous hook which the enemy dangles in front of our faces, "If the NM is all you got, then you must attend it to be a good Catholic!"  Vade satana!    
    Logged
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12261
    • Reputation: +7766/-2366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #103 on: March 10, 2023, 04:13:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    those who think it tends to endanger faith but that it isn’t inherently sacrilege
    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.


    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.
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #104 on: March 10, 2023, 05:24:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 10, 2023, 04:13:51 PM
    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]

    I agree with this as far as the New Mass goes (the red  inserted by me for the context). Which is why I always thought the SSPX position that the New Mass was valid and yet a sacrilege, harmful to the faith, in se sinful, etc. was an absurd contradiction.

    On a side note of possible warning: my agreeing with Pax on anything suggests that something radical may be afoot.
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.
    Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12
    « previous next »