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

Author Topic: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015  (Read 17739 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godefroy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 521
  • Reputation: +551/-58
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This quote by ABL is pretty clear.
    The link doesn't work for me. Was it there when you posted it ?

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18263
    • Reputation: +5656/-1951
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He probably wanted the woman to go to Mass instead of not going at all. 

    May God bless you and keep you


    Offline Hewkonian

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 96
    • Reputation: +51/-50
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Heresy mixed with truth. That's how Modernism works. And ambiguity.

    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.
    Hi Meg, 

    The idea that a council was necessary to define and condemn Modernism misunderstands how the Church has historically dealt with this heresy. Unlike Arianism, Modernism was met with immediate and decisive action by the Popes, who spoke clearly and unequivocally, rendering a council unnecessary.

    Pope St. Pius X did not need to call a council to address Modernism because he thoroughly and authoritatively addressed it through a series of key docuмents. Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) is one of the most comprehensive condemnations of Modernism, where Pope Pius X outlines the errors of Modernism in great detail, describing it as the "synthesis of all heresies." This encyclical did not leave room for ambiguity; it clearly defined Modernism and condemned it in its various forms, identifying the methods, doctrines, and goals of the modernists and rejecting them as destructive to the Faith.

    Complementing PascendiPope Pius X issued the decree Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), which condemned 65 specific modernist propositions. These propositions showed that Modernism was not merely a vague or ambiguous threat but a concrete heresy that could be directly identified and condemned.
    Additionally, Sacrorum Antistitum (1910) introduced the "Oath Against Modernism," requiring all clergy, theologians, and religious superiors to reject Modernist doctrines explicitly. This practical measure ensured that the errors of Modernism would not be taught or propagated within the Church.

    Pope Pius XII further addressed modern errors, including those rooted in Modernism, in his encyclical Humani Generis(1950), reaffirming the Church's teachings on faith and reason and standing firmly against theological trends that sought to undermine these teachings.

    Moreover, Vatican I had already provided a foundation for condemning the errors and heresies that modernists would later employ. The council's definitions on papal infallibility, faith, reason, and the nature of revelation clarified key doctrines that modernists sought to undermine. The teachings of Vatican I equipped the Church to recognize and combat the errors that would later be categorized under Modernism.

    God bless you.

    Offline Infirmus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 95
    • Reputation: +32/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #168 on: September 18, 2024, 09:17:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Here's +Lefebvre being "subjective" in an Econe spiritual conference (i.e., New Mass is poison, but you can eat it in necessity...and it gives grace...precisely as +Williamson says):

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

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

    If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]"
    Why doesn't Fr Hewko and the Hewkoknights read this?? All they do is quote Chapter 3 of the "Open Letter To Confused Catholics".

    Offline Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3776
    • Reputation: +2763/-245
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #169 on: September 19, 2024, 12:22:22 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • It’s high time Fr. H. let go of one unfortunate incident from ten years ago.  He should have offered to speak to the woman in private after the conference.  As to Bp. W.’s propensity for locutions, seers, miracles not officially approved, that is nothing new and a weakness (imo) of his.  As for refusing Holy Oils to Fr. Hewko, it likely has more to do with getting excoriated by name in nearly every online sermon for years.  It’s an issue that the two prelates should resolve in private, not in the hearing of his flock and not on a public forum.  If Fr. Hewko no longer feels he can work with Bp. Williamson, he should forget it and move on.