Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 49506 times)

clare · « **Reply #150 on:** July 31, 2015, 01:58:17 AM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: AlanF
Bp. Sanborn has written a response to Bp. Williamson's comments on his blog.

http://inveritateblog.com/2015/07/29/christ-or-belial/

CHRIST OR BELIAL?

A Response to Bishop Williamson concerning Attendance at the New Mass

On June 28th of this year, Bishop Williamson gave a conference to a gathering of people in Connecticut, followed by questions and answers.[1]

A woman asked him whether it was permissible to attend the New Mass.[2] Bishop Williamson says that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass.

Here I will analyze his answer.

Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.

He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?

Quote
...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?

Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.

Actively participate?

Stubborn · « **Reply #151 on:** July 31, 2015, 04:11:27 AM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Stubborn

Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.

He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?

Quote
...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?

Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.

You know, I could admit that I must be wrong here since so many people got a completely different message than I did out of his answer, but I think +W's fault lies in him giving an incomplete explanation of his answer - or perhaps I am reading more into it than is there.

His 'Golden Rule; “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith", was his answer, not; "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass". And it came with so many cautions and warnings, that I fail to see how it could be possible to turn *that*, into "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass".

First off, +W is speaking to a woman who imo, is weak in the faith - and at the same time he is speaking to what is quite probably a room full of former NOers. I do not know, but it's possible that even +Sanborn, born in 1957, is a former NOer. I think even here on Cathinfo that it's safe to say that probably 99.8% of the posters are former NOers - and probably at least some of the 99.8% still participate with the evil thing to some degree.

So to me, there must be at least some graces that come from the new mass - and those graces must have alerted their souls to seek the true faith and avoid the evil NO because I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO. So any graces at all that come out of the new mass, will in fact prompt NOers to leave the NO and convert to the true faith and Mass - same as it has for all 'former-NOer-now trads', living today.

I understand that +W did not explain it this way, so perhaps my understanding is false, yet, if it is possible for graces to come from the new mass at all, and per my comment above I think it is entirely possible because the results speaks for themselves, then +W's answer is entirely correct.

If OTOH +Williamson meant that he actually gave his stamp of approval "to actively participate in the New Mass", I cannot see it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #152 on:** July 31, 2015, 05:49:45 AM »

.

I'm just seeing this now for the first time, and my immediate impression is as follows:

It is unbecoming of 'traditionalists' to squabble over nuances, and it makes a lot of young Catholics want nothing to do with 'traditional Catholicism' (as they see it) when there is so much bad temper attached to its discussion.

IMHO sedevacantists are especially prone to stir up controversy where none really needs to exist, truth be told.

I have not read what W had said, but I know he is basically solid in such matters as regards the pastoral care of souls (something he has a lot of experience in), and he would not be telling them things that would be dangerous to their faith.

In a not-too unrelated vein, it is most noteworthy to me to see the SSPX persistently driving to make inroads of friendship with the conciliar Church all over the world, such that for example, +Fellay et. al. would denounce the consecration of Bishop Faure saying that it is in no way the same kind of thing that the 1988 consecrations of the Four SSPX bishops was (which is a lie because it is precisely the same kind of thing). And they say this (and so many other things) because they don't want to garner the ire of the conciliar Church. And therefore, we can expect that there will not be any continuation of the Line of ABL through +Fellay, +de Mallerais or +de Galarreta, but ONLY through +Williamson, and therefore, the words carved on the headstone of ABL, "Traddidi Quod Et Accepi," is only being fulfilled by ONE of his 4 successors, and the other three are dead in the water for they will have to answer for their malfeasance at their own particular judgments.

EVEN SO, they are at odds with another traditional group of Catholics who are faithful to Tradition in every way even while they get along fine with the local bishop (something the XSPX highly desires to achieve!) and have a high reputation in their area even if the SPLC and the ADL broadbrushes them as "one of the dirty dozen." For that's a moniker the prospect of receiving that strikes the XSPX to the bone with terror.

It is of no small consequence then, that this same XSPX hurls barbs of 'heresy' at other traditional Catholics for no constructive reason and in regards to things that are not really a big deal in the greater scheme of everything.

So that +Sanborn appears here to be acting in much the same way as the XSPX does, toward other traditional Catholics, making an overall bad impression for our youth who would be good and faithful.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #153 on:** July 31, 2015, 06:01:35 AM »

.

Post

Quote from: MaterDominici

No point in commenting unless you've listened to the whole thing ... he revisits the topic multiple times.

Well, there I go. I commented without having listened to the whole thing.

But I didn't do so after having read this post on the first page.

.

NatusAdMaiora · « **Reply #154 on:** July 31, 2015, 06:32:04 AM »

This is my first post so I would like to start off by mentioning that I am relatively new (about a year) to the traditional liturgy. I was born Catholic and stayed with the NO all my life, until I started to see something amiss. I prayed and researched for several months and finally came across the sermons/conferences and writings of his Excellency Bishop Williamson and understood the meaning of what it is to be a Catholic in modern times.

I am not an authority in Doctrine of the Catholic Church like most on this posters on this message board are, and I continue to pray and research as I would like to do my part to promote our true faith among Catholics and Non-Catholics....The way I interpreted the kind Bishops words is as follows ….I feel it boils down to the question of ‘Faith' in our Blessed Savior and the Blessed Virgin Mary and ‘Doctrine' laid down by the Holy Catholic Church. Both are extremely important and necessary and the glue that binds these together is by virtue of ‘Graces’ we all receive from God. In all humility, I think it is 'FAITH' that has to be preserved FIRST and then 'DOCTRINE' will follow as only someone with 'FAITH' can understand ( or will want to understand) 'DOCTRINE'. If someone does not have 'faith' or is losing their 'faith' then the first step is to nourish their 'faith'. The Doctrinal aspect will follow with the grace of God.
I think his Excellency the Bishop was referring to this fundamental issue when he answered the lady’s question. I have listened to the conference several times and the message I got is…. His Excellency totally condemned the New Mass and said: “It is a rite designed to undermine Catholics’ faith, and to turn their belief away from God towards man.” However, in a 'case by case ' basis and if someone is in grave danger of losing their faith because of lack of spirituality as there are very few 'resistance' priests, the individual should do what he/she feels best to keep his or her FAITH FIRST even if it means going to a NO mass (which implies that it is far better to keep ones Faith in our Blessed Savior than becoming a non-believer or losing faith altogether).
I think his Excellency was addressing ‘new comers’ to the ‘resistance’ and individuals who are at risk of losing their faith altogether because during the transition from NO they may not receive regularly the Holy Mass. The kind Bishop also said that one should think for themselves and study the priest who is offering the holy sacrifice of the mass and the priest’s intensions....Again, all this applies only to someone who is losing their faith and I am sure it does not apply to a vast majority of the people who have posted here.
On the other hand, His Excellency did imply that, if an individual is strong in faith and is not at risk of losing their faith then they should absolutely not subscribe to the ways of the New Mass as it a going to WEAKEN their faith. There are many in the ‘resistance’ who argue that even if there is someone at risk of losing their faith, it is better to lose their faith and commit 'Spiritual ѕυιcιdє' instead of attending a NO mass. It is difficult for me to digest this concept as the message of his Excellency the Bishop is NOT geared to people of STRONG Faith and well-versed in catholic ‘Doctrine’, on the contrary the message was geared to new comers to the 'resistance' who are struggling with their faith on a 'case by case ' basis and only applies to someone is in grave danger of losing their faith because of lack of spirituality because of whatever reason.
I subscribe to the reasoning that it is a slower process to understand traditional catholic 'doctrine ' for new comers to the ‘resistance’ and we should reach out to such individuals in such individual situations just as his excellency Archbishop Lefebvre took time and used tremendous patience with many clergy and lay people who were searching for the correct doctrine.

Finally, the most important message I got from the conference, was his Excellency’s words around HUMILITY. His Excellency reminded all of us the words from the Gospel of Matthew 20:16 so the last shall be first, and the first last: for many are called, but few chosen….we need to stay humble and pray for the graces from Our Blessed Savior and Our Blessed Virgin Mary.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #155 on:** July 31, 2015, 06:38:58 AM »

.

This was very good:

Post

Quote from: Matthew

That figures, that Novus Ordo Watch -- in their angry, bitter sedevacantist zeal -- would presume to think for God.

Bishop Williamson has a touch more humility (quite a bit more actually), so that he doesn't presume to speak for God personally.

The Novus Ordo is defective; that is it's main problem.

It would be nice to see proper apostrophe use, however:
e.g., ...that's its main problem.

Quote

But even if it is defective and should be avoided, it doesn't change the fact that some people in this modern world are bags of dripping emotion and they might snap or leave the Faith if they can't go to some kind of Mass. Especially if they managed to find a reverent Novus Ordo like the infamous lady who asked the question to Bishop Williamson.

Yes, they should try to become more rational. They shouldn't be so emotional. They should be more objective and less subjective. But how are you going to force them? As I said before, a priest doesn't have the luxury of "smashing" people unless he absolutely has to (i.e., "sorry, you can't get a divorce, I don't care how unhappy you are.")

Which brings up the key point of this discussion:

It all comes down to whether the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, like a Black Mass. If it's intrinsically evil, it can never do any good. Some emotional, simplistic sedevacantists believe this.

I know a few not-quite-sedes (but emotional and simplistic) who believe this.

Quote

And you see, if the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, then how could a pope institute "the Black Mass" (worshiping the devil) for the whole of the Catholic world? "He must not be pope" they say. See, it's a bunch of sedevacantist nonsense.

And how could all the bishops of Vatican II sign on to something that was INTRINSICALLY evil?

The Archbishop and his progeny believe the Novus Ordo is gravely defective, and missing a lot of good, which has caused countless evils over the past 45 years. But it's not JUST the Novus Ordo, but the training that surrounds it. The changes to the priests -- how they act, how they believe.

That's why +ABL started a seminary to train priests the old way. It's the spirit that came out of Vatican II [the unclean spirit of Vat.II] that did much of the damage; not just the Novus Ordo Mass.

It continues to be a source of never-ending amazement to me how ABL could have been so intuitive, forthright, providential, zealous, prescient, timely and astute, all at the same time.

Quote

A whole booklet or even book could be written on this.

Here! Here!

Quote

If the Novus Ordo was intrinsically evil, then how could ANY Catholics, even one or two, still be Catholic after attending it for 45 years? But I assure you there are still some who seem to have the Faith. But that's because they are finding supplements to all the defects in the new "spirit" and new sacraments, such as classic Catholic books. And they might have got lucky with their priest(s), who aren't always all on the same page. Some are more liberal than others. A few are actually quite conservative and take their priesthood seriously. They are not anywhere close to the majority, but they do exist.

But the Novus Ordo Mass is not intrinsically evil, like abortion or birth control.

Just because something isn't intrinsically evil, doesn't mean it's good or that you can't have a general rule to avoid it.

We can see the results of the Novus Ordo -- we have 45 years of history to look at. Almost every young man leaves the Faith after about age 15.

Sad, but true.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #156 on:** July 31, 2015, 06:49:50 AM »

.

Correction: I goofed on the link, above - should have been like this:

Post

.

clare · « **Reply #157 on:** July 31, 2015, 07:07:08 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

It would be nice to see proper apostrophe use, however:
e.g., ...that's its main problem.

Absolutely. But...

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Here! Here!

should be "Hear, hear!"

AlanF · « **Reply #158 on:** July 31, 2015, 10:18:31 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: PapalSupremacy
Quote from: Stubborn

Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.

He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?

Quote
...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?

Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.

You know, I could admit that I must be wrong here since so many people got a completely different message than I did out of his answer, but I think +W's fault lies in him giving an incomplete explanation of his answer - or perhaps I am reading more into it than is there.

His 'Golden Rule; “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith", was his answer, not; "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass". And it came with so many cautions and warnings, that I fail to see how it could be possible to turn *that*, into "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass".

As Bp Sanborn explains in his article, “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith" is an entirely Protestant way of looking at the Mass. It's all about whether we feel it edifies us. What it does for us. It's all about chocolate, as BpW might say. It necessarily results in some people feeling that the Novus Ordo, "reverently" offered, will nourish their faith, as BpW explicitly said it might. Under those conditions (which were highly ambiguous and personal), yes, the bishop did say it's permissible to actively participate in the Novus Ordo.

Quote from: Stubborn

First off, +W is speaking to a woman who imo, is weak in the faith - and at the same time he is speaking to what is quite probably a room full of former NOers. I do not know, but it's possible that even +Sanborn, born in 1957, is a former NOer. I think even here on Cathinfo that it's safe to say that probably 99.8% of the posters are former NOers - and probably at least some of the 99.8% still participate with the evil thing to some degree.

So to me, there must be at least some graces that come from the new mass - and those graces must have alerted their souls to seek the true faith and avoid the evil NO because I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO. So any graces at all that come out of the new mass, will in fact prompt NOers to leave the NO and convert to the true faith and Mass - same as it has for all 'former-NOer-now trads', living today.

I understand that +W did not explain it this way, so perhaps my understanding is false, yet, if it is possible for graces to come from the new mass at all, and per my comment above I think it is entirely possible because the results speaks for themselves, then +W's answer is entirely correct.

If OTOH +Williamson meant that he actually gave his stamp of approval "to actively participate in the New Mass", I cannot see it.

One of the things BpW said correctly was that the NO was created to destroy the Catholic Faith. The conclusion of that can only be that it is not a Catholic liturgical rite. How can it be a Catholic rite if its purpose is to destroy the Faith? That's not "simplistic" or "emotional", as some people on this thread have taken to saying, it's just common sense. I recommend you read Bp Sanborn's article, it's lays out clear Catholic principles against what Bp Williamson is saying.

Actual graces can come to people outside the Faith, otherwise no one would ever convert. People can also commit sins without incurring the guilt of sin because of a lack of knowledge. I've no doubt some in the NO are trying to be Catholics as best they know, I don't know anyone who condemns them, but when they discover Tradition the correct course of action is to leave the NO. The correct instruction from a traditional priest or bishop should be to stay away from it, because it's objectively displeasing to God. How can a rite which was created to destroy people's faith be pleasing to God, and how could it possible be used to maintain the Faith?

Matthew · « **Reply #159 on:** July 31, 2015, 10:19:07 AM »

FYI, this is a bit emotional too if you ask me.

What does a photo of a Novus Ordo Mass have to do with any arguments for or against its validity or goodness?

It's like he's trying to rouse the populace like a demagogue, or appeal to the emotions of his audience -- admittedly, far too many MEN operate on emotion these days. But still, he's lowering himself.

AlanF · « **Reply #160 on:** July 31, 2015, 10:27:24 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

This was very good:

Post

Have you actually looked at what the bishop said yet?

It's easy just to bash Sedevacantists as "emotional and simplistic" and say they're the problem. Most of what I've seen on this thread from the 'SSPX Resistance' side is one big emotional outburst, simple refusals to believe the bishop would say this, accusations of lying and misrepresenting the bishop, shockingly fast reversals of peoples former opinions regarding the NO, and ironic rants against SVs for being "emotional and simplistic".

AlanF · « **Reply #161 on:** July 31, 2015, 10:31:53 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

FYI, this is a bit emotional too if you ask me.

What does a photo of a Novus Ordo Mass have to do with any arguments for or against its validity or goodness?

It's like he's trying to rouse the populace like a demagogue, or appeal to the emotions of his audience -- admittedly, far too many MEN operate on emotion these days. But still, he's lowering himself.

Why not show a photo of it? He put's other photos throughout his post. It's hardly a clown Mass, I can't see anything in that photo that breaks the NO rubrics, or would imply it's not being offered 'reverently' by NO standards.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #162 on:** July 31, 2015, 11:11:00 AM »

Stubborn:

Quote

First off, +W is speaking to a woman who imo, is weak in the faith - and at the same time he is speaking to what is quite probably a room full of former NOers. I do not know, but it's possible that even +Sanborn, born in 1957, is a former NOer. I think even here on Cathinfo that it's safe to say that probably 99.8% of the posters are former NOers - and probably at least some of the 99.8% still participate with the evil thing to some degree.

I think you're probably right. We came out of the NO. And I'm persuaded that some on Cathinfo probably still "participate with the evil thing" from time to time. I can't take anything Bp. Sanborn says very seriously. It is our understanding that he has a visceral dislike of Bp. Williamson. So he'd always be looking for any opportunity to diss the bishop.

Quote

So to me, there must be at least some graces that come from the new mass - and those graces must have alerted their souls to seek the true faith and avoid the evil NO because I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO. So any graces at all that come out of the new mass, will in fact prompt NOers to leave the NO and convert to the true faith and Mass - same as it has for all 'former-NOer-now trads', living today.

Makes sense to me. Who is to say that no graces come from the new Mass? And who is to say that many trads, who go only to the old Mass, are receiving abundant graces? I meet some pretty sorry-assed, exclusively old mass trads, whose demeanors don't always convince me that they have been showered with divine graces.

Quote

I understand that +W did not explain it this way, so perhaps my understanding is false, yet, if it is possible for graces to come from the new mass at all, and per my comment above I think it is entirely possible because the results speaks for themselves, then +W's answer is entirely correct.

Look, Bp. W made it very clear from the beginning of his remarks that the new Mass is a "key part of the new religion," which, he described, is a "major part of the worldwide apostasy of the day." H.E. in no way recommended that people attend the new mass. He was simply trying to respond to this woman, in her particular circuмstances, in the most gracious manner possible.

Quote

If OTOH +Williamson meant that he actually gave his stamp of approval "to actively participate in the New Mass", I cannot see it.

Well, +W did not give the new mass his stamp of approval. So calm down all you hysterical, hand wringing trads. Get a grip! :smile:

Stubborn · « **Reply #163 on:** July 31, 2015, 11:15:48 AM »

Quote from: AlanF

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: PapalSupremacy
Quote from: Stubborn

Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.

He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?

Quote
...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?

Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.

You know, I could admit that I must be wrong here since so many people got a completely different message than I did out of his answer, but I think +W's fault lies in him giving an incomplete explanation of his answer - or perhaps I am reading more into it than is there.

His 'Golden Rule; “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith", was his answer, not; "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass". And it came with so many cautions and warnings, that I fail to see how it could be possible to turn *that*, into "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass".

As Bp Sanborn explains in his article, “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith" is an entirely Protestant way of looking at the Mass. It's all about whether we feel it edifies us. What it does for us. It's all about chocolate, as BpW might say. It necessarily results in some people feeling that the Novus Ordo, "reverently" offered, will nourish their faith, as BpW explicitly said it might. Under those conditions (which were highly ambiguous and personal), yes, the bishop did say it's permissible to actively participate in the Novus Ordo.

Quote from: Stubborn

First off, +W is speaking to a woman who imo, is weak in the faith - and at the same time he is speaking to what is quite probably a room full of former NOers. I do not know, but it's possible that even +Sanborn, born in 1957, is a former NOer. I think even here on Cathinfo that it's safe to say that probably 99.8% of the posters are former NOers - and probably at least some of the 99.8% still participate with the evil thing to some degree.

So to me, there must be at least some graces that come from the new mass - and those graces must have alerted their souls to seek the true faith and avoid the evil NO because I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO. So any graces at all that come out of the new mass, will in fact prompt NOers to leave the NO and convert to the true faith and Mass - same as it has for all 'former-NOer-now trads', living today.

I understand that +W did not explain it this way, so perhaps my understanding is false, yet, if it is possible for graces to come from the new mass at all, and per my comment above I think it is entirely possible because the results speaks for themselves, then +W's answer is entirely correct.

If OTOH +Williamson meant that he actually gave his stamp of approval "to actively participate in the New Mass", I cannot see it.

One of the things BpW said correctly was that the NO was created to destroy the Catholic Faith. The conclusion of that can only be that it is not a Catholic liturgical rite. How can it be a Catholic rite if its purpose is to destroy the Faith? That's not "simplistic" or "emotional", as some people on this thread have taken to saying, it's just common sense. I recommend you read Bp Sanborn's article, it's lays out clear Catholic principles against what Bp Williamson is saying.

Actual graces can come to people outside the Faith, otherwise no one would ever convert. People can also commit sins without incurring the guilt of sin because of a lack of knowledge. I've no doubt some in the NO are trying to be Catholics as best they know, I don't know anyone who condemns them, but when they discover Tradition the correct course of action is to leave the NO. The correct instruction from a traditional priest or bishop should be to stay away from it, because it's objectively displeasing to God. How can a rite which was created to destroy people's faith be pleasing to God, and how could it possible be used to maintain the Faith?

I don't know how else to say what I am trying to say, so maybe this will help.......

How long were you a NOer? - you know, how long did you participate in the new mass?

Stubborn · « **Reply #164 on:** July 31, 2015, 11:20:25 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Well, +W did not give the new mass his stamp of approval. So calm down all you hysterical, hand wringing trads. Get a grip! :smile:

I agree. As such, he is not guilty of sending any mixed message or say that the "Novus Ordo Mass OK sometimes" as the title of this thread suggests.