Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 48213 times)

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #195 on:** July 31, 2015, 07:38:50 PM »

Maybe the lady wanted to go to daily Mass but the only Mass during week available was A conservative novous ordo. Then on Sundays, she went to Latin Mass.

Nowadays, many don't go to church at all.

I think Bishop Williamson was Christ like and showed charity to the woman.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #196 on:** July 31, 2015, 07:39:57 PM »

.

Post

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Meg

God bless Bishop Williamson for his charity toward those Catholics who feel that we don't have a choice but to attend the NO.

That is not what he said Meg. Not at all. Not by a long shot. Re-watch from 1hr to 1hr 15 min. Pay attention to 1:13:40 - 1:13:54
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ma9_10iVBik[/youtube]

I tried this, and found the following pop-up message appearing on the video from 1:01:40 until 1:03:18 ..

Quote from: the Video channel pop-up

Edit: U.S. copyright law does allow for critical analysis of a video under Fair Use, but those users (Novus Ordo Watch, etc.) who are downloading parts of this video to push a sedevacantist agenda without linking to or crediting the full video seem to be doing so just to attack His Excellency. We all must study our faith and pray for our clergy, including, especially, Pope Francis.

This channel does NOT support the sedevacantist error, or attendance of the Novus Ordo Missae except under circuмstances spoken of by Archbishop Lefebvre, e.g., passive assistance at funerals or weddings. http://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass

I'm quoting it here to clarify the discussion, for the video channel owner has here responded to the abuse his video is being subjected to by those who, as he says, aim only to attack Bishop Williamson, while passing around snippets for selective misinterpretation, for use by others (such as +Sanborn?).

.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #197 on:** July 31, 2015, 07:43:47 PM »

We should pray for Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson.

And thank God that Cardinal Dolan isn't Pope.

NatusAdMaiora · « **Reply #198 on:** July 31, 2015, 08:59:37 PM »

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 not lose their faith.
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.

JPaul · « **Reply #199 on:** July 31, 2015, 09:31:12 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

The bottom line is this: if it's ok to attend the N.O. (even in remote circuмstances) then why are we traditionalists?

3 things to examine on the N.O. Validity, Legality, Morality. Forget the validity question. It's doubtful if it's valid, but let's assume it is.

Is it moral? What's it's purpose? I'd argue that communion in the hand being the sacrilege that it is, makes this "mass" as a whole an abomination and a blasphemous sacrilege, even if one is just "sitting there". Can I just "sit there" and watch a black mass? Can I just be "in the room" at a "gentleman's club" and not sin? I don't think so.

Finally, let me remind you all that when Cardinal Ottaviani wrote his "intervention" (at the request of + Lefebvre) he condemned it in it's "theologically purest" form.

Finally, is it legal? Either Quo Primum is the law or it isn't. There's no question that Benedict firmly stated that Quo Primum is legally in effect, with the 1962 missal as a lawful revision. No one should question this. Benedict also said that Paul VI's missal is NOT a revision of Quo Primum but a NEW missal. Ergo, it is a parallel missal.

But Quo Primum does NOT ALLOW parallel missals, under pain of sin. I quote:

"...and I order them in virtue of holy obedience to say or sing the Mass according to the rite and manner I am presenting currently, ... And you must not, when celebrating Mass, introduce any ceremonies or recite any other prayers, except those contained in my Missal."

The point is that the N.O. was legally created and promulgated. But no one has to use it, no one is forced to use it, and no one CAN use it, under pain of sin.
This is the true diabolical genius of the N.O.! A missal was created, legally, but it means nothing! A parallel missal, with no purpose other than to confuse, coerce and destroy!

For 40 years, no traditionalist could make this argument because the question of the legal status of Quo Primum was in "limbo". But this is no longer! For, as Benedict clarified in his "motu" (which is a legal docuмent of the Church), Quo Primum is the valid law of the Church. And it FORBIDS any other missal from being said, or it's a SIN OF DISOBEDIENCE AGAINST THE POPE.

That's why I say that who or who isn't the current pope (if there is one) DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is the CURRENT LAW IN FORCE. And the current law FORBIDS the N.O. under pain of sin.

Well, your problem is that you are thinking to clearly here. You are actually proposing that the words of the Church have meaning and force. In a discussion which includes so many subjective qualifiers and presumptions, you will never be understood.

No one even has to bring up whether or not the conciliar ritual is valid. It is NOT ALLOWED, illicit, un-Catholic. It is not the Mass of the Catholic Church.

How then can it even be considered to advise attendance of a sacrilege? There is one answer which a cleric should give a lost soul who seeks approval or absolution for attending it.......NO, you must cease going to this false ritual.

Perhaps by means deceit or false teaching these questioners have become strong in something other than the one true Faith.

And if the laity are ignorant of the proper understanding of this issue, then the clergy ought to be pretty clear about it after fifty plus years. There is no excuse for so called Traditional clerics not to understand that a first line which one crosses, in losing their soul, is participating in false worship.

The Church forbids it, Christ forbids it, and our clerics cannot bring themselves to unflinchingly forbid it, to the souls in their charge?

Sixty odd pages and folks are still arguing over this issue?

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #200 on:** August 01, 2015, 01:24:58 AM »

Stubborn:
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".

Here are just two of his remarks which prove the point:
"I would not say every single person must stay away from every single NO Mass."
"Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it."

Stubborn:
I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO.

No, most trads today are trads because Our Lord sent them the grace to see that what they were participating in was not a Catholic Mass.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #201 on:** August 01, 2015, 01:27:15 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Perhaps, for some of us, attending the NO doesn't have so much to do with nourishment as it has to do with not wanting to offend God by being a home-aloner. It's a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday. Most here probably wouldn't have a problem with this, but I'd rather attend a dumbed-down bare-bones peace-and-luv hippie Mass than stay at home. I know this will sound ridiculous to most here. Especially the SV's.

So it is not okay to offend God by being a home-aloner, but it is okay to offend Him by going to unworthy and often sacrilegious worship which is also of doubtful validity? And you think there is even an obligation to do that?

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #202 on:** August 01, 2015, 01:28:34 AM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Matthew
We're not talking about US going to the Novus Ordo. The classic SSPX, the Resistance, and Bishop Williamson are quite clear on this: the Novus Ordo is dangerous to the Faith, it was created to take away our Faith, and should be red-lighted. If you don't have a Tridentine Mass, you stay at home on Sunday.

Yes, he made an exception for one emotional woman who was *still in the Novus Ordo*. But how many of us does that describe?

Let's not intentionally confuse the issue, or confuse ourselves.

The lady that asked the question prefaced it by saying she goes to the Latin mass on Sundays and to the Novus Ordo during the week, she believes that the priest is reverent etc... so not a complete 'babe in the traditional woods' at all. I couldn't hear if she said where she goes to the TLM, it sounded like maybe SSPX by BP Williamson's answer.

Bishop Williamson also prefaced his answer by saying he was going to stick his neck out, way out. and someone can chop it off if they want. Fair enough, count me among the surprised that he is publicly 'yellow lighting' the Novus Ordo!

To quote him directly "the golden rule, the rule of rules is do whatever you need to nourish your faith". Apparently even going to a poisonous bastard rite of mass. What just eat around the poison?? OK then, at least we know clearly where BP Williamson stands on the Novus Ordo.

I can't help but wonder if BP Fellay had made these comments publicly, how would some of the reaction here on this thread have been?

We know what the reaction would be like. This just shows that even among trads many still often follow persons instead of the Faith, and in whose mind the banner is the SSPX or the Resistance, instead of the Church.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #203 on:** August 01, 2015, 01:31:33 AM »

Quote from: NatusAdMaiora

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 not lose their faith.
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.

If someone was in danger of losing his faith, then attending the NO would only make that worse.

And if someone thought that his faith is too strong to be affected by regularly attending the NO, as opposed to others, then that is pride, and as the Bible says: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Jaynek · « **Reply #204 on:** August 01, 2015, 03:16:53 AM »

I think that Bishop Williamson sheds some light on this in his latest Eleison Comments here, especially the last bit:

Quote

Therefore a certain number of good souls can turn to me for guidance, as they do, but it is not in me to claim even a supplied jurisdiction, because of the enormous confusion reigning in the Church. At present I am more and more disinclined to impose even a true viewpoint on anybody, because souls are now so confused that the least imposition is liable to increase rather than decrease that confusion. “I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD AND THE SHEEP WILL BE SCATTERED” (Zachary XIII, 7), quoted by Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt. XXVI, 31), and that is how it is going to be in the Church, more and more, until God in his mercy restores the Shepherd, which he will do only when mankind will appreciate a true Shepherd of God. Until then God’s gift of such a Shepherd would risk doing more harm than good. So in the meantime we must all take our just punishment: the universal confusion!

That is why I will give to anybody who asks me my reasons for acting as I do, but I will propose those reasons rather than impose them, and

His response to the woman is explained by: "At present I am more and more disinclined to impose even a true viewpoint on anybody, because souls are now so confused that the least imposition is liable to increase rather than decrease that confusion."

And he realizes how many people are reacting and responds "I will not usually object to people disagreeing with me." I think he is practically inviting people to disagree with what he said to the woman.

NatusAdMaiora · « **Reply #205 on:** August 01, 2015, 05:11:32 AM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: NatusAdMaiora
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 not lose their faith.
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.

If someone was in danger of losing his faith, then attending the NO would only make that worse.

And if someone thought that his faith is too strong to be affected by regularly attending the NO, as opposed to others, then that is pride, and as the Bible says: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

My interpretation of his Excellency's answer was exactly the opposite:
His Excellency clearly stated that,

If someone is strong in faith then they should STAY AWAY from the NO Mass it is going to WEAKEN their faith.

On the other hand, only if someone is in grave danger of loosing their faith, and
a) the individual cannot attend a 'Resistance Mass' and
b) the individual has no other option to nourish their faith and
c) the individual has researched and taken advice that the priest saying the Holy Mass is faithful to the catholic teachings and
d) the individual feels that going to NO mass is going to strengthen their faith

Then and only then in this unique situation, as a last recourse, ( if the individual decides to attend a NO mass ) graces can flow to the individual and the individual may benefit from that NO mass. As his Excellency pointed out the analogy that ' water can flow from a rusty pipe' just as it can 'flow from a pipe made of gold'

Regarding Pride, 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #206 on:** August 01, 2015, 06:14:06 AM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Stubborn:
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".

Here are just two of his remarks which prove the point:
"I would not say every single person must stay away from every single NO Mass."
"Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it."

Stubborn:
I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO.

No, most trads today are trads because Our Lord sent them the grace to see that what they were participating in was not a Catholic Mass.

You said it. That is what I was trying to say.

But the thing is, Our Lord sends graces all the time to those He knows will accept them - so the difference between NOers and former NOers, is that the former NOers accepted those graces.

If any grace at all comes from the new mass, it is the grace which prompts NOers to get outta there, but they must accept these graces. Anytime we accept graces, we nourish our faith.

I do not think it is wrong to say that it is possible for graces to come from the new mass, the reason I say this is because the one thing most adult trads have in common is that they were former NOers. In fact, that is perhaps the only thing they have in common. Based on that fact, I think it is therefore reasonable to opine that graces do in fact come from the new mass, the grace to open eyes and ears which start the feet walking on the path toward the true faith, hence out of the NO.

There is simply no other way for anyone of us to seek the truth, we must accept the graces God offers - period. No one finds the truth on their own, without the grace of God. We are entirely dependent upon Him to enlighten us through His graces, and He will enlighten us as long as we accept the graces offered.

Whether it was a heretical sermon, CITH, a prot song, the hand shake, abundant irreverence, etc., or something we read or a person we spoke with or a sermon we heard - whatever it was that made former NOers into trads, the one thing nearly all adult trads have in common is that they all participated, usually for many years, in the new mass.

As such, I find it curious and don't entirely understand why all the former NOers are condemning what +W said without even giving any consideration to the fact, that where the lady who asked the question is today, in all probability, they once were.

These former NOers all have one thing in common - they are all 'former NOers turned trads'. They did not leave the NO because of their own intelligence to see what they were participating in for 30 years or whatever was wrong, they did not leave the NO and become trads because of their own ability to *finally* conclude the NO was wrong - no, they *finally* accepted the graces which opened their eyes and ears, because if they didn't, they would not be trads.

Would the 'former NOers turned trad' ever have found the truth if they were never NOers? That is impossible for us to know, but one thing is certain, they all had that one thing in common, and it is from that fact that I opined:
I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO.

Anyway, even though +W certainly did not say what I said above, I am hoping that he meant something along those lines.

Stubborn · « **Reply #207 on:** August 01, 2015, 07:06:42 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
I can't believe the excuses and handwringing from the R&R crowd on this. You all sound just like the Novus Ordites who get all up in arms when a trad dares to criticize their beloved "pope". What a joke.

Glad you're posting again 2V.

How long were you a NOer and a willing participant in the new mass?

Thanks for the welcome, but I don't plan on posting much. The issues I have with this forum still exists.

As to your question, too long. I thank my husband for telling me the hard truth despite my "emotional" female reactions.

Well I hope you post more. I know we disagree on some important subjects, but we can't try to convert each other if you don't post.

Anyway, I asked the question as a means of demonstrating that former NOers, such as yourself, had their eyes and ears opened at some point because they accepted the graces offered. Whether it was your husband's telling you the truth or something else, unless you corresponded with the graces which He gave you, you would not have accepted that you needed to leave the NO. Nobody escapes the clutches of evil because of their own wit or ability. No one.

After "X" years, you, like thousands (millions?) of others, *finally* began to see the new mass for what it is - a mockery of the True Mass, an abominable charade of the True Mass, the sacrifice of Cain. Or perhaps "something just isn't right". Whatever your thoughts were, you accepted the graces prompting you to get out - same as the other 'former NOers turned trad' accepted those same graces - and who all got out, or, amongst the confusion, are working on it.

It seems to me that +W's “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith" just might include participation in the new mass, just so you *finally* find out through the grace of God, what not to do, where not to go, what not to be a part of, because that is the same path that all former NOers traveled.

2Vermont · « **Reply #208 on:** August 01, 2015, 07:11:12 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Luker
I can't help but wonder if BP Fellay had made these comments publicly, how would some of the reaction here on this thread have been?

Fellay did make a similar comment. He went to a Novus Ordo Mass in a convent or monastery and he said afterwards something like: that it was so reverent that if Archbishop Lefebvre saw this Mass he wouldn't have done what he did.
Afterwards I condemned him, though I don't remember what the reaction of others on the Catholic forums was. I would be surprised if others didn't condemn him also, but I honestly do not remember.

I remember this as well. I don't remember specifically how individual posters responded. Likely, I did not respond on the forum, but I remember thinking the very same thing I thought when Bishop Williamson said what he said.

I was not edified by either bishop.

I think, on the contrary, that if then I had been forming seminarians as they are being formed now in the new seminaries I should have been excommunicated. If then I had taught the catechism which is being taught in the schools I should have been called a heretic. And if I had said Mass as it is now said I should have been called suspect of heresy and out of the Church. It is beyond my understanding. It means something has changed in the Church; and it is about that that I wish to speak.

-Archbishop Lefebvre

2Vermont · « **Reply #209 on:** August 01, 2015, 07:26:56 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
I can't believe the excuses and handwringing from the R&R crowd on this. You all sound just like the Novus Ordites who get all up in arms when a trad dares to criticize their beloved "pope". What a joke.

Glad you're posting again 2V.

How long were you a NOer and a willing participant in the new mass?

Thanks for the welcome, but I don't plan on posting much. The issues I have with this forum still exists.

As to your question, too long. I thank my husband for telling me the hard truth despite my "emotional" female reactions.

Well I hope you post more. I know we disagree on some important subjects, but we can't try to convert each other if you don't post.

Anyway, I asked the question as a means of demonstrating that former NOers, such as yourself, had their eyes and ears opened at some point because they accepted the graces offered. Whether it was your husband's telling you the truth or something else, unless you corresponded with the graces which He gave you, you would not have accepted that you needed to leave the NO. Nobody escapes the clutches of evil because of their own wit or ability. No one.

After "X" years, you, like thousands (millions?) of others, *finally* began to see the new mass for what it is - a mockery of the True Mass, an abominable charade of the True Mass, the sacrifice of Cain. Or perhaps "something just isn't right". Whatever your thoughts were, you accepted the graces prompting you to get out - same as the other 'former NOers turned trad' accepted those same graces - and who all got out, or, amongst the confusion, are working on it.

It seems to me that +W's “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith" just might include participation in the new mass, just so you *finally* find out through the grace of God, what not to do, where not to go, what not to be a part of, because that is the same path that all former NOers traveled.

Those of us who have been given the grace have an obligation to warn others, not tell them, "well if it nourishes you faith....."

What you suggest is no different than telling a Protestant to continue to go to the Protestant service because at some point God may give them grace to see that it is a false religion.