Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 47575 times)

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #225 on:** August 01, 2015, 08:32:07 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: PapalSupremacy
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?

You say above that the NO is often sacrilegious and of doubtful validity. If you believe that it's doubtful, then it's also not set in stone that it's absolutely is invalid. And maybe there are times when it's not sacrilegious, but just a dumbed-down bare bones version of the Mass. If there's even a chance that it's valid and licit, then I'm not going to stay home on Sunday. It's fine of others do (stay at home), but I'm not comfortable with that. I don't know if graces flow from the NO. Part of the graces present also depend on the faith and devotion of those present at the Mass, which is also lacking of course at the NO. I don't go to receive graces from the NO. I only go because I can't bear to offend God, and I also go to show love and devotion towards Him (in Holy Eucharist), even if others there do not. I understand if others here strongly disagree.

The SSPX "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" explains that the New Mass is doubtful when the words "for all" are used (it is in the part about the New Mass). It is sacrilegious at least when Communion is given in the hand, because small particles of the Host fall to the ground and are stepped on (that is assuming it is valid). If not sacrilegious in other cases, it is nevertheless offensive to God for reasons we all know well.

We are not allowed to attend or receive doubtful sacraments. Pope Innocent XI in 1679 condemned the proposition that it is permissible "in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Denzinger 1151)

Furthermore, we are not allowed to offend God by going to non-Catholic, doubtful, sacrilegious, unworthy, and/or defective worship, regardless of whether it is valid or not. The Mass of the Eastern Schismatics is valid, but we are still absolutely forbidden to attend it, except passively for funerals and such.

We cannot properly worship Our Lord by offending Him.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #226 on:** August 01, 2015, 08:35:00 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Charity covers a multitude of sins. So if H.E. advised this woman incorrectly, he did so out of charity. I will not admit that he did advise her incorrectly, but, if he did, the law of love is higher than the law of liturgical correctness. There are a few folks on this forum who are faithfully anal retentive, IMHO. For them, the letter always conquers the spirit. They will go after +Williamson in a heartbeat. They're always looking for H.E.'s soft underbelly, and striking with ferocity when they think they've found it. They're always going back and dusting off some ancient papal encyclical; or rooting out a quote from the musty pages of some Church theologian. Their behavior is highly predictable. These resident 'chupacabras' often have their fangs bared, snarling, ready to tear into pieces any idea, any principle, any sleight deviation from what they think to be the established norm, any alternative point of view, and any person holding such.

The Church is not in the business of catering to emotions and being careful not to offend anybody, being "nithe", as Bp. Williamson would say.
Telling her the truth would have been charitable. If she accepted it, it would solve her dilemma, if she didn't, well we all have free will.
But confusing her (and others!) and confirming her in her error by subjectivism is the opposite of charitable.

We are not talking about trifles. These are the principles our entire resistance to the Conciliar revolution depends on. If the New Mass is Catholic, then if its rubrics are observed in its most conservative form it cannot be evil or harm our faith, and we are substantially little more than Indultists, choosing the Traditional Mass out of preference. If it is not Catholic, then we are absolutely forbidden to attend it, except for funerals and weddings.

What I am seeing in this thread is some people telling the truth for love of the Truth, others confused, others compromising, others excusing, and others following persons instead of the Faith.

Do you love the Truth enough to correct the erring?

Stubborn · « **Reply #227 on:** August 02, 2015, 05:05:32 AM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

I don't think you understood my reply. I gave you two examples which prove that Bp. Williamson did say that it is permissible to go to the New Mass.

I understood your reply, and I ask again, how long were you a willing participant in the new mass?

You and every other 'former NOer now trad' all were willing participants in the same abomination and you and every other 'former NOer now trad', as +W states in your quote above, did not stay away from every single new mass out there now did you? - Do you get what I'm saying? Somewhere along the line, the grace to get out of the NO was offered. Yes, that grace could have come from anywhere, but - all 'former NOers now trads' have the same thing in common - 1) they ALL PARTICIPATED IN THE NEW MASS. and again 1) THEY ALL LEFT THE NEW MASS AND ARE NOW TRADS. 1+1=2

Again, why is it that former NOers cannot consider that the two quotes of +W's above, in all probability, applies directly to them, to their own past situation directly?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #228 on:** August 02, 2015, 07:57:06 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Charity covers a multitude of sins. So if H.E. advised this woman incorrectly, he did so out of charity. I will not admit that he did advise her incorrectly, but, if he did, the law of love is higher than the law of liturgical correctness. There are a few folks on this forum who are faithfully anal retentive, IMHO. For them, the letter always conquers the spirit. They will go after +Williamson in a heartbeat. They're always looking for H.E.'s soft underbelly, and striking with ferocity when they think they've found it. They're always going back and dusting off some ancient papal encyclical; or rooting out a quote from the musty pages of some Church theologian. Their behavior is highly predictable. These resident 'chupacabras' often have their fangs bared, snarling, ready to tear into pieces any idea, any principle, any sleight deviation from what they think to be the established norm, any alternative point of view, and any person holding such.

Chupacabras!?

.

JPaul · « **Reply #229 on:** August 02, 2015, 10:30:40 AM »

The true form of Holy Charity is telling another the Truth of those things which will save their soul and show them how to avoid eternal damnation.

That is the greatest kindness which one can render to another.

Quote

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The predestined will know the voice of Truth and will respond to the grace of it.

Peoples feelings and sensibilities are secondary, if even that, and saving them is only an act of Human charity.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #230 on:** August 02, 2015, 10:57:20 AM »

PapalS:

Quote

Telling her the truth would have been charitable. If she accepted it, it would solve her dilemma, if she didn't, well we all have free will.

Ah, now we understand. His Excellency withheld from her the "truth," the "truth," that is, as you see it. He did not tell her your understanding of the truth. How dare His Excellency stray so far from what he knows, (and what you know), to be the "truth!"
H.E. should have shown her a 'red light' immediately. But what does he do? He flashes a 'yellow light,' plunging her and the rest of us into utter confusion. Fr. Pfeiffer, for example, would never have done that. Why, Father flashes a 'red light,' even for traditional Masses celebrated in Society chapels, doesn't he? :sad:

Meg · « **Reply #231 on:** August 02, 2015, 12:34:25 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

The true form of Holy Charity is telling another the Truth of those things which will save their soul and show them how to avoid eternal damnation.

That is the greatest kindness which one can render to another.

Quote
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The predestined will know the voice of Truth and will respond to the grace of it.

Peoples feelings and sensibilities are secondary, if even that, and saving them is only an act of Human charity.

But how does someone - the predestined - have the ability to know the voice of truth?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #232 on:** August 02, 2015, 12:48:57 PM »

Meg:

Quote

But how does someone - the predestined - have the ability to know the voice of truth?

Well, shazaam! I was just about to ask the same question. I want to be one of those "predestined." Being confused much of the time about the exact nature of real "truth" is getting to be a real bummer. :confused1:

Meg · « **Reply #233 on:** August 02, 2015, 01:04:07 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Meg:
Quote
But how does someone - the predestined - have the ability to know the voice of truth?

Well, shazaam! I was just about to ask the same question. I want to be one of those "predestined." Being confused much of the time about the exact nature of real "truth" is getting to be a real bummer. :confused1:

Exactly. Although "bummer" may be putting it mildly. Depressing and downright discouraging at times are also words that I'd also use. :sad:

JPaul · « **Reply #234 on:** August 02, 2015, 01:11:05 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: J.Paul
The true form of Holy Charity is telling another the Truth of those things which will save their soul and show them how to avoid eternal damnation.

That is the greatest kindness which one can render to another.

Quote
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The predestined will know the voice of Truth and will respond to the grace of it.

Peoples feelings and sensibilities are secondary, if even that, and saving them is only an act of Human charity.

But how does someone - the predestined - have the ability to know the voice of truth?

Quote

My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.

You sensus Catholicus will inform you when the Truths of Salvation are explained to you. You will hear them and you will know that they are right.

Meg · « **Reply #235 on:** August 02, 2015, 01:27:19 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Meg
Quote from: J.Paul
The true form of Holy Charity is telling another the Truth of those things which will save their soul and show them how to avoid eternal damnation.

That is the greatest kindness which one can render to another.

Quote
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The predestined will know the voice of Truth and will respond to the grace of it.

Peoples feelings and sensibilities are secondary, if even that, and saving them is only an act of Human charity.

But how does someone - the predestined - have the ability to know the voice of truth?

Quote
My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.

You sensus Catholicus will inform you when the Truths of Salvation are explained to you. You will hear them and you will know that they are right.

And if other traditional Catholics (such as Bp. Williamson) don't agree with your views or truth, it means that they don't have the sensus Catholicus?

JPaul · « **Reply #236 on:** August 02, 2015, 01:28:03 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

PapalS:
Quote
Telling her the truth would have been charitable. If she accepted it, it would solve her dilemma, if she didn't, well we all have free will.

Ah, now we understand. His Excellency withheld from her the "truth," the "truth," that is, as you see it. He did not tell her your understanding of the truth. How dare His Excellency stray so far from what he knows, (and what you know), to be the "truth!"
H.E. should have shown her a 'red light' immediately. But what does he do? He flashes a 'yellow light,' plunging her and the rest of us into utter confusion. Fr. Pfeiffer, for example, would never have done that. Why, Father flashes a 'red light,' even for traditional Masses celebrated in Society chapels, doesn't he? :sad:

You know, this whole sectarian "I gotta stick up for my guy", R&R vs the SEDE business is really getting old. I am not talking about the sectarian SSPX squabbles, and the hot flashes of its priests concerning traffic signals.

There is one Catholic Truth when the question of the false conciliar ritual is raised, "No you must not go to this service, you cannot go to this service, you must stop attending this service for the good of your soul."

An appropriate explanation as to why this is can be provided after the individual has been told that objective truth.(naturally in a kind but firm manner)

This does not only concern the SSPX clerics it applies to any Catholic priest who encounters a similar inquiry.

Bring on the thumbs downs................

2Vermont · « **Reply #237 on:** August 02, 2015, 01:38:55 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: hollingsworth
PapalS:
Quote
Telling her the truth would have been charitable. If she accepted it, it would solve her dilemma, if she didn't, well we all have free will.

Ah, now we understand. His Excellency withheld from her the "truth," the "truth," that is, as you see it. He did not tell her your understanding of the truth. How dare His Excellency stray so far from what he knows, (and what you know), to be the "truth!"
H.E. should have shown her a 'red light' immediately. But what does he do? He flashes a 'yellow light,' plunging her and the rest of us into utter confusion. Fr. Pfeiffer, for example, would never have done that. Why, Father flashes a 'red light,' even for traditional Masses celebrated in Society chapels, doesn't he? :sad:

You know, this whole sectarian "I gotta stick up for my guy", R&R vs the SEDE business is really getting old. I am not talking about the sectarian SSPX squabbles, and the hot flashes of its priests concerning traffic signals.

There is one Catholic Truth when the question of the false conciliar ritual is raised, "No you must not go to this service, you cannot go to this service, you must stop attending this service for the good of your soul."

An appropriate explanation as to why this is can be provided after the individual has been told that objective truth.(naturally in a kind but firm manner)

This does not only concern the SSPX clerics it applies to any Catholic priest who encounters a similar inquiry.

Bring on the thumbs downs................

Not from me. I'm sitting here dumbfounded that we are squabbling about this. We may disagree on other issues, but I always thought that all of us agreed on NOT ATTENDING Novus Ordo masses. All of a sudden, things have changed.

JPaul · « **Reply #238 on:** August 02, 2015, 01:43:13 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: J.Paul
The true form of Holy Charity is telling another the Truth of those things which will save their soul and show them how to avoid eternal damnation.

That is the greatest kindness which one can render to another.

Quote
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The predestined will know the voice of Truth and will respond to the grace of it.

Peoples feelings and sensibilities are secondary, if even that, and saving them is only an act of Human charity.

But how does someone - the predestined - have the ability to know the voice of truth?

Quote
My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.

You sensus Catholicus will inform you when the Truths of Salvation are explained to you. You will hear them and you will know that they are right.

And if other traditional Catholics, such as Bp. Williamson, don't agree with you, it means that they don't have the sensus Catholicus? Or that they aren't one of the predestined?

Oops. I messed up the quote thing. My questions are actually above.

That is ok, I understand. You have good questions.

No, that is not what I am saying. This is not my position, it is the position of the Church. I agree and submit to the Church's infallible decrees concerning the sacraments.

I am not responsible for any one else's position on these matters. Men have a free will and whether or not they exercise that Catholic sense is a matter reserved unto each one.

I know that the Novus Ordo is not a work of the Church,
I know that it is therefore, always unlawful,
I know that you are always forbidden under pain of sin from approaching a doubtful sacrament,
I know that the Novus Ordo by its nature and its construct is always a sacrilege,

And therefore, I could never recommend to anyone, that it is acceptable to take part in it for any reason.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #239 on:** August 02, 2015, 02:55:41 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

You know, this whole sectarian "I gotta stick up for my guy", R&R vs the SEDE business is really getting old.

THIS ^^^

+1000

I get savaged by both sides because I accept some arguments from each side.

I'd put a HUGE CHUNK OF MONEY on it that if Bishop Fellay had said the exact same thing he would have been absolutely ripped to shreds by the exact same Resistance people defending Bishop Williamson now.