Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 36059 times)

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #30 on:** July 21, 2015, 10:01:39 AM »

Quote

What he appears to be saying is that while the New Mass is objectively offensive to God, one might personally not subjectively commit a sin while attending it. BUT that would only be true in the case of someone who doesn't think that it's objectively offensive to God.

I have to revisit the tape of the November conference I referenced, to properly refresh my memory, since this is what +W very briefly discussed, although he did not get into subjective/objective distinctions.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** July 21, 2015, 10:06:32 AM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

I have to revisit the tape of the November conference I referenced, to properly refresh my memory, since this is what +W very briefly discussed, although he did not get into subjective/objective distinctions.

And that's precisely the problem here. His Excellency did not elaborate upon which distinctions applied and which principles he was applying ... leaving it to be a matter of total speculation. NO Watch, despite its offensively bitter tone, was actually correct there.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #32 on:** July 21, 2015, 10:41:10 AM »

lad:

Quote

So His Excellency really needs to clarify here. He's blurred objective and subjective and has therefore caused serious confusion.

I guess H.E. could make a black and white statement about the matter. But then, upon whose absolute authority could he do that? I prefer to think that the conciliar age has "caused serious confusion," not the bishop. He does not intentionally blur objective and subjective. The epoch in which we live blurs objective and subjective. New Church blurs objective and subjective. That's the problem.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** July 21, 2015, 11:42:09 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I guess H.E. could make a black and white statement about the matter. But then, upon whose absolute authority could he do that? I prefer to think that the conciliar age has "caused serious confusion," not the bishop. He does not intentionally blur objective and subjective. The epoch in which we live blurs objective and subjective. New Church blurs objective and subjective. That's the problem.

Well, no. His Excellency does need to clarify the principles. It's very important. Is the NO Mass objectively offensive to God? Is it intrinsically (or just accidentally) offensive to God? Is he talking about objective vs. subjective, intrinsic vs. accidental etc. Otherwise, he allows people to draw several problematic conclusions from it, i.e. that the NOM is not intrinsically bad but just accidentally. Or that the NOM is not positively harmful but simply negatively defective. Depending on where you stand with this, it can make or break whether or not one even has a leg to stand on in being a Traditional Catholic. It makes all the difference in the world in terms of whether one adopts the +Fellay position or the Resistance position.

Principles are important, my friend.

JPaul · « **Reply #34 on:** July 21, 2015, 11:44:51 AM »

This has always been the method of the SSPX and this current series of EC follows this same way of seeing things. It is the application of subjective criteria and presumptions to determine how one should perceive objective facts.

Subjective suggestions are no more than speculations. In matters of the Catholic Faith, what is primary is objective truth, not truth that might be, or could be, because introducing subjectivism very quickly, leads one to doubt, or mitigate the very facts that are objectively before them.

A heresy cannot be named as such because, by some subjective circuмstance, it might not be.
Very similar the the Themann/SSPX theory of "prudential" truths. In this context one can substitute subjective for prudential and hit the mark.

Matthew · « **Reply #35 on:** July 21, 2015, 12:13:48 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Or that the NOM is not positively harmful but simply negatively defective. Depending on where you stand with this, it can make or break whether or not one even has a leg to stand on in being a Traditional Catholic. It makes all the difference in the world in terms of whether one adopts the +Fellay position or the Resistance position.

Principles are important, my friend.

Even if the Novus Ordo were just negatively defective (as opposed to positively evil, like a Black Mass) it would still be sufficient cause to steer clear of Modernist Rome (to adopt the Resistance position and oppose Bishop Fellay) We're also not aloof from Modernist Rome just because of the Novus Ordo Mass. It's all the changes to the Faith itself that we object to.

It doesn't require admitting the Novus Ordo Mass is as evil as abortion or a Black Mass to justify our stance as Trads or resistant Catholics.

P.S. Talk about "what does God think of it" is the ten million dollar question -- which hasn't been answered yet. That's the fundamental problem in this Crisis, as well as the Traditionalist reaction to that Crisis. There are fundamental questions about the Novus Ordo, Conciliar Church, the recent Popes, etc. which Catholics vehemently disagree about. But no one can speak for God; they can only CLAIM to, and by doing so, expose their hubris to the whole world.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** July 21, 2015, 12:20:46 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

We're also not aloof from Modernist Rome just because of the Novus Ordo Mass. It's all the changes to the Faith itself that we object to.

No, not JUST because of the NOM. But it's a huge piece of the puzzle. Let's not fool ourselves. Had V2 happened and the NOM never been introduced, the Traditional movement would be reduced to .0001% of its current size.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #37 on:** July 21, 2015, 12:34:03 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Even if the Novus Ordo were just negatively defective (as opposed to positively evil, like a Black Mass) it would still be sufficient cause to steer clear of Modernist Rome (to adopt the Resistance position and oppose Bishop Fellay) We're also not aloof from Modernist Rome just because of the Novus Ordo Mass. It's all the changes to the Faith itself that we object to.

LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI EST.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #38 on:** July 21, 2015, 02:21:42 PM »

To tell you the truth, had Bp. Williamson said something like the following, we might have avoided this silly thresd altogether:

"Folks, the NO Mass is horrid. It id intrinsically evil. What is more, it is extrinsically evil. It is evil from whichever angle you view it. It is wicked beyond my ability to describe. A yellow cautionary light will not suffice here. No, a red light should flash every time the NO Mass is even mentioned in polite conversation. It is off limits to all truly traditional Catholics. And if you attend the New Mass under any circuмstances, you endanger your mortal souls. Far from being the stairway to Heaven, it conducts one along the slip-slidy path to Hell."

Yep, had H.E. only said something like that, we'd all be spared some of the ridiculous posts this topic has generated. :rolleyes:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** July 21, 2015, 03:31:41 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Even if the Novus Ordo were just negatively defective (as opposed to positively evil, like a Black Mass) it would still be sufficient cause to steer clear of Modernist Rome (to adopt the Resistance position and oppose Bishop Fellay) We're also not aloof from Modernist Rome just because of the Novus Ordo Mass. It's all the changes to the Faith itself that we object to.

It doesn't require admitting the Novus Ordo Mass is as evil as abortion or a Black Mass to justify our stance as Trads or resistant Catholics.

"Positively evil" doesn't mean it has to be as evil as a "Black Mass". Why this is critical, Matthew, is that one could argue that the disciplinary infallibility of the Church would not have been compromised by the New Mass if it's only negatively defective. If only negatively defective, furthermore, then there's NO REASON whatsoever that the NOM must be avoided when properly implemented. Nor would there then be any justification to refuse Communion with the Holy See on those grounds alone.

JPaul · « **Reply #40 on:** July 21, 2015, 03:34:42 PM »

hollingsworth,

Quote

Yep, had H.E. only said something like that, we'd all be spared some of the ridiculous posts this topic has generated. :rolleyes:

But..........he didn't.......................... :scratchchin:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** July 21, 2015, 03:35:52 PM »

I have to say that I'm downright appalled by the posters who really don't think that theological principles matter. It's that kind of horrid attitude among many/most R&R that drives people to SVism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** July 21, 2015, 03:37:37 PM »

+Williamson's response was downright Clintonesque and emotional -- and not the least bit theological.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #43 on:** July 21, 2015, 04:46:20 PM »

Laislaus, I think you're an idiot. But that's just me. I mean absolutely no offense! :sign-surrender:

Meg · « **Reply #44 on:** July 21, 2015, 04:57:30 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

The fact of the matter is, the general rule "Avoid the Novus Ordo" still stands, and Bishop Williamson wasn't making any change to that policy. Just ONE of his caveats (you have to be aware of scandalizing others, who might watch you enter the Novus Ordo church, especially knowing you're a serious Catholic/Trad) would disqualify the majority of his listeners. Then anyone with kids can forget it, lest they learn a new religion instead of Catholicism. You can't receive communion in the hand. You also have to work to find a priest who wants to still be Catholic.

"BUT WHY BOTHER THEN?" you shout. "JUST ROUND IT UP ALREADY AND SAY 100%"

But if 100% isn't the truth, then it isn't the truth and he would be distorting/simplifying to say so. I'm sorry if some people can't tolerate any EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. (I think he should have used that phrase, since that's basically what he was saying.)

A priest is responsible for every soul -- even weak, ignorant, emotional ones. Some people (new to Tradition) benefit from the Indult -- but eventually as they come to learn more about Tradition and the Crisis in the Church, there eventually comes a time to move on. The Indult is only good on the way up (from Novus Ordo land) -- not on the way down (from real Traditionalism).

It's easy for us laymen to be hard nosed. But a priest is responsible for each soul that he causes to give up or go to Hell. If an "exception" presents itself in his confessional or asks him for advice, it behooves him to recognize that.
In other words, he has a grace of state that NONE OF US laymen has.

We are Trad because we want to keep the Faith. If someone lives far from any Latin Mass but they manage to cobble together another "battle plan" to keep the Faith, involving much prayer, meditation, reading classic Catholic books, watching sermons online, finding a decent priest/N.O. Mass, etc. who are we to judge? Seriously. You'd have that person do something that goes against his conscience. You'd tell them that you know better what's good for them than THEY THEMSELVES do. Even if they feel themselves slipping and decide they need the company of other Catholics, etc. you'd have them follow your "no-exception principles" instead. "You can't heal that man, it's the Sabbath!" Talk about hubris.

We all complain about the SSPX telling parishioners to not attend the Masses of Resistant priests -- but what's the difference? Sectarianism is sectarianism. When you start bossing around your parishioners, serving as their conscience, you have a problem. That's what a cult does. You can teach them, but in the end if they feel safer with their Faith at a different Trad chapel, then they should follow their conscience and the priest shouldn't try to stop them. His job is to take care of HIS flock. If someone leaves because they believe it would be good for them, the priest should be happy for them that they found a better situation! One lifeboat is as good as another. If you threaten anyone who "tries to get in another lifeboat" with being thrown overboard, etc. then it's obvious your motives are somewhat selfish -- something beyond mere saving people from drowning. They could do that in any lifeboat. And today's Trads could keep the Faith in any Traditional chapel -- not just the ones from your group. But how many will admit this?

I think that's what Bishop Williamson has going for him -- although completely rational himself, he still has a heart. He hasn't forgotten charity and compassion. He hasn't forgotten the basics of Catholicism, or the big picture. One can see that he truly cares for souls. He hasn't lost himself in the clouds, or in the rarefied heights of an ivory tower, filled with bitter zeal towards all those who aren't part of his group. He hasn't let his principles and ideals blind him to charity and compassion.

The above post sounds very reasonable to me. But then I'm one of those who attends the NO (for two years now) and can still keep the Faith. Not everyone can do that, and maybe there are few who can do that, I don't really know. At least the Novus Ordo folks don't seem to think that they're better than everyone else like the FSSP Catholics do at the local FSSP parish that I attended and still on occasion attend.

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