Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 47560 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #60 on:** July 22, 2015, 09:37:28 AM »

Ascent:

Quote

Bishop Williamson should be pope. This thread is now closed. :judge:

I realize that, perhaps, you say that somewhat tongue in cheek. But you're right. He should be pope. If H.E. were pope, we would see the following:

1) There would be the immediate Consecration of Russia in concert with the bishops.

2) The 3rd Secret would be fully revealed as it should have been by at least 1960.

3) The Vatican's augean stables would be cleansed. All the evil jews, masons, communists and sodomites would be eventually rooted out of the Holy See.

4) The Swiss Guard would have to work overtime to preserve the life of the pope, and to prevent his assassination.

5) The New Mass would soon die out.

6) Bad priests and bishops would be laicized. Many good candidates for the priesthood would be recruited.

7) We would all be encouraged to read our Bibles and catechisms, and to say our prayers faithfully. The Poem of the Man God would finally receive the papal imprimatur which it deserves.

8) And perhaps less importantly, all the bloviators and idiots on Cathinfo would finally disappear. (I add #8 just to rankle all the right people.

)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** July 22, 2015, 09:44:19 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

The Poem of the Man God would finally receive the papal imprimatur which it deserves.

Were he the Pope the charisms associated with his office would clearly prevent this.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** July 22, 2015, 09:48:30 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

And perhaps less importantly, all the bloviators and idiots on Cathinfo would finally disappear.

With you at the front of the line. In your case, a full solemn excommunication might be warranted.

McFiggly · « **Reply #63 on:** July 22, 2015, 12:43:44 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: Centroamerica
Regarding the New Mass: "...it is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil...I am denying what Mr Davies says you can't: that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church"; that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church. (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, July 3, 1996 and Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

"For Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX the new mass is intrinsically evil and therefore to be totally rejected." (Fr. Jean Violette, Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

"...when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil...what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil." (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, October 1996), and

"Personally, I don't believe in discussions which would not deal with the heart of the matter: with Vatican II, with the new Mass, intrinsically evil as we always said in Tradition, with the new code of Canon Law, which introduces the new Vatican II ecclesiology in the legislation of the Church." [Abbe Benoit de Jorna, Superior of the St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, Interview with Giovanni Pelli, May 15, 2001], and

If this is the official position of the SSPX does that not make them a schismatic sect?

Maybe I phrased this a little too bluntly and provocatively. I'm sorry for that. What I meant was, does this not show a schismatic attitude on behalf of the SSPX? They accept that the post-VII papacy but deny everything that said papacy teaches concerning VII and its continuity with tradition.

Somebody said earlier in the thread that the Novus Ordo Mass is substantially evil and not just accidentally when subject to the abuses of evil priests. But Benedict XVI teaches that the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass are substantially the same, and only differ accidentally. Bishop Williamson seems to be agreeing with Benedict XVI here in arguing that if does in a way that "nourishes the faith", the Novus Ordo can be legitimate. What I am saying is that the SSPX position is inconsistent with the notion that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil.

Stubborn · « **Reply #64 on:** July 22, 2015, 01:13:37 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Somebody said earlier in the thread that the Novus Ordo Mass is substantially evil and not just accidentally when subject to the abuses of evil priests. But Benedict XVI teaches that the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass are substantially the same, and only differ accidentally. Bishop Williamson seems to be agreeing with Benedict XVI here in arguing that if does in a way that "nourishes the faith", the Novus Ordo can be legitimate. What I am saying is that the SSPX position is inconsistent with the notion that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil.

Where on God's green earth is anyone coming up with this - Novus Ordo Watch? Did anyone even watch and actually listen to what the Bishop said in that video?

FWIW, he never said, implied, suggested or agreed Benedict the XVI or anyone else that the new mass nourishes the faith nor did he ever say it was legitimate.

Where do you get that? Not from his video. Not from anything he ever wrote, said, taught or otherwise suggested - -why are you saying he ever said such a thing?

I seek to be corrected - so show me.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #65 on:** July 22, 2015, 01:37:11 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: McFiggly
Quote from: Centroamerica
Regarding the New Mass: "...it is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil...I am denying what Mr Davies says you can't: that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church"; that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church. (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, July 3, 1996 and Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

"For Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX the new mass is intrinsically evil and therefore to be totally rejected." (Fr. Jean Violette, Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

"...when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil...what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil." (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, October 1996), and

"Personally, I don't believe in discussions which would not deal with the heart of the matter: with Vatican II, with the new Mass, intrinsically evil as we always said in Tradition, with the new code of Canon Law, which introduces the new Vatican II ecclesiology in the legislation of the Church." [Abbe Benoit de Jorna, Superior of the St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, Interview with Giovanni Pelli, May 15, 2001], and

If this is the official position of the SSPX does that not make them a schismatic sect?

Maybe I phrased this a little too bluntly and provocatively. I'm sorry for that. What I meant was, does this not show a schismatic attitude on behalf of the SSPX? They accept that the post-VII papacy but deny everything that said papacy teaches concerning VII and its continuity with tradition.

Somebody said earlier in the thread that the Novus Ordo Mass is substantially evil and not just accidentally when subject to the abuses of evil priests. But Benedict XVI teaches that the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass are substantially the same, and only differ accidentally. Bishop Williamson seems to be agreeing with Benedict XVI here in arguing that if does in a way that "nourishes the faith", the Novus Ordo can be legitimate. What I am saying is that the SSPX position is inconsistent with the notion that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil.

I think that what you are expressing is a misunderstanding of the SSPX position. Although, Fr. Hesse was never an official SSPX member, he elaborated in many videos on the true SSPX position. I recommend these videos for understanding the position. According to Fr. Hesse, the New Mass was never officially promulgated. There was a signature from Paul VI saying "oh, I look this book here", but no official promulgation of a New Rite of Mass.

Unlike many others seem to indicate, the Pope does not have the "charisma" of infallibility in everything he says and does. If he says it is Wednesday but it is actually Thursday, this doesn't mean that we must change our calendars to agree with the Pope, nor does it mean that he is not a true pope because he was in error about something. The dogmatic docuмent of Pastor Aeternus outlines clear conditions which must be present in order for something to be infallible.

[even EWTN=quote]
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".
[/quote]

In the case of the New Mass, as well as other conditions lacking, this applies only to the Latin Rite and not the "whole Church", so it cannot claim the note of infallibility. This is the classic SSPX position, and it is far from schismatic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** July 22, 2015, 01:48:34 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

In the case of the New Mass, as well as other conditions lacking, this applies only to the Latin Rite and not the "whole Church", so it cannot claim the note of infallibility. This is the classic SSPX position, and it is far from schismatic.

That's demonstrably false. Bishop Williamson himself promoted the non-promulgation argument (which is also extremely weak).

Stubborn · « **Reply #67 on:** July 22, 2015, 01:52:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Centroamerica
In the case of the New Mass, as well as other conditions lacking, this applies only to the Latin Rite and not the "whole Church", so it cannot claim the note of infallibility. This is the classic SSPX position, and it is far from schismatic.

That's demonstrably false. Bishop Williamson himself promoted the non-promulgation argument (which is also extremely weak).

Quote

Post

Br. Alexis Bugnolo ends up agreeing with Fr. Wathen and admits that the NOM is not a liturgical norm and it is not protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility.

McFiggly · « **Reply #68 on:** July 22, 2015, 02:25:56 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Where on God's green earth is anyone coming up with this - Novus Ordo Watch? Did anyone even watch and actually listen to what the Bishop said in that video?

FWIW, he never said, implied, suggested or agreed Benedict the XVI or anyone else that the new mass nourishes the faith nor did he ever say it was legitimate.

Where do you get that? Not from his video. Not from anything he ever wrote, said, taught or otherwise suggested - -why are you saying he ever said such a thing?

I seek to be corrected - so show me.

Well, if the Novus Ordo was evil in substance and not only accidentally on the occasion of abuses, then Bishop Williamson would have to forbid attending the Novus Ordo in all circuмstances. If there are any circuмstances where the Novus Ordo can be safely attended by a Catholic then that means that the Novus Ordo is not evil in and of itself.

Quote from: Centroamerica

I think that what you are expressing is a misunderstanding of the SSPX position. Although, Fr. Hesse was never an official SSPX member, he elaborated in many videos on the true SSPX position. I recommend these videos for understanding the position. According to Fr. Hesse, the New Mass was never officially promulgated. There was a signature from Paul VI saying "oh, I look this book here", but no official promulgation of a New Rite of Mass.

Unlike many others seem to indicate, the Pope does not have the "charisma" of infallibility in everything he says and does. If he says it is Wednesday but it is actually Thursday, this doesn't mean that we must change our calendars to agree with the Pope, nor does it mean that he is not a true pope because he was in error about something. The dogmatic docuмent of Pastor Aeternus outlines clear conditions which must be present in order for something to be infallible.

[even EWTN=quote]
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

In the case of the New Mass, as well as other conditions lacking, this applies only to the Latin Rite and not the "whole Church", so it cannot claim the note of infallibility. This is the classic SSPX position, and it is far from schismatic.
[/quote]

I have sympathies with this position but I don't know how it can be justified when the men currently reigning in Rome as popes themselves assert that the Novus Ordo has been officially promulgated. I know that the pope is not infallible under every circuмstance, but Catholics still owe obedience tot he pope in matters other than infallible doctrine, otherwise the pope would have no purpose other than to be a supernaturally protected dogma-guarantor, rather than a leader with proper jurisdiction over his subjects.

Stubborn · « **Reply #69 on:** July 22, 2015, 02:47:06 PM »

Just found this in my email, video from SSPX:

Link

Should Catholics attend the New Mass?

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #70 on:** July 22, 2015, 03:53:51 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Just found this in my email, video from SSPX:

Link

Should Catholics attend the New Mass?

This FAQ video lays groundwork - Catholicism 101 Mass obligation information. The website says part II is 'in production'.

In the intro, Father states it will be explained "...why Catholics are not obliged to attend the new mass and should even avoid it". This was not covered in part I.

Stubborn · « **Reply #71 on:** July 22, 2015, 04:00:02 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: Stubborn

Where on God's green earth is anyone coming up with this - Novus Ordo Watch? Did anyone even watch and actually listen to what the Bishop said in that video?

FWIW, he never said, implied, suggested or agreed Benedict the XVI or anyone else that the new mass nourishes the faith nor did he ever say it was legitimate.

Where do you get that? Not from his video. Not from anything he ever wrote, said, taught or otherwise suggested - -why are you saying he ever said such a thing?

I seek to be corrected - so show me.

Well, if the Novus Ordo was evil in substance and not only accidentally on the occasion of abuses, then Bishop Williamson would have to forbid attending the Novus Ordo in all circuмstances. If there are any circuмstances where the Novus Ordo can be safely attended by a Catholic then that means that the Novus Ordo is not evil in and of itself.

Again, I ask you to show me where Bishop Williamson said the new mass is legitimate and nourishes the faith. Show me where he agrees with BXVI.

You cannot show me because he never said any such a stupid thing as you are accusing him of saying. You are twisting his words into something he most assuredly never said - do you understand that at least?

If he said such a thing - then prove it. Do not prove it by giving your mis-interpretation of what he said. You supposedly heard this crap from him from somewhere - so just go ahead and quote his words and prove it.

McFiggly · « **Reply #72 on:** July 22, 2015, 04:06:02 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McFiggly
Quote from: Stubborn

Where on God's green earth is anyone coming up with this - Novus Ordo Watch? Did anyone even watch and actually listen to what the Bishop said in that video?

FWIW, he never said, implied, suggested or agreed Benedict the XVI or anyone else that the new mass nourishes the faith nor did he ever say it was legitimate.

Where do you get that? Not from his video. Not from anything he ever wrote, said, taught or otherwise suggested - -why are you saying he ever said such a thing?

I seek to be corrected - so show me.

Well, if the Novus Ordo was evil in substance and not only accidentally on the occasion of abuses, then Bishop Williamson would have to forbid attending the Novus Ordo in all circuмstances. If there are any circuмstances where the Novus Ordo can be safely attended by a Catholic then that means that the Novus Ordo is not evil in and of itself.

Again, I ask you to show me where Bishop Williamson said the new mass is legitimate and nourishes the faith. Show me where he agrees with BXVI.

You cannot show me because he never said any such a stupid thing as you are accusing him of saying. You are twisting his words into something he most assuredly never said - do you understand that at least?

If he said such a thing - then prove it. Do not prove it by giving your mis-interpretation of what he said. You supposedly heard this crap from him from somewhere - so just go ahead and quote his words and prove it.

Well, it's a matter of logic. If Bishop Williamson thinks that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil, then he would forbid his flock to attend it under any circuмstances. If there are any circuмstances whatsoever when the Novus Ordo Mass can be safely attended that means that it is not in and of itself evil.

Stubborn · « **Reply #73 on:** July 22, 2015, 04:29:16 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McFiggly
Quote from: Stubborn

Where on God's green earth is anyone coming up with this - Novus Ordo Watch? Did anyone even watch and actually listen to what the Bishop said in that video?

FWIW, he never said, implied, suggested or agreed Benedict the XVI or anyone else that the new mass nourishes the faith nor did he ever say it was legitimate.

Where do you get that? Not from his video. Not from anything he ever wrote, said, taught or otherwise suggested - -why are you saying he ever said such a thing?

I seek to be corrected - so show me.

Well, if the Novus Ordo was evil in substance and not only accidentally on the occasion of abuses, then Bishop Williamson would have to forbid attending the Novus Ordo in all circuмstances. If there are any circuмstances where the Novus Ordo can be safely attended by a Catholic then that means that the Novus Ordo is not evil in and of itself.

Again, I ask you to show me where Bishop Williamson said the new mass is legitimate and nourishes the faith. Show me where he agrees with BXVI.

You cannot show me because he never said any such a stupid thing as you are accusing him of saying. You are twisting his words into something he most assuredly never said - do you understand that at least?

If he said such a thing - then prove it. Do not prove it by giving your mis-interpretation of what he said. You supposedly heard this crap from him from somewhere - so just go ahead and quote his words and prove it.

Well, it's a matter of logic. If Bishop Williamson thinks that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil, then he would forbid his flock to attend it under any circuмstances. If there are any circuмstances whatsoever when the Novus Ordo Mass can be safely attended that means that it is not in and of itself evil.

I am trying to tell you that you are misunderstanding what he said - if you would actually post what he said, you might actually prove it to yourself that he did not say the things you accuse him of saying. After all, if you are going to avoid putting words in his mouth, why not quote him accurately?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #74 on:** July 22, 2015, 05:03:52 PM »

moi: 1) There would be the immediate Consecration of Russia in concert with the bishops.

2) The 3rd Secret would be fully revealed as it should have been by at least 1960.

3) The Vatican's augean stables would be cleansed. All the evil jews, masons, communists and sodomites would be eventually rooted out of the Holy See.

4) The Swiss Guard would have to work overtime to preserve the life of the pope, and to prevent his assassination.

5) The New Mass would soon die out.

6) Bad priests and bishops would be laicized. Many good candidates for the priesthood would be recruited.

7) We would all be encouraged to read our Bibles and catechisms, and to say our prayers faithfully. The Poem of the Man God would finally receive the papal imprimatur which it deserves.

8) And perhaps less importantly, all the bloviators and idiots on Cathinfo would finally disappear. (I add #8 just to rankle all the right people.

)

I forgot to add one more essential bullet point

Tens of thousands more Catholics would be saying at least five decades of the Rosary daily.

And, oh yes, to point 7) should be added the papal imprimatur upon others of Maria Valtorta's inspired works, like, for example, The Notebooks