Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 49498 times)

AlanF · « **Reply #90 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:38:15 AM »

The unavoidable conclusion, it seems, is that this was an extremely scandalous response from the bishop. (It's clearly confirmed Meg in her erroneous attendance at the Novus Ordo.) But it shows the inherent contradictions in the R&R position.

Either the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite or it isn't.

If it is, then we are bound to accept it as a legitimate rite of the Church, the Archbishop would have sinned gravely in continuing the SSPX after 1975 in opposition to Rome, and we would all be sinning by attending these Masses rather than at our local parishes.

If it's not a Catholic rite, then the bishop should not have said that it's up to the individual and that we can go there if it's what we feel it nourishes our faith, he should have said we are never to go to it and there are no graces that can be obtained from it. It it's not Catholic, then it cannot have been promulgated by a true pope, because the pope is infallible when he promulgates a liturgical rite to the Church, therefore Paul VI cannot have been a true pope (unless you think he didn't properly promulgate the NO, which I don't think is sustainable).

Matthew · « **Reply #91 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:46:19 AM »

Quote from: AlanF

It it's not Catholic, then it cannot have been promulgated by a true pope, because the pope is infallible when he promulgates a liturgical rite to the Church, therefore Paul VI cannot have been a true pope (unless you think he didn't properly promulgate the NO, which I don't think is sustainable).

Well I do think it is sustainable. So carry on.

There's a lot of mystery to this Crisis. Sorry about that; not everything in life is simple.

I know thinking "hurts". It's so much easier to not have to think. Again, I'm sorry.

Matthew · « **Reply #92 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:51:15 AM »

Quote from: AlanF

Either the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite or it isn't.

Either you're a living saint or a virtual demon.

Come on, no equivocations, no talking out of both sides of your mouth, no obfuscations, let's just tell it straight.

Either you're a living saint in the Unitive Way, ready to enter Heaven upon death, or you're in the state of mortal sin and virtually working for the devil.

I like it black and white. Nice and simple. None of this "nuances" or "shades of gray" stuff. What do you think I am, a relativist, subjectivist Modernist?

That was satire, of course. But I'm trying to make a point. Anyone can insist on "black and white" about anything -- but is it justifiable to do so?

I could do the same thing with wealth (Are you rich or poor?) or any other topic.

The clear and simple truth is seldom clear and never simple.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #93 on:** July 23, 2015, 10:02:27 AM »

He is right that the NO either is or is not a Catholic rite.
If it is, then we must say that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, that at least in its most conservative form it doesn't hurt the faith, because otherwise we would be saying that the Church can promulgate evil universal discipline, which would objectively be a mortal sin against the Faith.

If it is not a Catholic rite, then no Catholic is free to participate in it.

The principles really are very simple.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #94 on:** July 23, 2015, 01:06:16 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: AlanF
It it's not Catholic, then it cannot have been promulgated by a true pope, because the pope is infallible when he promulgates a liturgical rite to the Church, therefore Paul VI cannot have been a true pope (unless you think he didn't properly promulgate the NO, which I don't think is sustainable).

Well I do think it is sustainable. So carry on.

There's a lot of mystery to this Crisis. Sorry about that; not everything in life is simple.

Unfortunately, "mystery" tends to be (non-theological) code language for a defection of the Magisterium and the Church's Universal discipline. But carry on with that line of thinking.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #95 on:** July 23, 2015, 01:10:11 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: AlanF

Either the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite or it isn't.

Either you're a living saint or a virtual demon.

False comparison. While there are degrees of virtue, either a Rite is indeed a Catholic Rite or it is not ... just as either a person is a Catholic or he is not. While there are better Catholics and worse Catholics, at the core it's binary (you are Catholic or you are not Catholic).

Matthew · « **Reply #96 on:** July 23, 2015, 01:48:05 PM »

AlanF --

You will maintain a modicuм of respect for the moderator of the board. Feel free to discuss, disagree, argue, but I don't permit ad-hominems against my person. I will frankly admit I'm more strict about "lack of charity" towards myself than I am when it happens towards others. But that's just human nature. Consider it a small perk that comes after putting in thousands of hours to build up a forum over 9 years' time.

As I've said many times, just show me that I'm tyrannical in that regard, and I'll probably change. But so far, every forum I've ever been on will ban you if you insult the forum owner/moderator. I've had a standing "dare" for at least 7 years for anyone to show me a single exception to this, but no one has yet been able to prove me wrong about this.

Go call Tracy "a non-Catholic liberal" on Fisheaters. Go insult the mods of any Trad forum. Go call the moderators of Catholic Answers "non-Catholic". Go on any of the tiny Proboards-based Resistance forums and say that the Resistance is made up of devil worshipers. Call the moderator of "TractorForum.com" a neanderthal who doesn't know a tractor from an ice cream cone. Go on a Mac forum and say that Macintosh is for rich poseurs who don't know how to use a real computer, especially the owner of the forum. It doesn't matter what forum -- if you insult the owner/mods, you are banned.

clare · « **Reply #97 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:03:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

As I've said many times, just show me that I'm tyrannical in that regard, and I'll probably change. But so far, every forum I've ever been on will ban you if you insult the forum owner/moderator. I've had a standing "dare" for at least 7 years for anyone to show me a single exception to this, but no one has yet been able to prove me wrong about this.

Well, actually, I had a policy of not banning people who insulted me. Look where it got me!

Domitilla · « **Reply #98 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:10:09 PM »

Clare, you had the respect of the vast majority of posters on the forum where you were a moderator. Would that that forum was still operating and you were still functioning as it's beloved lady mod -- you were (and are) a "class act", my friend ....

JPaul · « **Reply #99 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:23:07 PM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: Matthew
As I've said many times, just show me that I'm tyrannical in that regard, and I'll probably change. But so far, every forum I've ever been on will ban you if you insult the forum owner/moderator. I've had a standing "dare" for at least 7 years for anyone to show me a single exception to this, but no one has yet been able to prove me wrong about this.

Well, actually, I had a policy of not banning people who insulted me. Look where it got me!

Dear Clare, remember who put you where you got to.......Menzenista zealots, thier neo-catholic allies, and of course lawyers gone wild.................

Todd Konkel · « **Reply #100 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:25:08 PM »

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.

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.

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 that did much of the damage; not just the Novus Ordo Mass.

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

Todd Konkel · « **Reply #101 on:** July 23, 2015, 02:31:30 PM »

Wasn't it the "debate of 98" between Fr. Scott and Michale Davies that centered on this issue of whether the New Mass can be said to be intrinsically evil? Fr. Scott affirmed that it was while Michael Davies said the contrary.
If one says that it is than he needs to exaplain how it is that the official Churchmen can propose for worship something which is intrinsically evil. If I recall, Fr. Scott focused on the notion that it was not properly promulgated (what I call the dotting i's and crossing T's argument). Others claim that it was not insituted for the whole Church since there are other rites as well and so it is not universal.
I agree that if one means intrinsically evil in a Thomistic sense, one whould never call a valid Mass intrinsically evil. If it is a vaild Mass than it is the sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross and that can never be evil. Distinctions need to be made.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #102 on:** July 23, 2015, 03:04:14 PM »

Clare:

Quote

Well, actually, I had a policy of not banning people who insulted me. Look where it got me!

Clare, you and I go back a few years. I was not one of your favorites; but then again, I'm not the favorite of most people on Cathinfo either. But do I misunderstand you? Are you asserting that IA broke up because of your unwillingness to ban people who insulted you? My understanding has always been that the Society's legal apparatus put the squeeze on you.
You got Krah-like threats and such like. That's not true?

stgobnait · « **Reply #103 on:** July 23, 2015, 03:25:04 PM »

I nearly always like you Hollingsworth... :)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #104 on:** July 23, 2015, 03:54:29 PM »

Quote from: Todd K

Wasn't it the "debate of 98" between Fr. Scott and Michale Davies that centered on this issue of whether the New Mass can be said to be intrinsically evil? Fr. Scott affirmed that it was while Michael Davies said the contrary.
If one says that it is than he needs to exaplain how it is that the official Churchmen can propose for worship something which is intrinsically evil. If I recall, Fr. Scott focused on the notion that it was not properly promulgated (what I call the dotting i's and crossing T's argument). Others claim that it was not insituted for the whole Church since there are other rites as well and so it is not universal.
I agree that if one means intrinsically evil in a Thomistic sense, one whould never call a valid Mass intrinsically evil. If it is a vaild Mass than it is the sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross and that can never be evil. Distinctions need to be made.

I received this on precision today. It makes the distinction you ask for...

What does it mean that the New Mass is evil?

The word "Mass" has various meanings. We are dealing here with two of these:

1) Mass as an "Eucharistic sacrifice". In this sense, the New Mass validly celebrated is not bad, but good. That a Mass is valid means precisely that in it there was a valid consecration which has produced transubstantiation, and the Eucharistic sacrifice has taken place.

2) Mass as "a rite according to which the Eucharist is celebrated". In this sense the New Mass is evil.