Bp. Williamson was asked if one could go to the New Mass if it's reverent, etc.
OK, so are you saying that I need to listen to over an hour more of this to understand it better? I'm afraid to.
What should I do? I am told: "You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church."
What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges to obedience? A law, Leo XIII says, is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, then it is no longer a law. Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical "Libertas." A law, which is not for the common good, is not a law. Consequently one is not obliged to obey it.
Many canon lawyers at Rome say that Bugnini's Mass is not a law. There was no law for the New Mass. It is simply an authorization, or a permit. Let us accept, for argument's sake, that there was a law, which came from Rome, an ordering of reason to the common good and not to the common evil. But the New Mass is in the process of destroying the Church, of destroying the Faith. It's obvious. The Archbishop of Montreal, Archbishop Grgoire, in a letter, which was published, was very courageous. He is one of the rare bishops who dared write a letter in which he denounced the evils of which the Church of Montreal is suffering. "We are greatly saddened to see parishes abandoned by a great number of the faithful. We attribute this, in great part, to the liturgical reform." He had the courage to say it.
"Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the New Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circuмstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood. This deficiency had already been denounced by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci months before the New Mass was promulgated"
(http://sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit)
If it's intrinsically evil, it can never do any good
Matthew,
They do not presume to think for God, they are merely applying Catholic principles to come to a conclusion. In fact, the NO Mass is intrinsically evil, and this was also taught by the Old SSPX:Quote"Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the New Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circuмstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood. This deficiency had already been denounced by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci months before the New Mass was promulgated"
(http://sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit)QuoteIf it's intrinsically evil, it can never do any good
When it is valid, it is still the Sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar, so graces can come from it, and probably do to those in ignorance. But having received the grace to know the truth of God's Holy Religion we cannot be excused like they are.
Some people being emotional rather than rational is no excuse to resort to subjectivism. This only perpetuates their disordered way of thinking and acting. The charitable thing to do is to show them in a rational way where they are wrong and what is the correct action based on the correct principles.
I'm seeing some parallels here.
Boston, KY has a visceral disgust for the SSPX, so they declare that SSPX Masses must be avoided without exception, and they actually will fervently criticize anyone who doesn't agree with them on this "red light" position.
Novus Ordo Watch (and other bitter zeal sedevacantists) has a visceral disgust for the Novus Ordo, so they declare that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, the pope is "not the pope" (again, because they are viscerally turned off by him), and the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil, and must be avoided in 100% (not just 99.99%) of cases. And they will fervently criticize anyone who doesn't agree with them on this slightly-exaggerated position.
We must reject error as part of our job of keeping the Faith. But if we exaggerate this or that truth, we distort it and we replace one error with another! We must be careful and prudent as we try to navigate these confusing times.
Quote from: PapalSupremacyMatthew,
They do not presume to think for God, they are merely applying Catholic principles to come to a conclusion. In fact, the NO Mass is intrinsically evil, and this was also taught by the Old SSPX:Quote"Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the New Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circuмstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood. This deficiency had already been denounced by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci months before the New Mass was promulgated"
(http://sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit)QuoteIf it's intrinsically evil, it can never do any good
When it is valid, it is still the Sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar, so graces can come from it, and probably do to those in ignorance. But having received the grace to know the truth of God's Holy Religion we cannot be excused like they are.
Some people being emotional rather than rational is no excuse to resort to subjectivism. This only perpetuates their disordered way of thinking and acting. The charitable thing to do is to show them in a rational way where they are wrong and what is the correct action based on the correct principles.
Do you know what intrinsically evil even means? I tried to explain it. It's when there is something in its essence that is positive evil, such that there is no circuмstance which could justify it. Abortion, for example. Or birth control. Or blasphemy.
I never said the Novus Ordo isn't evil. Evil is a privation of good. Evil basically means defective. The SSPX quote was saying that the New Mass ITSELF was evil, not just the accidents like liturgical dancers or bad music. They never used the word "intrinsically evil" and there's a reason for that.
But I'll excuse you because you might not have studied at a seminary, or formed the habits of precise thought that one learns there.
Boston, KY fails on the principles. But we are not talking about that.
If there is an error in the principles, find and correct the principles, refute the quote. Otherwise, I'm afraid you don't have a case. It is admirable that you wish to defend Bp. Williamson, but it is not admirable to defend him when he is wrong.
"Our rejection of the Novus Ordo must be absolute... attend it?...only (as) for attending non-catholic functions ...(a) sin...if he is aware of (it's) nocivity ... If I were ever to say the New Mass, know that I would be committing a mortal sin..." (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, Sept. 18, 1996).
Quote from: Centroamerica
"Our rejection of the Novus Ordo must be absolute... attend it?...only (as) for attending non-catholic functions ...(a) sin...if he is aware of (it's) nocivity ... If I were ever to say the New Mass, know that I would be committing a mortal sin..." (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, Sept. 18, 1996).
Now this is a contradiction with those other quotes.
If it were truly "intrinsically evil" it would be sinful in all cases. Is abortion ever not a sin? What about blaspheming God? Certain things are BY THEIR VERY NATURE a sin, and that is the definition of intrinsically evil.
Quote from: Centroamerica
"Our rejection of the Novus Ordo must be absolute... attend it?...only (as) for attending non-catholic functions ...(a) sin...if he is aware of (it's) nocivity ... If I were ever to say the New Mass, know that I would be committing a mortal sin..." (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, Sept. 18, 1996).
If it were truly "intrinsically evil" it would be sinful in all cases. Is abortion ever not a sin? What about blaspheming God? Certain things are BY THEIR VERY NATURE a sin, and that is the definition of intrinsically evil.
Intrinsic evil refers to actions that are morally evil in such a way that is essentially opposed to the will of God or proper human fulfillment. The key consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions are judged to be so solely by their object, independently of the intention that inspires them or the circuмstances that surround them. “Intrinsic” has nothing to do with how heinous the act is (although all heinous acts are intrinsically evil), but rather that the act is wrong no matter what its circuмstances. A good example of an intrinsically evil act would be deliberately willed abortion.
Bishop Williamson appears to be saying that while, yes, the NO Mass is OBJECTIVELY harmful, it's not necessarily SUBJECTIVELY harmful ... depending on the dispositions of the subject.
So then, if Bishop Williamson considers the New Mass to be objectively offensive to God, he should never ever say that it might be objectively OK to attend it. 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. So His Excellency really needs to clarify here. He's blurred objective and subjective and has therefore caused serious confusion.
And that's quite interesting because if there was one point that +Williamson has always (quite correctly) HAMMERED on is that all the V2 errors are rooted in SUBJECTIVISM.
Even in his latest treatments of the SV debate, he continues to promote what has been called the "MENTEVACANTIST" defense of the V2 Popes ... which too is an inherently subjectivist perspective.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep, had H.E. only said something like that, we'd all be spared some of the ridiculous posts this topic has generated. :rolleyes:
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.
Nor would there then be any justification to refuse Communion with the Holy See on those grounds alone.
God bless Bishop Williamson for his charity toward those Catholics who feel that we don't have a choice but to attend the NO.
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.
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
Quote from: StubbornQuote 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
I agree with what the Bishop said at the time points you referenced, in that the Novus Ordo Mass is an essential part of the new religion and that it's designed to get you away from the Catholic faith and that's why the rule of thumb is to stay away from the Novus Ordo.
It's my subjective opinion that he's being sympathetic to those Catholics who attend the NO but who can still keep their faith. I could be wrong, of course.
Can one nourish one's Faith by attending a false ritual which is a sacrilege?
If one answers yes, then 2+2 does indeed equal 5.
Bishop Williamson should be pope. :incense: This thread is now closed. :judge:
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
Quote from: MegQuote from: StubbornQuote 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
I agree with what the Bishop said at the time points you referenced, in that the Novus Ordo Mass is an essential part of the new religion and that it's designed to get you away from the Catholic faith and that's why the rule of thumb is to stay away from the Novus Ordo.
It's my subjective opinion that he's being sympathetic to those Catholics who attend the NO but who can still keep their faith. I could be wrong, of course.
I don't believe he is actually being sympathetic, he said numerous times in different ways that the reason for the existence of the new mass is to help people lose the faith, and that it should be avoided etc. - he made that very clear.
The message I got is that, what he said was not for public consumption at all, rather what he was saying was about how, under certain circuмstances which he described, how he would council someone privately.
That he might council the person depending on the laundry list of concerns he spoke of - if they could trust their own judgement about whether the new mass was "reverent", if the words of consecration were spoken worthily and by a true priest, if they could trust themselves to judge whether their attendance was actually helping or hurting their faith, if the preaching mirrored pope Francis' "dangerous" talks and so on.
Certainly he could have gone on and on for hours on this subject alone, and perhaps it was imprudent of him not to after saying some of the things he said which, imo, have been completely blown out of proportion by some, the same as you yourself mistakenly blew out of proportion - as he himself foresaw would happen as he said toward the beginning of his answer when he said, "you may as well be hung for stealing a sheep as for a lamb".....
+Williamson said his golden rule was: "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith". Well, if going to a new mass is what it takes for certain people to finally wake up when it hits them that the new mass is the mockery of the True Mass - which prompts them to run from it and seek only the True Mass, then by attending the new mass they will have nourished their faith. Yes or no?
Further, to those who still attend both the new mass and the True Mass, I'm of the opinion that Our Lord construes that practice as being lukewarm, because how does Our Lord know where you stand when you compromise? Why should He provide the True Mass for you when your actions show that you are willing to participate at the new mass?
Anyway, I could ramble on and on but the jist is that +Williamson does not advocate the new mass.
Also, interesting to note is that they added a note to the screen on the video when the bishop started speaking about this subject at the 1:01:43 mark about blowing out of proportion what the bishop said.
Bishop Williamson should be pope. :incense: This thread is now closed. :judge:
The Poem of the Man God would finally receive the papal imprimatur which it deserves.
And perhaps less importantly, all the bloviators and idiots on Cathinfo would finally disappear.
Quote from: CentroamericaRegarding 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?
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.
Quote from: McFigglyQuote from: CentroamericaRegarding 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.
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 from: CentroamericaIn 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).
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=15988)
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.
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.
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".
Just found this in my email, video from SSPX:
Link (http://sspx.org/en/should-catholics-attend-the-new-mass-sspx-faq-ep14-1-video)
Should Catholics attend the New Mass?
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: McFigglyQuote 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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: McFigglyQuote 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.
Bp. Williamson says Novus Ordo Mass OK sometimes??,
In this instance I tend to agree with His Excellency.
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.
Question: Bishop, I go to Latin Mass on Sunday and probably don’t need to announce this, but during the week I go to a Novus Ordo Mass. [Bp. Williamson “Yes.”] It’s said in a very reverent way where I believe that the priest believe that they are changing the bread and wine. [Bp. Williamson “I understand.”]
Answer: Yes, OK, alright. There’s the principles and then there’s the practice. In principle the Novus Ordo Mass is a key part of the new religion which is a major part of the worldwide apostasy of today, and therefore, the archbishop [Abp. Lefebvre] would say, in public he would say, “Stay away. Keep away from the New Mass.”
You might as well wish hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. What’s the proverb? You might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. If you’re going to steal then steal a sheep and don’t just steal a lamb. What it means is, I’m going to stick my neck out I’m going to stick my neck out a long way and if anybody wants to chop it off they’re welcome. I would say that in certain circuмstances, like those that you mention, exceptionally, if you’re not going to scandalized anybody because they know that you’re a Catholic, they know that you’re sticking to the true faith, and then they see you at the New Mass, they may, the conclusion that many of them will draw is: the New Mass is OK because she’s going. You’ve got to be careful of that. So you’ve got to be careful.
I myself don’t think that the New Mass is always invalid. I don’t think that. I don’t think; archbishop Lefebvre didn’t think that. There’s nothing in the text of the New Mass which makes it inevitably invalid. There are people who say so, I don’t think that they’re right; according to Catholic theology I don’t think they’re right. I think, as you say, that it’s very possible that the consecration is for real. You say that it’s a priest who says it worthily. What I would say is that tomorrow there are going to be many Novus Ordo priests who are going to come though while they’re going to be tradition priests who are not going to come through. Exactly what I’ve been saying or the principle I’ve been saying. Some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last. That I believe. That’s not a reason to go over to the Novus Ordo, far from it. The principles are clear and the wrongness of the Novus Ordo Mass as a whole is clear, but does that mean that every Novus Ordo Mass is invalid?
The golden rule is this, that the absolute rule of rules seems to me to be this: do whatever you need to nourish your faith. If to nourish your faith you need to (and the archbishop said if you what to look after your Catholic faith stay away from the New Mass – that he did say, so…). But, for instance, should I attend a Society [SSPX] Mass, I take the position do whatever you need, if you need to attend a society Mass, a decent Society Mass, just like she spoke of a decent Novus Ordo Mass, if you need to attend a decent Society Mass in order to nourish your faith go to the Society Mass. If you need to stay away from every Society Mass in order to protect your faith then stay away from every Society Mass. So it’s not something you can say to everybody. It’s case by case in my opinion. Some Resistance priests, who shall remain nameless but they do exist, say stay away from every Society Mass. I can understand, I don’t condemn the opinion, I can understand the opinion, it’s not my opinion but God knows who’s right. I may be wrong but I don’t think, I think that there are many Society Masses still capable of nourishing people’s faith without corrupting it. But the moment that you’re aware, if you go to a Society Masses you’ve certain got to keep your eyes and your ears open. You’ve got to watch and pray. And if, the moment you watch and listen and realize that there’s a false smoke coming in, that the priests is sliding, he’s not preaching against the Council [Second Vatican Council] any longer, he’s even suggesting that the Council is not so bad, he’s not talking against Pope Francis in anyway despite the horrors that are coming out of Pope Francis’ mouth, the incredible things he’s doing and saying: “Morality you’ve got to make up on your own”, he’s said, “Who am I to judge”, and then “there’s no Catholic God”. This pope is expressing himself in an incredibly dangerous and foolish way. You’ve got to stay away from that and when that starts creeping in to a Society Mass or when it’s clearly there in a Novus Ordo Mass you stay away.
But there are some Novus Ordo priests with Novus Ordo parishes they get in trouble with their bishops. They’re getting in trouble with their Novus Ordo bishops because they are nourishing and building the faith in their Novus Ordo parish. They celebrate Mass as decently as possible, they hold benedictions of the Blessed Sacrament, they encourage the rosary; the people respond, the Catholics respond, especially since he’s not yet against the mainstream authority. Then obviously the mainstream authority sooner or later sure enough will come down on him, they’ll move him to backwards parish or whatever it is, but the grace was passing.
I don’t know if any of you know, again I’m going to get hanged, but [shrugs shoulders] that’s in the contract; that goes with the territory. There have been Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass: 2001 one was in 'Barberville' [Barbeau] something like that, Michigan in the early 2000’s [actually 1996], Sokolka in Poland in the early 2000’s, and another one in New Jersey [Marlboro] in the early 2000’s. This is the Novus Ordo Mass and there are Eucharistic miracles. Recently in Argentina [investigations of Professor Castañon order by Cardinal Bergoglio] these miracles are still occurring why? Because while the new religion is false, it’s dangerous and it strangles grace and it’s helping many people to lose the faith, at the same time there are still cases where it can be used and is used still to build the faith.
I would like to say it’s all black or it’s all white but if I look at the way it is it’s something of both. Black is not white, white is not back, but the reality is: black or white, there’s an alternation of black and white, or there’s a mixture of black and white in grey; that’s real life. Therefore the essential principle is: do whatever you need to keep the faith. If a priest that you trust says “Stay absolutely away from the New Mass”, well if you trust him that might the advice to take. Or if he says “Stay absolutely away from the Mass of this priest because I know that he’s misleading”, that’s the advice to follow. But you make your own judgments. And our judge, when we appear in front of our maker, we’re going to answer for our own, we’re going to answer for whose advice we chose to follow. We’re not going to be acquitted simply because we followed the advice of a priest because the priests are obviously today are not necessarily reliable. I’ve got to watch and pray. I’ve got to use my own mind. I’ve got to make my own decisions in my own circuмstances.
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. That’s almost heresy within tradition, but that’s what I think. But I hope it’s clear that I don’t therefore say that the Novus Ordo Mass is good or that the Novus Ordo religion is good or that all Novus Ordo priests are good; it’s not the case, obviously not the case. Generally it’s a tremendous danger because the new religion is very seductive, it’s very soft and sweet and sticky and it’s easy to go with it and then lose the Catholic faith. You have a new and different faith. A happy clappy faith. Where everybody’s nice, everybody’s sweet, nobody has original sin. The only sin that’s still left is nαzι sin, that’s the new religion. And Hitler is the devil, the six million are the redeemer which means that the Jєωιѕн people are God, that’s the religion today and that’s deadly, absolutely deadly, its got nothing to do with the Catholic faith except that it’s a clever imitation of the Catholic faith because you get Auschwitz instead of Golgotha and the gas chamber instead of the cross. That’s deadly. But ask yourselves: what is the real religion of the people today, what is the real religion of the state today? Can I blaspheme Our Lord Jesus Christ, does anybody worry? No problem, blaspheme as much as you like. Can I blaspheme against the h0Ɩ0cαųst by saying that there were no gas chambers? Horror! Horror! Horror! [raises hands] Burn him at the stake; he’s a heretic. There, you can see what is the real religion of the government today, of politics today, and of the Mass of people today, and it not of the Catholic religion. And the Conciliar religion is sliding in that direction. Be very careful and be very careful of the, stay away from the Novus Ordo but exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you find the grace of God. If you do make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.
I think that was one ball that went down the alley and sent all the skittles flying [grins]. Do understand me rightly, I think you do. I think you probably do. But I’m going out on a limb there, but there it is. I think it’s the truth, therefore I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass. I don’t, it’s, if they could trust their own judgment that attending this Mass would do them more good than harm spiritually. But it does harm in itself there’s no doubt about that. It’s a rite designed to undermine a Catholic’s faith and make them believe in man and to stop, to turn their belief away from God towards man. The whole the new religion, and the Nouvs Ordo Mass is an essential part of the new religion, is design to get you away from the Catholic faith and that’s why the rule of thumb is, will remain, stay away from the Novus Ordo Mass. But exceptionally, the wises thing to say in private to this or that person but here I am saying it in public, that may be foolish but you must work it out for yourselves.
I go with the position of Fr. Hesse. He knows a lot more about this subject than most. This video is a must see... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXqneqIafVI
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 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.
This is one of the divisions for law from Wernz-Vidal:
"III. By reason of its extension [ambitus] into: a) universal, which applies in the whole Catholic world; b) particular which has force in a certain limited territory only." (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicuм 1:50.)
That is why the laws promulgated for the Latin rite, and not limited to a specific region, are said to be universal, and laws promulgated for particular dioceses, nations and particular churches (e.g. the Maronite Church) are said to be particular laws.
The NO Mass is certainly a universal law because it applies to the whole world, not to a particular territory.
What you are saying here is not the SSPX position. The (Old) SSPX position is that the NO Mass was never promulgated because of defects in the process of promulgation.
People are having a hard time understanding Bp. Williamson's answer about the NO because his answer is confusing. The N.O.W. analysis was right about several things, one of which is certainly that his answer was "all over the place", inconsistent and contradictory.
If we take the words Bp. Williamson used and try to find the principles behind them, as I tried, we must conclude that HE does not hold the Traditional Catholic principles about the NO, because then his answer would have been an unconditional 'no'.
But his words at other times seem to indicate that he does. So what does he hold?
Looking at the evidence, I can see only two possibilities: either he does not hold to Catholic principles in this matter, or he is arguing from the position of subjectivism (something like: nevermind the principles, do what you think is right).
Now, any judgment not based on Catholic principles is dangerous and wrong, while subjectivism is the philosophy of the liberals.
So, as I said, both is troubling.
I will accept correction if someone can prove my original analysis was wrong.
Quote from: PapalSupremacyPeople are having a hard time understanding Bp. Williamson's answer about the NO because his answer is confusing. The N.O.W. analysis was right about several things, one of which is certainly that his answer was "all over the place", inconsistent and contradictory.
If we take the words Bp. Williamson used and try to find the principles behind them, as I tried, we must conclude that HE does not hold the Traditional Catholic principles about the NO, because then his answer would have been an unconditional 'no'.
But his words at other times seem to indicate that he does. So what does he hold?
Looking at the evidence, I can see only two possibilities: either he does not hold to Catholic principles in this matter, or he is arguing from the position of subjectivism (something like: nevermind the principles, do what you think is right).
Now, any judgment not based on Catholic principles is dangerous and wrong, while subjectivism is the philosophy of the liberals.
So, as I said, both is troubling.
I will accept correction if someone can prove my original analysis was wrong.
Have you asked His Excellency?
You seem to want an answer, but he hasn't been known to respond to his critics in this forum. He does, however, usually respond to private emails. I mean, you seem to have an education, or even seminary experience. So why bother with the matter here, unless you're just bored and looking to kill time with thought provoking comments in a forum.
I think this is the second time you've used the curious singular verb (is) for the noun "both"; if you're not a native speaker, congrats on your otherwise perfect writing style.
I mean, you seem to have an education, or even seminary experience.
Ascent:QuoteBishop Williamson should be pope. :incense: 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 Jєωs, 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. :laugh1:)
What you are saying here is not the SSPX position. The (Old) SSPX position is that the NO Mass was never promulgated because of defects in the process of promulgation.
Quote from: PapalSupremacyWhat you are saying here is not the SSPX position. The (Old) SSPX position is that the NO Mass was never promulgated because of defects in the process of promulgation.
It's usually hard to pin down an "official" SSPX position per se. SSPX has never been monolithic like that. You had several of the higher-ups promoting the non-promulgation position. Others have downright rejected the Church's disciplinary infallibility. Others mix in notions of the NOM being negatively defective. And not a few combined all these.
Quote from: CentroamericaI mean, you seem to have an education, or even seminary experience.
Seminary experience? My guess would be 6-7 years of it. He might have experience offering Mass as well; Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: MatthewQuote from: CentroamericaI mean, you seem to have an education, or even seminary experience.
Seminary experience? My guess would be 6-7 years of it. He might have experience offering Mass as well; Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised.
This is was what I was trying to hint at. I'm glad you picked up on it to.
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).
Either the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite or it isn't.
Quote from: AlanFIt 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: MatthewAs 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!
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.
Well, actually, I had a policy of not banning people who insulted me. Look where it got me!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ....
Mark 12:13
And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians; that they should catch him in his words.
Luke 11:54
Lying in wait for him, and seeking to catch something from his mouth, that they might accuse him.
Matthew 22:15
Then the Pharisees going, consulted among themselves how to insnare him in his speech.
Luke 20:20
And being upon the watch, they sent spies, who should feign themselves just, that they might take hold of him in his words, that they might deliver him up to the authority and power of the governor.
The last one is particularly interesting, as there have been cases of people sneaking in -- literally as spies -- to record events with Bishop Williamson.
While it was impossible to catch Our Lord in error, there is no such guarantee for Bp. Williamson. He was certainly mistaken in this case.
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.
Quote from: Meg
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.
Well congratulations! How proud you must be to have a faith stronger than 98% of NO Catholics!
Isn't it wonderful to belong to a group of people so humble and non-judgmental? Who would want to be involved with those snotty, snobby Latin Mass goers with their "holier-than-thou" attitude?
What a dangerous place to be in: thinking that something so bad for most people couldn't possibly effect you. What about those people who aren't as fortunate as you to have such a strong faith? Do you give 2 cents about them?
:facepalm: :confused1: :pray:
It seems that after fifty plus years, people are still just as confused and misled as they were one year after its illicit imposition.
J Paul:QuoteIt seems that after fifty plus years, people are still just as confused and misled as they were one year after its illicit imposition.
And isn't that exactly what the Church's enemies intended it to be?
Yes, But that begs the question as to why our clerics have not yet formulated a clear concise and consistent answer, when such questions arise from the laity , an answer which leaves no doubt and no room for misinterpretation ?
I would think that the reason is that, according to Bp. Williamson, the New Mass is one of those "gray areas." Can't there be gray areas during a serious cirisis, such as the Church is going through now?
Meg:QuoteI would think that the reason is that, according to Bp. Williamson, the New Mass is one of those "gray areas." Can't there be gray areas during a serious cirisis, such as the Church is going through now?
Apparently not, Meg. "(G)ray areas" are off limits to serious discussion. It is black and white, or else, by golly! I think, perhaps, that if some of the denizens of this forum were facing brutal persecution of Christians from Muslims, Jєωs and others in various parts of the world, where martyrs' blood flows freely today, they would pay less attention to the relative legitimacy of the New Mass. Their minds would be on other things.
The New Mass is bad compared to the Old Mass. That's obvious. But if the New Mass is valid, then our Lord is truly there present in the Holy Eucharist. He has allowed Himself (his precious Body and Blood) to be handled in a manner that isn't really suitable to Him, yet He allows it, perhaps by His permissive will. If He can allow His body to be treated thus, then I can be present, too. I feel that God wants me at that Novus Ordo, but I don't know why. One gets used to being in a state of confusion about some things (but not about the truly important things, hopefully). I hope this makes sense. I'm not very good at explaining these things.
Quote from: MegThe New Mass is bad compared to the Old Mass. That's obvious. But if the New Mass is valid, then our Lord is truly there present in the Holy Eucharist. He has allowed Himself (his precious Body and Blood) to be handled in a manner that isn't really suitable to Him, yet He allows it, perhaps by His permissive will. If He can allow His body to be treated thus, then I can be present, too. I feel that God wants me at that Novus Ordo, but I don't know why. One gets used to being in a state of confusion about some things (but not about the truly important things, hopefully). I hope this makes sense. I'm not very good at explaining these things.
Just because it may be valid does not make it OK. The New Mass fosters sacrilege and heresy. You know this. You are not a person who does not know any better. Just because God allows all kinds of evil to go on in the world does not make it right for us to participate in them.
You are basing your decision on a feeling that is unsupported by reason and that is a very dangerous thing to do. Feelings, even feelings about God, can deceive us. This is a truly important thing and you need to examine your motives more carefully. Why do you want to do this?
Well, Bp. Williamson says that everyone needs to decide for themselves what to do regarding this, and that if attending the NO will help one to keep one's faith, then they can do so. It's not an endorsement of the NO. The NO is one of those gray areas. I'm not saying that anyone else should attend it at all.
The New Mass is bad compared to the Old Mass. That's obvious. But if the New Mass is valid, then our Lord is truly there present in the Holy Eucharist. He has allowed Himself (his precious Body and Blood) to be handled in a manner that isn't really suitable to Him, yet He allows it, perhaps by His permissive will. If He can allow His body to be treated thus, then I can be present, too. I feel that God wants me at that Novus Ordo, but I don't know why. One gets used to being in a state of confusion about some things (but not about the truly important things, hopefully). I hope this makes sense. I'm not very good at explaining these things.
Quote from: Meg
Well, Bp. Williamson says that everyone needs to decide for themselves what to do regarding this, and that if attending the NO will help one to keep one's faith, then they can do so. It's not an endorsement of the NO. The NO is one of those gray areas. I'm not saying that anyone else should attend it at all.
Just because there may be some circuмstances in which it is OK to attend the NO is no reason to assume that those circuмstances apply to you. All you are going on is "a feeling". How is attending the NO helping you to keep your faith? Don't you have a TLM available to you? I think I have seen you say that you do. If so, you are not choosing the NO over nothing, but over something that is clearly superior. Why?
You can't just answer "because Bp. Williamson said I could". You need a good reason.
You evidently haven't been reading what I've written. I'm not going to make this thread about me. If you haven't the inclination to understand what the bishop is trying to say, then there's no point in me engaging further with you on the subject.
I have never heard an SSPX priest, beginning with the founder himself, declare that the New Mass is not valid, or that it does not properly confect the Body and Blood of Our Lord. None of them have, to my knowledge, ever gone out on that limb. Even the "red light" priests do not say that the MO Mass is totally invalid, or that the Consecration in that Mass does not renew the Body and Blood of our Lord. They just warn that is "intrinsically evil," so don't go to it. We won't attend an NO Mass, because we don't believe it portrays an unbloody Sacrifice in a manner pleasing to God. It is more of a "Table" or a meal, after the manner of the Protestants. The NO is obviously an attempt by New Church to draw closer to our separated brethren. It doesn't work, however.
Meg, are you going to Latin Mass?
...But if the New Mass is valid, then our Lord is truly there present in the Holy Eucharist. He has allowed Himself (his precious Body and Blood) to be handled in a manner that isn't really suitable to Him, yet He allows it, perhaps by His permissive will. If He can allow His body to be treated thus, then I can be present, too. I feel that God wants me at that Novus Ordo, but I don't know why. One gets used to being in a state of confusion about some things (but not about the truly important things, hopefully). I hope this makes sense. I'm not very good at explaining these things.
Quote from: Meg...But if the New Mass is valid, then our Lord is truly there present in the Holy Eucharist. He has allowed Himself (his precious Body and Blood) to be handled in a manner that isn't really suitable to Him, yet He allows it, perhaps by His permissive will. If He can allow His body to be treated thus, then I can be present, too. I feel that God wants me at that Novus Ordo, but I don't know why. One gets used to being in a state of confusion about some things (but not about the truly important things, hopefully). I hope this makes sense. I'm not very good at explaining these things.
Shallow musings devoid of logic. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why women are prohibited from teaching and preaching.
By this line of reasoning, God "wants" to be present at black masses to and endure all manner of profane treatment, and you should be present too. "If He can allow His body to be treated thus, then I can be present, too."
Quote from: J.Paul
Yes, But that begs the question as to why our clerics have not yet formulated a clear concise and consistent answer, when such questions arise from the laity , an answer which leaves no doubt and no room for misinterpretation ?
I would think that the reason is that, according to Bp. Williamson, the New Mass is one of those "gray areas." Can't there be gray areas during a serious cirisis, such as the Church is going through now?
I noticed that the Dominicans of Avrille (whom I admire greatly) posted a new article on their webiste in English about how it's wrong to attend the New Mass. Evidently, they don't agree with Bp. Williamson. That's alright. They have to take a stand that they believe is right. I'll go with Bp. Williamson's view for now, even though it seems to go against tradition for most folks here, I know.
Quote from: J.Paul
Yes, But that begs the question as to why our clerics have not yet formulated a clear concise and consistent answer, when such questions arise from the laity , an answer which leaves no doubt and no room for misinterpretation ?
I would think that the reason is that, according to Bp. Williamson, the New Mass is one of those "gray areas." Can't there be gray areas during a serious cirisis, such as the Church is going through now?
I noticed that the Dominicans of Avrille (whom I admire greatly) posted a new article on their webiste in English about how it's wrong to attend the New Mass. Evidently, they don't agree with Bp. Williamson. That's alright. They have to take a stand that they believe is right. I'll go with Bp. Williamson's view for now, even though it seems to go against tradition for most folks here, I know.
Meg:QuoteI would think that the reason is that, according to Bp. Williamson, the New Mass is one of those "gray areas." Can't there be gray areas during a serious cirisis, such as the Church is going through now?
Apparently not, Meg. "(G)ray areas" are off limits to serious discussion. It is black and white, or else, by golly! I think, perhaps, that if some of the denizens of this forum were facing brutal persecution of Christians from Muslims, Jєωs and others in various parts of the world, where martyrs' blood flows freely today, they would pay less attention to the relative legitimacy of the New Mass. Their minds would be on other things.
If I were in a part of the world where we were being persecuted by Muslims or Jєωs (as it probably will be in Britain soon enough...) I still wouldn't go to the Novus Ordo. Even if they tried to force us under pain of death I believe the only moral option would be to accept martyrdom.
Alan:QuoteIf I were in a part of the world where we were being persecuted by Muslims or Jєωs (as it probably will be in Britain soon enough...) I still wouldn't go to the Novus Ordo. Even if they tried to force us under pain of death I believe the only moral option would be to accept martyrdom.
And do you think Bp. Williamson would encourage you to do any differently? This whole thread has been about H.E. allegedly going soft on the NO Mass. Has he said anything that would suggest to you, that in the face of persecution and death, he would advise you to relent and to attend the New Mass?
How can you consider yourself to be in union with the Pope if you adamantly refuse to attend the Mass he offers around the world, and would prefer to die rather than attend it?
How can the SSPX be anything other than schismatic? It seems like the SSPX's only reason for existence is to bash sedevacantists. It is neither with the Novus Ordo nor against the Novus Ordo, neither with the Resistance (sedevacantism) nor against the Resistance. Speaking of the Resistance - I don't see why the SSPX Resistance (Williamson et al.) are complaining so much about Fellay's wanting to be in union with Rome - isn't it every Catholics earnest wish to be in full union with the Pope?
Sometimes I wonder whether or not the SSPX was the worst thing to happen to the entire reactionary movement against Vatican II. It effectively put an end to any significant resistance by lulling the greater part of those scandalized by Vatican II into a lukewarm "neither here nor there" sect. I'm not condemning all those (especially the laity) who have attended the SSPX because they wanted to keep the faith and bring their children up in the traditional religion. I'm condemning the theology of the SSPX which makes no sense whatsoever (not that I am saying anything original, because many before me have these same complaints).
I think the great temptation of the SSPX is its trying to appear "balanced" as opposed to "radical" or "fundamentalist" (even though Novus Ordoites call SSPXers radical traditionalists anyway). It's nice to be able to say to the world that you are a Catholic in union with the pope and are just attached to the old Latin Mass. It's extremely offensive, on the other hand, to say that the man in Rome is an imposter. Then you are instantly outed as a radical or extremist or fundamentalist. But the radical nature of Vatican II requires a radical reaction, not the limp-wristed "dialogue" of the SSPX which calls the man that it constantly disobeys the Pope.
Why does everything always evolve into a "sede" vs "non sede" argument? So petty and doesn't solve anything.
How can you consider yourself to be in union with the Pope if you adamantly refuse to attend the Mass he offers around the world, and would prefer to die rather than attend it?
How can the SSPX be anything other than schismatic? It seems like the SSPX's only reason for existence is to bash sedevacantists. It is neither with the Novus Ordo nor against the Novus Ordo, neither with the Resistance (sedevacantism) nor against the Resistance. Speaking of the Resistance - I don't see why the SSPX Resistance (Williamson et al.) are complaining so much about Fellay's wanting to be in union with Rome - isn't it every Catholics earnest wish to be in full union with the Pope?
Sometimes I wonder whether or not the SSPX was the worst thing to happen to the entire reactionary movement against Vatican II. It effectively put an end to any significant resistance by lulling the greater part of those scandalized by Vatican II into a lukewarm "neither here nor there" sect. I'm not condemning all those (especially the laity) who have attended the SSPX because they wanted to keep the faith and bring their children up in the traditional religion. I'm condemning the theology of the SSPX which makes no sense whatsoever (not that I am saying anything original, because many before me have these same complaints).
I think the great temptation of the SSPX is its trying to appear "balanced" as opposed to "radical" or "fundamentalist" (even though Novus Ordoites call SSPXers radical traditionalists anyway). It's nice to be able to say to the world that you are a Catholic in union with the pope and are just attached to the old Latin Mass. It's extremely offensive, on the other hand, to say that the man in Rome is an imposter. Then you are instantly outed as a radical or extremist or fundamentalist. But the radical nature of Vatican II requires a radical reaction, not the limp-wristed "dialogue" of the SSPX which calls the man that it constantly disobeys the Pope.
I know exactly what you're saying, but the Pope has nothing to do with the crisis in the Church, in a manner of speaking. All of the novus ordo/vatican II heresies exist, it's a fact of life. They can be seen, measured, argued against, etc.
But whether or not so and so IS the pope or IS NOT the pope is theoretical. We can't prove it, we can't measure it against a Church doctrine and we can't say that such and such a dogma says to do "this" or "that".
So, let's take the papacy out of the equation. The REAL question is, how do we handle the crisis in the Church? I grew up with the mindset of my grandfather, who I remember well saying (in the 80s) that the SSPX was "wishy washy" on the "novus ordo religion". And, on the whole, they are.
Bp. Sanborn has written a response to Bp. Williamson's comments on his blog.
http://inveritateblog.com/2015/07/29/christ-or-belial/
CHRIST OR BELIAL?
A Response to Bishop Williamson concerning Attendance at the New Mass
On June 28th of this year, Bishop Williamson gave a conference to a gathering of people in Connecticut, followed by questions and answers.[1]
A woman asked him whether it was permissible to attend the New Mass.[2] Bishop Williamson says that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass.
Here I will analyze his answer.
Quote from: AlanFBp. Sanborn has written a response to Bp. Williamson's comments on his blog.
http://inveritateblog.com/2015/07/29/christ-or-belial/
CHRIST OR BELIAL?
A Response to Bishop Williamson concerning Attendance at the New Mass
On June 28th of this year, Bishop Williamson gave a conference to a gathering of people in Connecticut, followed by questions and answers.[1]
A woman asked him whether it was permissible to attend the New Mass.[2] Bishop Williamson says that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass.
Here I will analyze his answer.
Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.
...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: AlanFBp. Sanborn has written a response to Bp. Williamson's comments on his blog.
http://inveritateblog.com/2015/07/29/christ-or-belial/
CHRIST OR BELIAL?
A Response to Bishop Williamson concerning Attendance at the New Mass
On June 28th of this year, Bishop Williamson gave a conference to a gathering of people in Connecticut, followed by questions and answers.[1]
A woman asked him whether it was permissible to attend the New Mass.[2] Bishop Williamson says that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass.
Here I will analyze his answer.
Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.
He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?Quote...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?
Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.
Quote from: Stubborn
Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.
He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?Quote...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?
Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.
No point in commenting unless you've listened to the whole thing ... he revisits the topic multiple times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik
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 [the unclean spirit of Vat.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.
It would be nice to see proper apostrophe use, however:
e.g., ...that's its main problem.
Here! Here!
Quote from: PapalSupremacyQuote from: Stubborn
Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.
He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?Quote...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?
Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.
You know, I could admit that I must be wrong here since so many people got a completely different message than I did out of his answer, but I think +W's fault lies in him giving an incomplete explanation of his answer - or perhaps I am reading more into it than is there.
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".
First off, +W is speaking to a woman who imo, is weak in the faith - and at the same time he is speaking to what is quite probably a room full of former NOers. I do not know, but it's possible that even +Sanborn, born in 1957, is a former NOer. I think even here on Cathinfo that it's safe to say that probably 99.8% of the posters are former NOers - and probably at least some of the 99.8% still participate with the evil thing to some degree.
So to me, there must be at least some graces that come from the new mass - and those graces must have alerted their souls to seek the true faith and avoid the evil NO because I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO. So any graces at all that come out of the new mass, will in fact prompt NOers to leave the NO and convert to the true faith and Mass - same as it has for all 'former-NOer-now trads', living today.
I understand that +W did not explain it this way, so perhaps my understanding is false, yet, if it is possible for graces to come from the new mass at all, and per my comment above I think it is entirely possible because the results speaks for themselves, then +W's answer is entirely correct.
If OTOH +Williamson meant that he actually gave his stamp of approval "to actively participate in the New Mass", I cannot see it.
.
This was very good:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=37417&#p3)
FYI, this is a bit emotional too if you ask me.
What does a photo of a Novus Ordo Mass have to do with any arguments for or against its validity or goodness?
It's like he's trying to rouse the populace like a demagogue, or appeal to the emotions of his audience -- admittedly, far too many MEN operate on emotion these days. But still, he's lowering himself.
First off, +W is speaking to a woman who imo, is weak in the faith - and at the same time he is speaking to what is quite probably a room full of former NOers. I do not know, but it's possible that even +Sanborn, born in 1957, is a former NOer. I think even here on Cathinfo that it's safe to say that probably 99.8% of the posters are former NOers - and probably at least some of the 99.8% still participate with the evil thing to some degree.
So to me, there must be at least some graces that come from the new mass - and those graces must have alerted their souls to seek the true faith and avoid the evil NO because I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO. So any graces at all that come out of the new mass, will in fact prompt NOers to leave the NO and convert to the true faith and Mass - same as it has for all 'former-NOer-now trads', living today.
I understand that +W did not explain it this way, so perhaps my understanding is false, yet, if it is possible for graces to come from the new mass at all, and per my comment above I think it is entirely possible because the results speaks for themselves, then +W's answer is entirely correct.
If OTOH +Williamson meant that he actually gave his stamp of approval "to actively participate in the New Mass", I cannot see it.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: PapalSupremacyQuote from: Stubborn
Bishop Williamson did *not* say "that, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass." HE NEVER SAID THAT.
He did say that, though not using those exact words, which is why Bp. Sanborn didn't use quotes. He was paraphrasing. Did you listen to the whole Q&A part of the conference?Quote...what reason is there to read the rest of +Sanborn's article?
Because he proves just a few lines below that Bp. Williamson did say that, and because he makes some very good points.
You know, I could admit that I must be wrong here since so many people got a completely different message than I did out of his answer, but I think +W's fault lies in him giving an incomplete explanation of his answer - or perhaps I am reading more into it than is there.
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".
As Bp Sanborn explains in his article, “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith" is an entirely Protestant way of looking at the Mass. It's all about whether we feel it edifies us. What it does for us. It's all about chocolate, as BpW might say. It necessarily results in some people feeling that the Novus Ordo, "reverently" offered, will nourish their faith, as BpW explicitly said it might. Under those conditions (which were highly ambiguous and personal), yes, the bishop did say it's permissible to actively participate in the Novus Ordo.Quote from: Stubborn
First off, +W is speaking to a woman who imo, is weak in the faith - and at the same time he is speaking to what is quite probably a room full of former NOers. I do not know, but it's possible that even +Sanborn, born in 1957, is a former NOer. I think even here on Cathinfo that it's safe to say that probably 99.8% of the posters are former NOers - and probably at least some of the 99.8% still participate with the evil thing to some degree.
So to me, there must be at least some graces that come from the new mass - and those graces must have alerted their souls to seek the true faith and avoid the evil NO because I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO. So any graces at all that come out of the new mass, will in fact prompt NOers to leave the NO and convert to the true faith and Mass - same as it has for all 'former-NOer-now trads', living today.
I understand that +W did not explain it this way, so perhaps my understanding is false, yet, if it is possible for graces to come from the new mass at all, and per my comment above I think it is entirely possible because the results speaks for themselves, then +W's answer is entirely correct.
If OTOH +Williamson meant that he actually gave his stamp of approval "to actively participate in the New Mass", I cannot see it.
One of the things BpW said correctly was that the NO was created to destroy the Catholic Faith. The conclusion of that can only be that it is not a Catholic liturgical rite. How can it be a Catholic rite if its purpose is to destroy the Faith? That's not "simplistic" or "emotional", as some people on this thread have taken to saying, it's just common sense. I recommend you read Bp Sanborn's article, it's lays out clear Catholic principles against what Bp Williamson is saying.
Actual graces can come to people outside the Faith, otherwise no one would ever convert. People can also commit sins without incurring the guilt of sin because of a lack of knowledge. I've no doubt some in the NO are trying to be Catholics as best they know, I don't know anyone who condemns them, but when they discover Tradition the correct course of action is to leave the NO. The correct instruction from a traditional priest or bishop should be to stay away from it, because it's objectively displeasing to God. How can a rite which was created to destroy people's faith be pleasing to God, and how could it possible be used to maintain the Faith?
Well, +W did not give the new mass his stamp of approval. So calm down all you hysterical, hand wringing trads. Get a grip! :smile:
I agree. As such, he is not guilty of sending any mixed message or say that the "Novus Ordo Mass OK sometimes" as the title of this thread suggests.
I found a good holy Orthodox priest (weep weep boo hoo boo hoo), and he's really devout, and in my judgment doesn't have a formally schismatic attitude. I find the Orthodox Liturgy quite edifying and it's valid afterall.
Stop the stupid emotional theology. Where are the PRINCIPLES AND DISTINCTIONS???
Matthew, your statements suggest that truth is relative and subjective ... and so do Bishop Williamson's statements.
A woman comes up to you, a priest, begging for "permission" to attend a Novus Ordo which she insists is helping her keep the Faith. She insists that the priest is devout, and that he validly confects the Blessed Sacrament. Towards the end of her question, her voice broke/went silent as if she was about to cry. Source: I was there.
A woman comes up to you, a priest, begging for "permission" to attend a Novus Ordo which she insists is helping her keep the Faith. She insists that the priest is devout, and that he validly confects the Blessed Sacrament. Towards the end of her question, her voice broke/went silent as if she was about to cry. Source: I was there.
Quote from: MatthewA woman comes up to you, a priest, begging for "permission" to attend a Novus Ordo which she insists is helping her keep the Faith. She insists that the priest is devout, and that he validly confects the Blessed Sacrament. Towards the end of her question, her voice broke/went silent as if she was about to cry. Source: I was there.
Wouldn't it be much better to tell this woman in public that they should speak privately immediately after the talk to discuss her particular situation rather than tell the whole world that it's ok to attend the Novus Ordo?
When you have to break that bruised reed, then you do. If a woman wants to attend an Orthodox or Lutheran service, or if she is in a bad marriage and wants a divorce. There is no grey area or wiggle room there. But you only resort to smashing them over the head when you have to -- when you have no choice.
And mysterious they are -- God hasn't revealed the objective truth about ANY of these questions to a single soul, much less all of the questions.
Essentially +Williamson just publicly yellow-lighted the NOM.
Quote from: MatthewAnd mysterious they are -- God hasn't revealed the objective truth about ANY of these questions to a single soul, much less all of the questions.
Same thing can be said about EVERYTHING related to the Traditional Catholic position. How on earth, then, can +Williamson and The Resistance keep ferociously attacking the +Fellay position?
Quote from: hollingsworthAlan:QuoteIf I were in a part of the world where we were being persecuted by Muslims or Jєωs (as it probably will be in Britain soon enough...) I still wouldn't go to the Novus Ordo. Even if they tried to force us under pain of death I believe the only moral option would be to accept martyrdom.
And do you think Bp. Williamson would encourage you to do any differently? This whole thread has been about H.E. allegedly going soft on the NO Mass. Has he said anything that would suggest to you, that in the face of persecution and death, he would advise you to relent and to attend the New Mass?
If I decided that it would 'nourish my faith' in those circuмstances, then why not?
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.
Quote from: 2VermontI 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.
I for one support Bishop Williamson but I am critical of him here and am not making excuses for him.
I for one support Bishop Williamson but I am critical of him here and am not making excuses for him.
Yes. But I do respect Bishop Williamson and If I had the option, I would go to his Mass even though I disagree with him on this issue.
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.
Personally, I am as far from sedevacantism as I ever have been. I've been tempted (like all of us) by Pope Francis, the canonization of JP2, etc. but I'm as firm as ever against it. Why? It's a question of authority. Once you embrace formal sedevacantism, you have no source of authority but your own head. Sedevacantists are those classic pains-in-the-butt who come up to priests and bishops wielding a copy of papal encyclical "X" with a sentence highlighted -- said laymen proceeds to insist that the whole of theology revolves around that sentence. There is no arguing with him.
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.
Quote from: MatthewPersonally, I am as far from sedevacantism as I ever have been. I've been tempted (like all of us) by Pope Francis, the canonization of JP2, etc. but I'm as firm as ever against it. Why? It's a question of authority. Once you embrace formal sedevacantism, you have no source of authority but your own head. Sedevacantists are those classic pains-in-the-butt who come up to priests and bishops wielding a copy of papal encyclical "X" with a sentence highlighted -- said laymen proceeds to insist that the whole of theology revolves around that sentence. There is no arguing with him.
In a certain sense I think this is a good point as it can be analagous to what fundamentalist Protestants do with Scripture, but with that said, in what way is authority preserved when only "your own head" decides whether or not said authority should be blown off or obeyed? It essentially serves no purpose, leaving you as the sole arbiter of all things Catholic regardless.
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.
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?
Quote from: LukerI 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.
Quote from: 2VermontI 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?
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]
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
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.
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.
Quote from: MatthewWe'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?
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.
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
Quote from: NatusAdMaioraThe 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."
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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: 2VermontI 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.
Quote from: MattoQuote from: LukerI 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.
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: StubbornQuote from: 2VermontI 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. :laugh1:
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.
Quote from: MegPerhaps, 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?
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: 2VermontQuote from: StubbornQuote from: 2VermontI 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. :laugh1:
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.
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.
Quote from: PapalSupremacyQuote from: MegPerhaps, 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.
Oh I understand what you're trying to say. But in the end you are just rationalizing Bishop Williamson's comments...comments that sound very different than Archbishop Lefebrve's.
Ladislaus is correct: Bishop Williamson has yellow lighted the NOM.
Returning to the main subject of controversy.
The only proper words from any cleric must be, "No, you cannot go, you must stop attending this service."
The problem of assisting at the New Mass
Some priests were torn between the need to keep the Faith as expressed by the traditional Mass and a desire to be obedient as they saw it. In the early days of the reforms, Archbishop Lefebvre advised them to keep at least the traditional Offertory and Canon and to say them in Latin. His advice to the seminarians as to the faithful was remarkably moderate in tone for one who was first to step up to the breach to repel the New Mass.
He exhorted them:
Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation."
One can counter the dangers for the Faith through solid catechism:
Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10]
(...)
Little by little the archbishop’s position hardened: this Mass with its ecuмenical rite was seriously ambiguous and harmful to the Catholic Faith.
This is why one cannot be made to assist at it to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.”[15]
In 1975 he still admitted that one could “assist occasionally” at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a longtime. However in 1977, he was more or less absolute:
To avoid conforming to the evolution slowly taking place in the minds of priests, we must avoid—I could almost say completely—assisting at the New Mass."[16]
Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.
The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.
3. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations, which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.
I would be grateful to God and to Your Holiness if these clear declarations could hasten the free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X by the Church, and likewise of all those who, subscribing to these declarations, have striven to save the Church by perpetuating its Tradition.
I beg Your Holiness to accept my profound and filial respect in Christo et Maria.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
...I've wondered about this. I'd been told that it is sacrilege to confect the sacrament outside of Mass, no matter the circuмstances.Quote....When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament....
Quote from: PapalSupremacyStubborn:
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.
Quote from: PapalSupremacyQuote from: NatusAdMaioraThe 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
Quote from: PapalSupremacyQuote from: MegPerhaps, 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.
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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: PapalSupremacyStubborn:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.QuoteFor 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?
Meg:QuoteBut 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:
Quote from: J.PaulThe 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.QuoteFor 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?
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.
Quote from: MegQuote from: J.PaulThe 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.QuoteFor 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?QuoteMy 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.
PapalS:QuoteTelling 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:
Quote from: hollingsworthPapalS:QuoteTelling 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................ :facepalm:
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: MegQuote from: J.PaulThe 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.QuoteFor 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?QuoteMy 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.
You know, this whole sectarian "I gotta stick up for my guy", R&R vs the SEDE business is really getting old.
Quote from: J.PaulYou 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.
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.
You don't seem to be very happy with Bp. Williamson. You should probably have nothing more to do with him and look elsewhere.
No problem, lad. It's just that I don't recall you ever having much good to say about Bp. Williamson in the past. So it seemed logical to suggest that you simply distance yourself from him and find refuge elsewhere. I didn't mean intentionally to express a cult mentality in all this. After all, I think most will admit, traditional Catholicism has already splintered into a number of little cults. You hadn't noticed? I think H.E. recognizes this. He is not about trying to herd a bunch of headstrong 'cats' into his little fold, under the banner of his leadership. So that's why I felt free to invite you to look for spiritual solace and comfort elsewhere. I am sorry at this point not to be able to suggest another bishop, (or bishops) about whom you might feel less critical. You might try Bp. Sanborn or some other sedevacant bishop. There is still a line of Cardinal Siri bishops, they tell me, who might be worth looking into. Also, a viable alternative might be your own diocesan bishop or one nearby who allows the indult from time to time. But, as I have said before, there is always Bp. Fellay, and the other two sspx bishops. They do offer a visible structure. They seem to be well endowed and well organized, bearing the Lefebvrian name, if not exactly the Lefebvrian legacy. I just want you to be happy, lad. You shouldn't have to put up with a bishop who makes frequent references to Maria Valtorta, Dawn Marie and Garabandal. You need to be liberated from all that. You need to go forward in a positive way with a bishop, or bishops, of your choice. :smile:
His explanation was completely reasonable, and despite your insincere "not meaning to express a cult mentality," you're intent on his exiting your "cult" of choice if he doesn't blindly follow a singular personality/organization, none of whom possess any actual authority in the first place. How nonsectarian of you.