No point in commenting unless you've listened to the whole thing ... he revisits the topic multiple times.

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.

I would. It's not 2 hours. You can skip ahead to the Q&A. I just wouldn't trust any version other than the original if you really want to know what he said and didn't say.

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.

Like it or not, Bp. Williamson's arguments do not pass the test of Catholic principles, as you can see below.

This is a crucial sentence in Bp. Williamson's talk:

"I would not say every single person must stay away from every single NO Mass."

So the question is why does a person need to stay away from any NO Mass in the first place - is it because of the substance or because of the accidents? The Traditional Catholic response is because of the substance (the NO is poison, it harms the faith, it doesn't express the Catholic Theology of the Mass, it is defective because of its omissions, even in its Latin form and said reverently etc.), and not merely because of the accidents not necessarily present in the rite itself (e.g. altar girls, Communion in the hand, lay extraordinary ministers of Communion, tables instead of altars, the priest turning his back on the Most Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle etc.). But if the NO Mass is defective and harmful in its substance (i.e. even when said reverently and in the most conservative Latin form), then it is not a Catholic rite of Mass, since the Catholic Church is unable to promulgate defective and harmful rites of the sacraments. And no Catholic is allowed to assist at non-Catholic rites (except in a civil capacity at funerals and weddings), and this is something that not even a pope can dispense from (popes have in extremely rare occasions permitted communicatio in sacris with heretics and schismatics to certain Catholics, but it was always Mass said in a Catholic rite, one of the Eastern rites).

Furthermore, to quote from the N.O.W. analysis:
"Did you notice what he left out? God. He did not think to ask whether the New Mass is pleasing to God. That is all that matters. Holy Mass isn't about us. It's about God. It's the worship of the Most Holy Trinity, not a spiritual pick-me-up."

Indeed, because of all the defects present in the substance of the NO Mass, I believe all of us would agree that it cannot be pleasing to God, even when said reverently. This means that to participate in it, even if it is said in the most reverent manner, is to partipate in an act of offending God, which we must never do, even though our intentions and the intentions of the priest might be of the best possible kind.

Therefore, since the NO Mass is not a Catholic rite and is not pleasing to God, if Bp. Williamson's sentence was based on Catholic principles, it should have said: "Every single person must stay away from every single NO Mass."
But it did not say that.

If we try to find the principles behind what it did say, what we would come up with is that the NO Mass is not always harmful and defective and that it can sometimes be pleasing to God, which actually means that it is not defective and harmful in substance, but only because of the accidents. And just as the late Michael Davies (traditionalist author and longtime president of the "Una Voce" Indult organization) we would then have to conclude that the NO Mass, at least in its most conservative form, is a Catholic rite. There goes our resistance to the Conciliar Revolution.

Therefore, Bp. Williamson's response is either against Catholic principles, or it is subjectivist (in the sense of nevermind the principles, just do what you think is right).
Both is troubling.

And, ironically, these emotional Sedevacantists who hate the Novus Ordo (usually because they used to be in it themselves...they are turned off by it, hate it, feel bad that they were part of it even for a while, etc.) are of the same pedigree as the emotional lady who asked Bishop Williamson the question -- for permission to attend the Novus Ordo.

They have a VISCERAL disgust for the Novus Ordo.

Some of them are better than others at coming up with reasons (theology, dogma) to back up their feelings.

But, in the end, they go too far because emotions are a powerful thing. They are certainly not precise. Emotions are ham-fisted.

I'll admit, I am repulsed by the service as well. As a life-long Trad, there is no part of me that is comfortable at such a service. I FEEL exactly the same as I do at a Lutheran service. It feels kind of weird that there are some Catholic elements in it though...

But anyhow, that's just my FEELINGS. My reason tells me a bit more, and I try to listen to reason more than my feelings and emotions.

Just because Matthew FEELS the same at a Novus Ordo and a Lutheran service, doesn't mean that they are objectively the same theologically!  

I feel the same when someone speaks Tagalog to me as I do when someone speaks Russian to me. Does that mean those languages are the same?

What, are my feelings some kind of universal standard? Or is Catholic doctrine and dogma the universal standard?

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:

"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

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.

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