Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 47545 times)

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #45 on:** July 21, 2015, 05:20:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Nor would there then be any justification to refuse Communion with the Holy See on those grounds alone.

There is never any reason to refuse communion with the Holy See (i.e. a true pope). That is the definition of schism. You can certainly capable of more precision than such dangerous statements.

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** July 21, 2015, 05:21:19 PM »

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]

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #47 on:** July 21, 2015, 05:50:22 PM »

Quote from: Meg

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.

It's a slippery slope. The NO is one of the worst acts of the Revolution. Also, according to the Catechism of the Crisis of Fr. Gaudron when "for all" is used it is of doubtful validity. So, you are regularly going to something which is not a Catholic rite, which does not express the Catholic theology of the Mass, which favors heresy and destroys the faith or at least makes it lukewarm, and receiving something that might or might not be the Body of Christ from a person who might or might not be a priest.

The only reason why anyone would feel that they "don't have a choice but to attend the NO" is if he thinks it is a work of the Church and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Such a person is not really a Traditional Catholic because he accepts the Revolution, just like the FSSP and the other Indult groups, happy with their small isolated corner of "smells and bells" in the Church of the Revolution, but reluctantly going along with it just the same.

On the other hand, if the person doesn't believe the NO is a work of the Church, then he certainly could not say that he doesn't have a choice but to attend the NO, since there can be no reason to offend God with assisting at unworthy worship, or at a rite which is not Catholic, or by doing so to expose one's faith to any danger.

Meg · « **Reply #48 on:** July 21, 2015, 05:53:28 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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

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.

He mentions after the 108:13 minute mark that there have been Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo Mass. And I find his other comments after this to also be very informative as well.

I see firsthand what the NO does to people - in that they aren't really serious about their faith, for the most part, but then I do see a few (very few) folks, who, like me, are really trying to live out their faith, despite the boring and dumbed-down Mass which was most definitely IS designed to take one away from a proper understanding of the Catholic Faith. It is man-centered, and was designed as such. And yet....it seems a miracle that there can still be Catholics who attend it (a small minority, for sure) who despite attending the NO, for whatever reason, can still maintain their faith. Why or how they do so is still a mystery to me. Most of those who attend the NO don't really know much about Catholicism, of course. The NO is for the most part all about peace and luv, which is so depressing. I just focus on the crucifix when I attend the NO, and try keep our Lord's passion in mind much of the time. I have a special devotion to the Five Wounds, which helps to get me through the NO Mass.

Thanks for your input, Stubborn.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #49 on:** July 21, 2015, 08:07:13 PM »

Bishop Williamson told me in April of this year that when "for all" is said in the consecration, it is of doubtful validity. I think that Bishop Williamson thinks just as some of the comments on this thread do regarding the illicitness and other issues of the New Mass. I am certain of it.

As far as the objective/subjective sinfulness and intrinsic evilness of the New Mass, the Society maintains this so I don't see why he wouldn't. The Society prints examinations of conscience that ask if one has attended a New Mass. There is no reason for me to believe that attending a New Mass is not an objective sin.

JPaul · « **Reply #50 on:** July 21, 2015, 09:19:07 PM »

The fact of the matter is that no Catholic is left without a choice. The choice is there and it is clear, and it is many times, difficult to make but, nevertheless,it is one which must be made.

poche · « **Reply #51 on:** July 22, 2015, 01:15:00 AM »

Bp. Williamson says Novus Ordo Mass OK sometimes??,

In this instance I tend to agree with His Excellency.

Stubborn · « **Reply #52 on:** July 22, 2015, 04:50:22 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Stubborn
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

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.

JPaul · « **Reply #53 on:** July 22, 2015, 07:30:39 AM »

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #54 on:** July 22, 2015, 07:56:10 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

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.

That does not answer my question.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #55 on:** July 22, 2015, 07:56:11 AM »

Bishop Williamson should be pope.

This thread is now closed. :judge:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #56 on:** July 22, 2015, 09:12:11 AM »

We can speculate all we want about what Bishop Williamson meant. Unfortunately, that's the problem. It's pure speculation.

His Excellency did not state which distinctions he was applying: substantial vs. accidential, positive vs. negative, intrinsic vs. extrinsic, objective vs. subjective, etc. Consequently, arguing this is a pointless waste of time.

I can say no more than that I can neither confirm nor deny (i.e. accept or refute) what he's trying to say because I don't clearly understand the rationale for why he said it. So arguing this is ridiculous.

Perhaps +Williamson chose not to get all scholastic on us given his understanding that it would just confuse 99% of his audience anyway (that the distinctions would be lost on them). Who knows. But NO Watch doesn't know either, so theirs is nothing but a bitter hatchet job based on lack of information also.

Consequently, it's a waste of time to argue about this until His Excellency were to make some clarification.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #57 on:** July 22, 2015, 09:15:23 AM »

Quote from: ascent

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

It would be fun to start a mini conclave poll on CathInfo to see who people would vote for as pope given the choice.

I'd be inclined right now to vote for Father Chazal.

McFiggly · « **Reply #58 on:** July 22, 2015, 09:27:19 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

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

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

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

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

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

Meg · « **Reply #59 on:** July 22, 2015, 09:35:26 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Meg
Quote from: Stubborn
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

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.

I agree that Bp. Williamson does not advocate the New Mass, nor have I ever said that he does, so I don't know why you'd bring it up. He does not advocate the New Mass. He says that everyone should decide for themselves about what to do in this matter. He also said that he'd get into trouble for saying this, which is of course what has happened. I don't mind that you disagree with my view about this. You've a right to your opinion on the subject, of course.

Bishop Williamson says several times in this talk (I listened to the whole talk) that not everything is black and white. The New Mass seems to be one of those areas that just isn't black and white. I must say that there isn't anything in his talk that I'd disagree with. I'm starting to become a fan of the bishop again. He explained the problems with Bp. Fellay and Menzingen in a clear manner, and I have a better picture now of the situation, I think.