Author Topic: Bp. Williamson controversy about emotional woman and Novus Ordo Mass (Read 49518 times)

Meg · « **Reply #120 on:** July 29, 2015, 10:54:23 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Meg:
Quote
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?

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, jews 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.

I'd like to see the issue of "gray areas" discussed more, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in it.

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.

The NO parish that I attend is Dominican. They are far from living the life and example of St. Dominic, but I can see a few glimmers of hope that they are changing for the better, due to them waking up about what is happening in the world (same-sex marriage being approved, for example).

Jaynek · « **Reply #121 on:** July 29, 2015, 12:51:28 PM »

Quote from: Meg

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.

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?

Meg · « **Reply #122 on:** July 29, 2015, 01:08:37 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

Quote from: Meg
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.

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.

Jaynek · « **Reply #123 on:** July 29, 2015, 01:25:33 PM »

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.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #124 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:06:16 PM »

Meg:

Quote

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.

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 · « **Reply #125 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:07:00 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

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.

Jaynek · « **Reply #126 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:17:24 PM »

Quote from: Meg

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.

One thing that the bishop is NOT saying is that he gives a blanket permission for anyone who feels like it to attend the NO.

You do not have to publicly answer any of the questions that I have asked you, but these are things that you need to ask yourself for the sake of your soul. Perhaps it is something that is OK sometimes, but we also know that it is a sin sometimes. This is not a decision to be made lightly.

Meg · « **Reply #127 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:21:46 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

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.

Well, I do agree that the NO Mass is all of those things described above, especially that the NO is an attempt to draw closer to our separated brethren (heretics). Michael Davies did a good job of describing this is his booklet, "Liturgical Shipwreck." If Davies was correct, then the NO was designed by a committee put together by Bugnini, a suspected Freemason. Never in the history of the Church had the Mass been changed by a committee; rather, it was always changed a little bit here and there by saintly popes, to better reflect our Catholic Faith.

Jaynek · « **Reply #128 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:35:38 PM »

Bp. Williamson did not say that people should be deciding this for themselves and whatever they decide is OK. He said that in private counselling, he might, in unusual circuмstances, advise someone to attend the NO.

So, Meg, if you want to follow his teaching, you should go and seek counsel from a traditional priest on whether you are one of the few for whom the NO does more good than harm. This talk does not mean that the bishop approves of you attending the NO.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #129 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:54:08 PM »

Meg, are you going to Latin Mass?

Meg · « **Reply #130 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:55:30 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

Meg, are you going to Latin Mass?

Yes, once or twice a month, which includes the major feast days.

OHCA · « **Reply #131 on:** July 29, 2015, 02:57:18 PM »

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."

Jaynek · « **Reply #132 on:** July 29, 2015, 03:09:15 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

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."

This is exactly what is wrong with what Meg is saying. It is based on feeling not reason, a typically female problem. (Although, unfortunately, there are plenty of men who do this too.)

JPaul · « **Reply #133 on:** July 29, 2015, 05:25:51 PM »

Quote from: Meg

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.

No, this is a matter which does not allow for a grey or uncertain judgment.
The principles are clear and the
Church's judgment in relation to the sacraments, is fixed. It is always without exception a sacrilege to attend this ritual.

It is not a matter of what this person that person believes is right, all that matters is what
IS right, and a man either submits to that truth, rejects that truth, or tries to make that truth elastic in some fashion, but "narrow is the way....."

All Catholics should be of the same mind and clear opinion about the new mass but sadly, they are not.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #134 on:** July 29, 2015, 06:04:57 PM »

Anyone who says that the N.O. mass is "valid" and is therefore "ok", 1) is making the most generalized, blanket statement imaginable, or 2) doesn't know what they are talking about.

First, define "valid". Do you mean that the consecration MAY BE valid? If so, are you speaking about a PARTICULAR mass you attended, or, again, are you applying validity to EVERY N.O. mass that is said?

When one discusses validity of the N.O. one must differentiate between multiple, multiple scenarios.
a) the N.O. consecration of both bread AND wine were changed by Paul VI. You can't say this mass is valid unless you're sure that the consecration formula is correct.

b) The consecration of the bread REQUIRES "for many". If "for all" is said, it's not valid. If a poll were taken, i'd bet that many N.O. masses still say "for all". Benedict XVI just "rectified" the situation only a few years ago. Who knows how many bishops/priests "got the memo" and actually obeyed the pope.

c) the consecration of the wine is probably INVALID because the phrase "mystery of faith" is not part of the consecration formula, but is added in a prayer AFTER the consecration. THIS has never been fixed, talked about, or rectified, even though many new-catholics think the N.O. is now "ok" after Benedict XVI "fixed" the consecration back to "for many".

Conclusion: Who knows how many priests say "for many" vs "for all". But MOST if not ALL priests in the N.O. still say the consecration of the wine without the "mystery of faith" phrase, thereby invalidating the consecration, and the mass.

Second, let's assume the consecration is "valid" (which, is a big assumption). Does that mean that the mass is also valid? NO, NO, NO! To make such a logical jump is to forget the 3 PRINCIPAL parts of the mass - Offertory, Canon, Communion. The consecration is PART of the canon, and the canon is PART of the mass; THE CONSECRATION IS NOT THE MASS. It is a PART of the mass!

The N.O. "mass" only has 70% of the Offertory prayers of the true mass.
The N.O. "mass" only has 50% of the canon prayers of the true mass.
The N.O. "mass" mocks the purpose of communion, by "handing" it out and distorts it's purpose, its reverence, its nature because communion is meant to be sacred, an interaction between God and man, not a "supper" or a "celebration".

Conclusion: Even IF the N.O. consecration is correct, this means the consecration is "valid" (just as in a satanic black mass), but the Mass itself, which is a prayer, must have a proper Offertory, Canon and Communion for it to be VALID. If prayers are not said, if the ideas and words "sacrifice", "offering", "oblation", "priest", etc are suppressed (and they are, considering the prayers that were "cut out" of the N.O.) then the N.O. "mass" is not valid.

This doesn't even take into account whether the N.O. is LEGAL, which I argue that it is NOT. Nor is it moral, for many of the reasons stated above.