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.

Now you can say, "Oh, I'd tell her what for!" but remember, a priest has to consider the good of the individual as well as the general principles. The priest is responsible for every soul under his care. Sometimes there is an exception to the rule. At worst, His Excellency should have spoken about her particular situation AFTER the conference. It was private advice for one emotional woman only -- not a new general rule of thumb. Even during this talk, he insisted in no uncertain terms that the Novus Ordo is dangerous and to be avoided.

But overall, this whole debate is nothing more or less than the 45-year debate among Traditional Catholics -- what is the status of the Pope? What is the exact nature of the New Mass? Is it mortally sinful, or just dangerous? Can a person attend for ____ reason? What about for ____ reason? And other questions shrouded in mystery. 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.

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.

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.

The principles are quite clear: the status of the Novus Ordo is open for debate. No one has any truth(s) about the Crisis or the Novus Ordo on good authority.

Like I said, sedevacantists have disagreed with recognize-and-resistors about the Pope, Novus Ordo Mass, Conciliar Church, etc. for decades -- what else is new?

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.

They are the classic home aloners where they are prepared to believe they are the Last Catholic Alive. They will sit at home from Tridentine Masses offered by compromise-free, validly ordained priests -- for some nit-picky reason.

I believe this nit-picky "every man his own pope" phenomena is not just accidental to sedevacantism, but that sedevacantism positively causes and encourages this outcome. I believe there is something there.

The other main reason -- they seem to be extreme, simplistic, bitter, and as far as I can tell they are downright wrong about the Novus Ordo and some other things. They are motivated by a spirit foreign to Catholicism. It's a bitter spirit. According to them, a Novus Ordo Catholic is not a Catholic. Again, they're simplifying. Only 99% of Novus Ordo Catholics have lost (or are in the process of losing) the Faith. A percentage of them still have the Faith, and still want to be Catholic. They are confused.

Remember, home-alone Trads and Japanese "hidden Christians" at least KNEW they had no sacraments/priests. They were quite active, going into a sort of survival mode. But how can you say that some Catholics could attend the Novus Ordo for 45 years and still be Catholic, unless grace is being given in many cases?

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.

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.

Then His Excellency needs to define that wiggle room.  If he wanted to take it offline and discuss this in private with her and tell her, "This is my opinion regarding the status of the Novus Ordo Mass.  Obviously I have no authority to bind your conscience on the matter.  If you have judged otherwise, then I do not judge you for it."  This is true of ANY position regarding the current crisis.  I do not judge FFSPers or Motuers or even Novus Ordites from the standpoint of their consciences.  But that doesn't mean that I do not hold certain principles of disagreement with them.

His Excellency was making a statement IN PUBLIC and he needs to clarify why and under what conditions it would be OK to attend the NOM.  He needs to define exactly WHY there's "wiggle room" here when there isn't with regard to an Orthodox Liturgy (actually, no less than St. Pius X gave permission for Catholics to receive Sacraments from the Orthodox due to various conditions and based on various theological principles).

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.

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?

Protestants can receive grace at their "services" too, depending on their dispositions.  And a N.O. catholic can receive grace too.  Does this mean that God is happy with them?  Does this mean that they are worshiping God as HE WANTS?  

Maybe they can receive ACTUAL grace, but not the SACRAMENTAL graces one would receive at a TRUE mass.  I would judge very harshly a catholic who is aware, grasps the significance of, and attends regularly, the TRUE mass and then, for some "important" reason, GOES BACK to the N.O.  This is like a person who had a heart attack because of a poor diet, gets healthy and then goes back to his old ways.  

Either the N.O. is ok to attend or it's not.  All of this 'gray area' talk is not based on catholic principals.  'Gray area' is for when you are in an UNAVOIDABLE situation where your morals are in peril.  A person who knowingly, and willingly goes to the N.O. (even for a funeral or wedding) is committing a serious sin of compromise.  It's better to stay at home, imo.

Quote from: Matthew

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.

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?

Oh we can discuss, we can fight, we can be ferocious about it, as we're talking about life and death, salvation and damnation here. But we must maintain charity, keeping in mind the confusion and the fact that our opponents might just be deceived -- not necessarily malicious.

Of course, any sign(s) of malice are always going to be pointed out by opponents, the better to discredit them.

Bishop Williamson has a banner, Bishop Sanborn has a banner, the SSPX used to have one banner (which I was happy with) and now I'm forced to find another -- the Resistance. Everyone goes wherever he feels the risk/reward potential is most favorable, in terms of keeping the Faith vs. falling into a non-Catholic attitude of some kind (schism, cult, cult of personality of a Pope, Papolatry, etc.)

There are no guarantees, either. All we have is our good will, our prayers, and our faculties of reason. Welcome to Traditional Catholicism and the Crisis in the Church.