Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson  (Read 6243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46237
  • Reputation: +27200/-5032
  • Gender: Male
Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2022, 08:29:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: de Lugo on August 10, 2022, 11:19:48 PM
    Ambiguity is the defect, and precisely why the ex adiunctis argument arises.  Were this not the case, ex adiunctis arguments would not be relevent.

    No, they altered the essential form for both the Rite of Ordination and the Rite of Episcopal consecration.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46237
    • Reputation: +27200/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #31 on: August 11, 2022, 08:44:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Donachie on August 10, 2022, 11:25:18 PM
    Bp. Williamson says the significant form, it's practically the same, just one or two sentences, often just one sentence, in this case it may be two sentences, one or two sentences ... and then an et instead of an ut, and he considers that the Novus Ordo ordination form in Latin is stronger than the old form?

    :facepalm:  He says that the NO ordination is "stronger"?  No, there's no et ... just a simple removal of the ut.  So, why exactly would they go to the trouble of removing a single two-letter word?  That speaks volumes.  But if you examine the meaning of the ut, "so that," it's this expression that indicates the Sacramental effect.

    It's the difference between (major paraphrase)

    "May he receive the Holy Ghost.  May he become a priest."

    vs.

    "May he receive the Holy Ghost so that he may become a priest." (i.e., may the Holy Ghost make him a priest)

    Pius XII when discussing the essential form indicated that the form indicates that the action of the Holy Spirit brings about the effect of the man being ordained to the priesthood.  But here the causal connection is severed and it can be viewed as two separate and independent prayers.  We can receive the Holy Ghost for any number of purposes, including, for instance, at confirmation.

    I find this Rite to be clearly INVALID.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12464
    • Reputation: +8255/-1572
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #32 on: August 11, 2022, 10:29:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: de Lugo on August 10, 2022, 11:24:00 PM
    There are indeed two editions (1979 and 1993), and I am in possession of both.

    Both editions contain this statement in the foreword from l'Abbe Jan van der Ploeg, O.P.: "There can be no doubt of the validity of the New Rite but there are certain features which the author deplores."

    Therefore the explanation regarding Msgr. Williamson does not hold.

    Thank you for that.

    Any insight into why there is even a second edition? What, if anything, is different between the two editions?
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12464
    • Reputation: +8255/-1572
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #33 on: August 11, 2022, 10:33:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on August 11, 2022, 08:27:57 AM
    This has actually been independently verified that the NO replacement for the Catholic Offertory is in fact a тαℓмυdic "blessing".  This is what I believe that Our Lord referred to as "words from the abyss" in the new Rite that He foretold to Julie Marie Jahenny.
    The тαℓмυdic Touch: The Real Story of the Offertory’s Replacement
    by Craig Heimbichner, March, 2004, Catholic Family News, available online at:

    and

    тαℓмυdic “Benedictions” in the Novus Ordo Mass
    https://mauricepinayblog.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/тαℓмυdic-benedictions-in-the-novus-ordo-mass-2/
    https://tinyurl.com/yxdz9xs9

    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46237
    • Reputation: +27200/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #34 on: August 11, 2022, 11:50:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Incredulous on August 10, 2022, 09:48:06 PM
    How does one validate a desacralized liturgy?

    According to Chiesa Viva's analysis of Bugnini's masonic correspondence to his co-conspirators, the Novus ordo missae's Offertory contains a verse from the Kabbalah.  The purpose was to desacralize the mass.

    If the leaked letters from Bugnini are authentic, then Bugnini, in promoting the offering of "the bread", was harkening to the sacrifice of Cain, which was displeasing to God, vs. the pleasing sacrifice of Abel.

    While this is a Prot source, it highlights the difference:
    Quote
    Abel was a shepherd, and his offering to the Lord was “the best portions of the firstborn lambs from his flock” (Genesis 4:4, NLT). Cain was a farmer, and his offering was “some of his crops” (Genesis 4:4, NLT). The most evident difference between the two sacrifices is that Abel’s offering was an animal (blood) sacrifice, and Cain’s was a vegetable (bloodless) sacrifice.

    So, similarly, the NOM swaps out the offering and sacrifice of the Lamb of God for an offering of the "fruits of the earth".
    Logged

    Offline Donachie

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2566
    • Reputation: +620/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #35 on: August 11, 2022, 12:55:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on August 11, 2022, 08:44:25 AM
    :facepalm:  He says that the NO ordination is "stronger"?  No, there's no et ... just a simple removal of the ut.  So, why exactly would they go to the trouble of removing a single two-letter word?  That speaks volumes.  But if you examine the meaning of the ut, "so that," it's this expression that indicates the Sacramental effect.

    It's the difference between (major paraphrase)

    "May he receive the Holy Ghost.  May he become a priest."

    vs.

    "May he receive the Holy Ghost so that he may become a priest." (i.e., may the Holy Ghost make him a priest)

    Pius XII when discussing the essential form indicated that the form indicates that the action of the Holy Spirit brings about the effect of the man being ordained to the priesthood.  But here the causal connection is severed and it can be viewed as two separate and independent prayers.  We can receive the Holy Ghost for any number of purposes, including, for instance, at confirmation.

    I find this Rite to be clearly INVALID.
    He said it. de Lugo probably agrees with him. I haven't seen the texts and I don't know. I'm not in a position to offer helpful correction to Bp. Williamson about that sort of thing. I can help him reckon correctly which way the Moon goes over England if he doesn't already know that one.

    I'll look to see if anybody who knows the form question about the Novus Ordo Ordination really well wants to offer a helpful correction for the readers and so  forth. Otherwise I was assuming he was right. I mean he was right about 9-11, of course.
    Logged

    Offline Donachie

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2566
    • Reputation: +620/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #36 on: August 11, 2022, 01:02:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • It's difficult to believe these two expressions are the only difference between Vatican II ordinations and what was before.
    Logged

    Offline Donachie

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2566
    • Reputation: +620/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #37 on: August 11, 2022, 01:03:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The form I mean. The form question, of course.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46237
    • Reputation: +27200/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #38 on: August 11, 2022, 01:10:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Donachie on August 11, 2022, 01:03:26 PM
    The form I mean. The form question, of course.

    Right, there are many other changes, but this removal of ut is the only change to the essential form.  That in my mind makes it even more suspicious.  If it doesn't make any difference, then why bother removing it?
    Logged

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #39 on: August 11, 2022, 01:15:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: de Lugo on August 09, 2022, 12:17:59 PM
    Also interesting how, towards the last 8 minutes, Msgr. Williamson tries to inform Dr. Jones that the SSPX has changed, and is taking sides with the occupied Church, but Jones seems to not want to go in that direction, and changes the cubject.

    It would seem that some wished to press Msgr. Williamson further on some of the topics broached in this interview, and one week later RTF conducted this wide-ranging interview (which often refers back to the one discussed here):

     
    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.

    Offline Donachie

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2566
    • Reputation: +620/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #40 on: August 11, 2022, 02:32:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Imagine Bergoglio being canonized as St. "Pope" Francis in  the future. That's the Vatican II wheel of motion.
    Logged

    Offline Emile

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2435
    • Reputation: +1863/-135
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #41 on: August 11, 2022, 02:48:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Donachie on August 11, 2022, 02:32:27 PM
    That's the Vatican II wheel of motion.



    The Vatican II wheel ^^^ with the facade removed.
    Logged
    I hold it true, whate'er befall;
    I feel it, when I sorrow most;
    'Tis better to have loved and lost
    Than never to have loved at all.
    (In Memoriam A. H. H., 27.13-17 Alfred, Lord Tennyson)

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #42 on: August 11, 2022, 03:01:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on August 11, 2022, 10:29:11 AM
    Thank you for that.

    Any insight into why there is even a second edition? What, if anything, is different between the two editions?

    M. Davies states his reasons in the introduction to the 2nd edition (which among other things included the revision of the 1968 ordinal in 1989, and a critique from l'Abbe Clark, etc.).

    Besides the new introduction, other substantial modifications would include the addition of 4 new appendices (to total 11, versus the original 7 appendices).

    Among these new appendices, Appendix XI deals with the "elimination" of the "ut" in the 1968 rite.

    According to M. Davies, the conjunction "ut" does not appear in the traditional form contained in the Leonine Sacramentary (which in turn is contained in the pre-1968 Pontificale Romanum used for ordaining priests), and only appeared there as the result of a copyists mistake, repeated by other scribes, and eventually became codified with the advent of the printed Pontificale.

    There is therefore a dilemma for those who have been arguing that the 1968 removal of the "ut" is invalidating:

    Since the Leonine Sacramentary was composed between the 4th - 7th centuries, and it is uncertain when exactly this copyist mistake adding "ut" into the ordination form made its way from there into the Pontificale, these must logically consider all priestly ordinations between 350 AD - 1968 AD as either questionable or invalid (i.e., since there was no "ut" until some unknown time when it appeared by mistake). 

    Or, they can acknowledge that the removal of the "ut" is theologically meaningless (however deplorable the other revisions to the solemn form of the 1968 rite may be), and historically more traditional than retaining a copyists error.

    This is all another way of saying that the absence of the "ut" for unknown centuries (or its elimination in 1968) cannot be invalidating, or it would necessarily mean that at some uncertain point, the Catholic priesthood went extinct, and the Church vanished.
    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.

    Offline Donachie

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2566
    • Reputation: +620/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #43 on: August 11, 2022, 03:05:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Emile on August 11, 2022, 02:48:37 PM


    The Vatican II wheel ^^^ with the facade removed.
    Ouch! What would Socrates do? Change his mind from the Crito and escape maybe? I would escape ...

    I value entertainment. "Dreams" pop song and another wheel of motion.
    Logged

    Offline Donachie

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2566
    • Reputation: +620/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: E. Michael Jones interviews Bp. Williamson
    « Reply #44 on: August 11, 2022, 03:18:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • All the talk about "Dreams" and Bergoglio says "in another forty years we'll get there" ... to the zoo and the banana store. It'll be V2 deja vu all over again.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
    « previous next »