Quote from: Neil Obstat

It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"  

The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known.  How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?

You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.

Only if you assume people can't make distinctions:

a) between validly baptized NO, validly baptized Protestants and those who aren't baptized at all;

b) between having "a relationship with God" such as a saint would as opposed to realizing that God gives every single person the necessary graces to be saved. In other words, being able to see, practically speaking, how God does so or may do so. In other words -- it's not just an empty phrase a person throws out there because they know they are supposed to -- they truly believe and are open to seeing how God works with and offers grace to every single person, not just Catholics, and certainly not just trads;

c) between the facts that some correspond with those graces, whether in an instant or over time, while others don't and only God knows the full account.

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Neil Obstat

It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"  

The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known.  How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?

You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.

I dare say the bishop would also say the same about devout folk in the Anglican church. It is modernist thinking and is a way out for those having difficulty knowing where they really belong. But the bishop is also in the realm of fantasy with his Frankenstein hosts, requiring all bow down to such conciliar abominations. After all this time, if anyone gives credence to this bizarre distraction, their attachment to tradition would seem to be rather flimsy ..... with a back door available to the new religion they once despised.  

It is a spiritual mode of "hedging you bets", not being sure enough of your principles and convictions that you can firmly plant your feet on one side of the line or the other and defend that position unreservedly.
The day of the counter revolutionary anti conciliar "true believer" has passed. We now occupy the age of belief subject to circuмstances rather than belief subject to unyielding truth. As you have said elsewhere, we are on our own, and few are left now.

   

They compassed me on every side, and there was no one that would help me. I looked for the succour of men, and there was none.

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Neil Obstat

It seems to me it's not a huge step to go from saying that there are a lot of very devout Catholics among Novus Ordo regulars, to saying that there are not a few non-Catholics who have a very close relationship with God, and that the friends of God include people of all religions, and perhaps even many of no religion whatsoever, and "Who are we to judge them?"  

The conclusion to this line of thinking is that God's approval or disapproval of man's moral state, whatever it may be, cannot be known.  How far away then is it to start saying that God per se cannot be known?

You bring up a few of the very real consequences of the dual minded thinking which has always been present in the SSPX and within the R&R philosophy in general, none of which are compatible with sound reasoning or the Faith.

I dare say the bishop would also say the same about devout folk in the Anglican church. It is modernist thinking and is a way out for those having difficulty knowing where they really belong. But the bishop is also in the realm of fantasy with his Frankenstein hosts, requiring all bow down to such conciliar abominations. After all this time, if anyone gives credence to this bizarre distraction, their attachment to tradition would seem to be rather flimsy ..... with a back door available to the new religion they once despised.  

It is a spiritual mode of "hedging you bets", not being sure enough of your principles and convictions that you can firmly plant your feet on one side of the line or the other and defend that position unreservedly.
The day of the counter revolutionary anti conciliar "true believer" has passed. We now occupy the age of belief subject to circuмstances rather than belief subject to unyielding truth. As you have said elsewhere, we are on our own, and few are left now.

Quote

   

They compassed me on every side, and there was no one that would help me. I looked for the succour of men, and there was none.

Pretty clearly the more solid areas for Catholic religion at the present time would be the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, the Company of Jesus and Mary led by the Argentine Bishop Andres Morello, the Sodalitium Pianum of the Mater Boni Consilii Institute in Italy and the thriving diocese of Bishop Luis Madrigal in Mexico.  Together with their not so few associates in the United States and Britain.  In so far as the clergy is concerned, beyond those rather modest limits one quickly sinks into the Outer Darkness of the prevailing Pentecostalist Anabaptism with its ghastly disregard and contempt for the sacramental economy of the Roman Catholic Church so kindly provided to the human race by God Almighty.

Sadly Bishops Faure and Williamson are reversing their previous appearances of courage and, as is said, hastily trimming their wicks evidently for the fear of someone or other, who must be here left unnamed for the comfort of the gutless wonders among us.  Not an edifying sight, to say the least.  Nevertheless shameless cowardice on the part of laymen is not justified.  Despite the shameless treason of so many surrendering and less and less Catholic clerics.

Madame Le Pen is an extraordinarily brave Catholic polititian who seems to have more courage in one of her little toes than all we English-speaking Catholic laymen put together.  St. Joan of Arc strikes again, and once again to the considerable shame of our own male sex!  Bishop Madrigal has reconstituted the Cristeros Army and that Army will one day reconquer Mexico, and presumably a Greater Imperial Mexico, when the time comes.  As it quite assuredly will.  The Catholic Peronists are at last regrouping in Argentina and Catholic Nationalism is reawakening in Germany, with the usual oceans of blood amid hell and highwater that must always accompany such a fateful occurrence.  We have by no means heard the last of Catholic Monarchy either.  

Therefore we Anglophone Catholic laymen ought not to be deceived.  The clerical cowards in retreat are the last of the Old Guard, and merely mark the beginning of the advance of a greatly sterner Catholic laity.  The good Bishops Faure and Williamson are elderly and will not have to deal with the future they so timidly evade.  But for those among us of lesser years the future is already here.  Best to abandon the sinking Titanic of an older generation that is so timidly disintegrating and ceasing to be.  Best not to feign unjustifiable cowardice and instead be proper Roman Catholic laymen, face the enemy and, as is said, bravely pass the ammunition.
   

The human mind and heart can indeed condition themselves to hold contradictory ideas , eventually coming to believe that they are perfectly logical and that they are in harmony, one to the other.

This is a state of being which is quite difficult to unlock. A problem which this presents, is that such a condition is progressive because, once the wall of illogic is in place, it becomes ever more easy to adopt other like concepts which seem to confirm the first instance.
The odd shape of the contradictory brick being seen, not as an invalidly shaped block, but simply as a variation in the elements of design.

That is to say, you cannot know if you are right, when you have failed to notice where you have gone wrong.

It's been made clear already that Bishops Williamson and Faure aren't reversing on anything. Disagree with them as you will but be honest in that these are the R&R positions they always held.

It seems that as certain SSPX factions accused them of going sede perhaps there were also certain sede factions salivating at the thought of welcoming them. As the years are going by and +Williamson proves he has no intentions of going that way, as he has clearly stated over and over again, those same certain factions are getting bitter about it.

Certainly the topic is broad and complicated enough for us to hold widely divergent views.  It probably does depend in large measure on exactly what one considers to be the most important matters in contention.  Nevertheless, in holding carefully to the approach of Archbishop Lefebvre, one could reasonably think that the current positions of the two bishops are considerably looser than his and make concessions that the late Archbishop was loathe to make.  

For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo.  Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell.  Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!  

Early on, Bishop Faure emphasised that he would soon be going like gangbusters to consecrate new bishops and give the Novus Ordo a real run for its money, whereas of late this seems to have vanished down a memory hole and we are instead regaled with talk of the abundance of virtue and holiness to be found in the Novus Ordo.  Again, quite a different message.

Then early on the good Bishop Faure sprinkled his talks with quite militant references to the Great Apostasy, the End of Days and the like whereas more recently such militancy seems to have mysteriously evaporated in favor of references to the golden opportunities of his seminary as a pleasant additional choice to the several Novus Ordo alternatives.  Again, very far from the apocalyptic high drama of his earlier vocabulary.  If one were seriously in the Great Apostasy, one would scarcely be in position for such mundane pleasantries and diplomatic bon mots.

So the good bishops are very much back to business as usual.  It's more or less the bureaucratic niceties of the 1950s in which the bright and bubbly French bourgeoisie mustn't be discomfited excessively.  No doubt a most pleasant prospect, but does it conform with the realities of the 21st Century -- at all?  To be a bit more specific, when the paid mercenaries of President Erdogan of Turkey are massacring those present at the Stade de France in an attempt to αssαssιnαtҽ President Hollande and the streets of Paris are scarcely dry from the ensuing rivers of blood, might it perhaps be slightly out of touch with reality to be bantering on about how one's own seminary is just as cheery and delightful as those of the Societies of St. Peter and St. Pius X nearby?  

While France is in lock down in conditions of actual cινιℓ ωαr and Britain is about to embark on her most grisly Middle Eastern War of Religion since General Gordon died in Khartoum, might we not fear that our two bishops are debating the numbers of angels on the heads of pins worrisomely like men lost with Alice somewhere in Wonderland?

One is sometimes concerned about the good Bishops.
   

+ Williamson is making the same tired, and overly simplistic argument that many neo Catholics make - that a valid consecration = a valid mass.  Of course, this is totally both theologically and logically incorrect...I was hoping for more substance in this weeks' "sequel", but alas, no.  We'll see how week 3 is.

I don't think that's the argument he's making.  It's far more nuanced because of the complexity of the problem.  

You have the consecration of the host and chalice.  That is either valid or invalid.

You have the licitness of the Mass. That is the legal status according to Canon Law.

You have the quality of the Liturgy.  That  is the rituals, symbols and atmospherics of the actions that surround the consecration.  

Bishop W. in the old interview from the 1980s "Why the Old Mass" goes over quite a lot in detail about the Novus Ordo and one of the problems that is encountered in dealing with the Liturgy of the Novus Ordo is the Archeologism of many aspects.  

To call the Novus Ordo "Protestant" is true because aspects of the liturgy are Protestant, but in some cases, those elements were previously Catholic and in Catholic Liturgies.  

So, if something is done in the Novus Ordo, that is done in Protestant services like the "Bidding prayers" the problem is they have a longer history in the Catholic Church from the time prior to the Protestant Revolution.  


And something that was done in the liturgy in the year 430 AD is wholly Catholic but it's not as useful for the disposition of the person receiving Communion as what was developed by the time of St. Pius V's codification.  

Seems that way, but the Good God said 'I will not leave you orphaned'