Possibly, but this Novus (dis)Ordo bishop is:
"Black Mass IN OKC – Exorcist Kicked Out By New Bishop"

ABL isn't infallible.

From the mailbag:

Quote

The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

I saw this post on Catholic Info and immediately emailed my home alone friend who goes to Mass only 12 times a year because she believes that ABL taught that staying home is better than attending the New Mass. My friend's reaction was that this post was a fake. Is there any way I can verify the truth of the claim that ABL did in fact advise the widow that attendance at the New Mass is better than nothing? Thank you.

May Jesus and Mary Bless You,

My response:

You need to re-read the passage:

The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

Where in the passage does it state that it's not better to stay home, rather than attend the Novus Ordo Mass?

All the passage said was, "asking whether she COULD attend the New Mass..." obviously she was inclined to go.

There are plenty of Catholics who stay home rather than attend the Novus Ordo, with the full blessing of (most? all?) SSPX priests and virtually all the SSPX bishops.

Being allowed to do something is not the same as commanding them to do it. That's where your confusion lies.

It always kind of surprises me when the question; "is it ok to attend the NO" comes up, seems +ABL is always referenced - as if whatever he, or anyone says for that matter, can change what the new "mass" is and why it was perpetrated in the first place.

All anyone need do is walk into any trad chapel, stand in the back and watch the Mass for 5 minutes or less, then walk into a NO church and do the same thing, watch that service for 5 minutes - if you can stomach it for that long.

The only thing similar between the two will be that the priest at each mass is wearing some sort of vestments, beyond that, one may just as well attend any prot service as attend a NO service. Seems one should notice this in less than 5 minutes imo.

I like this 1985 snip from Fr. Wathen where he speaks of the "externals" of the Mass, which, as I alluded to above, is something immediately noticeable to everyone and why all one need to do is compare the two to know that the new "mass" is not the Mass at all ......

"In the course of the last years, those who have carried through with the revolution within the Church, have said that they've not been changing the essentials of the Catholic faith. They have said that they have been changing "externals", that the spirit and the doctrines of the Church have been left in tact. Rather, they have simply been changing one Rite or ritual for another. They have been making purely pastoral and cosmetic changes so that the people of this age would be able to relate to them better.

And we now can say, on the basis of their error and our common experience, that the "externals" of the Church are rooted in the Church's history and in the Church's spirit. The "externals" are nothing other than the expression of our faith, so that of you try to remove the "externals", you tear the thing out by the roots. You destroy it, and those of us who know that there is a conspiracy, know that the conspiracy knew this from the start. That is they began to change the "externals", that eventually they would get to the marrow. They knew very well that if began to tamper with the Mass, there would be no standard whereby to judge the mass. ....
     
....We say that the externals of the Church are a sign of it's integrity and of it's genuineness because these "externals" have grown up from the very days of the Apostles. You begin to change these externals and you render the Church and the faith mute. You kill it. It is impossible to begin to tamper with these things without getting to the very quick...."

And I witnessd numerous times that Father had one answer only when queried about attending the Novus Ordo ritual and that was always,
" No you cannot, you must stop going there, then make a good confession and attend only the True Mass of the Church."
That was the most pastoral and Catholic advice one could hear.

Yes, there was no question whatsoever where he stood. He said it was a mortal sin to attend the thing, period.

Whether you liked his answer or not and whether he was right or wrong (I believe he was right) - but either way you were never left wondering or confused or arguing about validity or invalidity or whether or not certain circuмstances permitted attending it.    

And time has proved that his stance, while still rejected by many (because it's "too hard"), is not rejected based on facts, but on emotion.

Which points to the fact that there are few if any hardliners left, only gradations of moderates and softliners within in neo-tradition.

Quote from: JPaul

Quote from: Pax Vobis

And time has proved that his stance, while still rejected by many (because it's "too hard"), is not rejected based on facts, but on emotion.

Which points to the fact that there are few if any hardliners left, only gradations of moderates and softliners within in neo-tradition.

Fr. Wathen was just as firm in saying you couldn't go to the Indult Mass.  As someone said to me recently, they don't make them like him anymore.

Absolutely!