Author Topic: A Letter to Bp. Faure (Read 16801 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #60 on:** September 02, 2015, 11:39:47 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

... But before doing that, though, he might have to set himself straight first. Just saying....

:roll-laugh1: . . . .

. . . . :shocked: . . . .

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #61 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:04:42 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

I think the good Bishop gets caught up too much (as we all can) between the theological theory and the practical effects. In "theory" one can go to a N.O. mass and get some good out of it. But in practice, even if you were going to the most "conservative N.O." mass available, there's problems associated with it - like, communion in the hand, immodest dress of others in attendance, irreverent activities of the congregation, mistakes in the rubrics, etc.

The point is, in theory the N.O. could be valid, but in practice, is that all that matters? Of course not! One has to take in all the circuмstances surrounding the Mass, AND all the effects that your attendance would cause. If you don't separate these 2 ideas, then you sound like a highly confused individual.

That's why, in my opinion, in the face of all the doubts, problems, and circuмstances surrounding the N.O. mass, the answer should simply be: STAY AWAY. No ifs, ands, or buts. Some have tried for the last 40 years to fit the square peg in the round hole, but it's not going to happen. The N.O. mass isn't Catholic. Let's quit trying to find a way to make it so.

Let me provide an example of what +W is trying to do with his words here.

St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in North Hollywood, CA, is the retirement abode of Roger Cardinal Mahony. Just before he moved in, permanently, there was an extensive renovation that did some obvious improvements, kept the overall architectural theme intact, added some new features and REMOVED THE COMMUNION RAIL. (That railing in marble, exotic hardwood and wrought iron would cost about $50,000 to re-install.)

I could go on for pages about the details.

However, my point in all this is, that I met my brother-in-law quite by accident at a restaurant the other day and we had a nice chat, during which I invited him to come to Mass at our weekly-rented venue in Northridge, about 5 blocks from his current place of residence. He assured me that he is "a fallen-away Catholic," and the only place he ever goes to church anymore is St. Charles Borromeo, N.H., because it's Bob Hope's parish and he loves the whole scene there because it's so beautiful; he just loves that church. (Even if it's about 8 miles away from his residence!)

The point is, my brother-in-law probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Novus Ordo liturgy at St. Charles and a Traditional Latin Mass at some other venue, except perhaps all the Latin, but he probably wouldn't be paying much attention to the words spoken anyway. He'd be rubber-necking all over the place, staring at the interior appointments and decorator details, and probably at any females within eyesight.

Now, if I were to forbid or prevent him from going to St. Charles in some way, would I be doing him any good for his faith? Or, if I were to encourage him to show up at St. Charles from time to time, would that rather help his faith more than the former idea?

Bishop Williamson is a pastor of souls, as best he can (without any ordinary jurisdiction), and as such when he says some things he has in mind not only people like YOU and ME, but people like my brother-in-law.

Do you see what I mean?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #62 on:** September 02, 2015, 12:14:24 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: J.Paul
Neil Obstat,
Quote from: Page 7

There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one's Faith instead of losing it. That's almost heresy within Tradition. But that's what I think. But I hope it's clear that I don't therefore say the Novus Ordo Mass is good, the new religion is good, all Novus Ordo priests are good. That's obviously not the case. Generally it's a tremendous danger, because the new religion is very seductive. It's very soft and sweet and sticky and it's easy to go with it an lose the Catholic Faith.

But exceptionally, if you're watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul... Therefore I will not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass. If they can trust their own judgment that attending this N.O. Mass will do more good than harm spiritually, ...[shrug]... But there's no doubt that it does more harm than good spiritually, there's no doubt about that. It's a rite designed to undermine Catholics' Faith and to turn their belief away from God and towards man.

I am sure that is not lost on you that objectively, these statements and the thinking behind them are self contradictory and very dangerous as they can confuse and misdirect Catholic souls seeking sound counsel.

Thank you, J.Paul.

It is the difficulty of the aspect of duplicity that one might find in these statements that bothers me. It is at least representative of a half-step toward ambiguity, and we all know that ambiguity was the hallmark of Vat.II.

I have found that it's not easy to quote and/or explain it well to someone else. It is very easy to go beyond what +W actually said and to say that "the Novus Ordo is all right at least sometimes," as I did above -- but he didn't really say that, did he?

When Benedict XVI came out with his hermeneutic of continuity screed, the first thing that came to mind was the lecture I heard on ancient philosophy where it was explained in no uncertain terms that all of the sound thinkers of the distant past agreed wholeheartedly that it is essential and utterly basic to sanity in thought that the distinction between what is and what is not be kept intact; for the moment one dares to say that something can be A and at the same time not A, all grip on reality is lost and sound thinking becomes utterly ruined.

.

Thank You, Neil Obstat.
Well you make a good point. It is the concept of something being at once one thing and at the same time another that unsettled me. It is impossible if one considers that something to be an objective truth.
But if subjective considerations enter into one's thinking while stating such truths then such dual minded ideas can make some kind of sense to that person.

The SSPX has existed with this duality from its inception sometimes being here and sometimes being there but here the Bishop is presenting these opposing ideas together at the same time and the contradiction presents itself like a finger in the eye.

Frankly, I certainly do not think the Bishop meant it to sound quite the way it sounds, but there it is. You cannot say what he says without what that implies or makes possible being exposed.

Quote

for the moment one dares to say that something can be A and at the same time not A, all grip on reality is lost and sound thinking becomes utterly ruined.

Precisely!

I'm very glad to hear you and I are on the same page with this.

It's a bit difficult to grasp the significance of the principle since it seems so unlikely according to every day experience like working or paying bills or grocery shopping or gardening or going to a party or entertaining friends or even going to Mass. But the principle of non-contradiction is utterly foundational to all sanity in thought.

Entire empires can rise or fall with adherence or denial of this one axiom.

.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #63 on:** September 02, 2015, 01:51:33 PM »

Neil O. :

Quote

Now, if I were to forbid or prevent him (my brother in law) from going to St. Charles in some way, would I be doing him any good for his faith? Or, if I were to encourage him to show up at St. Charles from time to time, would that rather help his faith more than the former idea?

Bishop Williamson is a pastor of souls, as best he can (without any ordinary jurisdiction), and as such when he says some things he has in mind not only people like YOU and ME, but people like my brother-in-law.

Do you see what I mean?

Neil can think outside the box. That is good and necessary in this case. And he probably puts his finger on the reason Bp. Williamson spoke as he did to the woman, who wondered about attendance at a NO Mass. Thank you, Neil. I think your brother-in-law anecdote might get through to at least some of the people on this forum.

JPaul · « **Reply #64 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:12:24 PM »

Neil Obstat,

Quote

Entire empires can rise or fall with adherence or denial of this one axiom.

Why an entire Religion and Church could rise or fall........................

TKGS · « **Reply #65 on:** September 02, 2015, 03:17:05 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

However, my point in all this is, that I met my brother-in-law quite by accident at a restaurant the other day and we had a nice chat, during which I invited him to come to Mass at our weekly-rented venue in Northridge, about 5 blocks from his current place of residence. He assured me that he is "a fallen-away Catholic," and the only place he ever goes to church anymore is St. Charles Borromeo, N.H., because it's Bob Hope's parish and he loves the whole scene there because it's so beautiful; he just loves that church. (Even if it's about 8 miles away from his residence!)

Now, if I were to forbid or prevent him from going to St. Charles in some way, would I be doing him any good for his faith? Or, if I were to encourage him to show up at St. Charles from time to time, would that rather help his faith more than the former idea?

I understand.

Your brother-in-law can just as easily not go to your Mass center as not go to St. Charles Borromeo.

JPaul · « **Reply #66 on:** September 02, 2015, 04:22:24 PM »

Neil Obstat,

Quote

Now, if I were to forbid or prevent him from going to St. Charles in some way, would I be doing him any good for his faith? Or, if I were to encourage him to show up at St. Charles from time to time, would that rather help his faith more than the former idea?

Bishop Williamson is a pastor of souls, as best he can (without any ordinary jurisdiction), and as such when he says some things he has in mind not only people like YOU and ME, but people like my brother-in-law.

Do you see what I mean?

Of course I see what you are saying but although we can sometimes influence others in a positive way towards the Faith, it is really a matter of that person through his will to respond to the grace which God puts before Him.

The priest and Bishop as a first duty must transmit the clear objective truth in these matters to the inquiring or confused mind (which must be considered a great granting of grace and potentiatlity to the hearer). It is then up to each man who hears the Truth whether or not to respond to it either positive or negative fashion.

We can certainly encourage them towards that end but never by shading or adulterating that Truth to make it more suitable to human sensibilities.

"He who is of the Truth hears my voice" and "He who hears you hears me" are perfectly applicable in any such situation and that is the solemn duty of Bishops and priests, to transmit the truths of Salvation which are the Words of God.

And that bring us around full circle ending where we started.

As I understand it, the Bishop once thought that the Novus Ordo was intrinsically evil in itself. This being the case, it could not do the things for a soul that he proposes it can do. We must assume that he has changed that opinion to the situational position that he appears to hold now that A can be A sometimes and A can be B at other times.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #67 on:** September 02, 2015, 04:25:43 PM »

hollingsworth:

Quote

I think your brother-in-law anecdote might get through to at least some of the people on this forum.

Apparently not, at least not to very many. :thinking:

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #68 on:** September 02, 2015, 07:01:03 PM »

The brother in law analogy is pretty emotional and sentimental. So, you say that if you don't speak the FULL truth to your brother, then somehow he will get the truth from an intrinsically chaotic "mass"? How will that work? Chances of this happening are slim.

Meanwhile, if you speak the truth, he may well convert fully. Or he may not. Chances of his converting are still slim, but they are greater than above. If you aren't going to talk about the TLM at the moment, when ARE you going to talk about it? What is this PERFECT moment that you are waiting for? No such thing as a perfect moment; you do it when you can. What if he dies tomorrow?

It's none of our jobs to "project" whether or not someone will convert. Our job is to speak the truth, not give it piecemeal to whom we see fit. Who would have bet that St Paul would convert when he did?

I understand that there are times when it is pointless to talk about the Faith to people, but these are usually times of extreme suffering or emotional turmoil. These can be a barrier (in the short term) to discussions, because the person is preoccupied with stress. But outside of this, when people are just living out their day to day lives, THAT's when they need to hear the truth. It may not sink in right away, but it will eventually.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #69 on:** September 15, 2015, 01:35:11 PM »

.

Quote

Meanwhile, if you speak the truth, he may well convert fully. Or he may not.

I didn't give the whole story. My relatives are already duly apprised of how I stand on religious matters, but perhaps it might help if I turned up the heat a notch or two. In the past when I have been too outspoken, it turns them off, not on. So I am wont to be cautious and prudential.

It seems to me that prospective converts need to believe that their voice is being heard and that their own subjective experience doesn't amount to NOTHING. When they feel a sense of self-worth in the heart of someone who is telling them the truth, they are more attracted so as to listen, instead of running away disgusted with the whole affair. Not even teenagers enjoy being preached at relentlessly.

.