But returning to the subject at hand,
Bishop Richard Williamson,
From a Catholic standpoint the rite as a whole is unquestionably bad, because it radically changes the concept of the Mass from being a propitiatory sacrifice centred on God to being a community meal centred on man. As such, since most Catholics live their religion by attending Mass, then when its concept changes, their religion in effect changes. That is why the NOM is the principal destroyer of the t rue Church, and the main engine of the Newchurch. That is why the NOM as a whole is not only bad, but very bad indeed.
Here the Bishop makes the very sound case which admits to what this ritual really is and why it cannot be a work of the Catholic Church.
There is not much more which can be said and yet he then, as he is wont to do, goes about contradicting himself by saying essentially "it is very bad indeed" but, it is not that bad, and maybe you can go.
This is not logical or consistent thinking. He states the fundamental and core principle and then violated it.
After what he has stated about this sorry affair, it is impossible to say that it can be acceptable to a Catholic to endanger themselves by attending something as dangerous and non-Catholic in ethos as this is.
The Church forbids its children from attending such non-Catholic "services" where the concepts of what is taking place are not those of the Church. The Church forbids its children from proximity to heresy, or error, or anything which could alter or corrupt their Catholic Faith, which of course includes their understanding of the Holy Mass.
This Bishop would extend that permission based upon the conscience of a Novus Ordo formed Catholic who has little of no theological ability to discern or distinquish, the validity of the priest, his intent, the validity of the translation which he uses, or the matter or form which is utilized. What ability has the average person to discern if they are being slowly and subtly corrupted? It is a grave risk to take when the stakes are salvation or eternal damnation.
And after his own apt description of this corrupt service, one cannot understand why he would advise this against the will and law of the Church.
He has an international audience and influence over a countless
number of souls, and thus he has a responsibility not to lead the confused or unknowing to the poisoned spring but to lead them away from it with all haste, and to teach them why they must follow him.
It is he who has made the most effective case against his own speculative conclusions.
I pray that he will not continue this dangerous and subjectivist series of letters.
They are lessons in cognitively dissonant logic.