What Would Archbishop Lefebvre Say About Bishop Williamson's Comments at the Mahopac Conference?

FROM THE BLOG Nossa Senhora De Aparecida

Translated to English by Br. Raymund de Pennafort, T.O.P. Original French and Spanish translations follow. Please include all notes in the sharing of this article.

Translator's note: Cited from: COSPEC 073 B (11 de Diciembre de 1979)


"I still have some considerations to make about precisely what the judgment is that we should make regarding those who say this New Mass and those who attend the New Mass. Is there not also a need to have a reasonable judgment which corresponds to the pastoral care that we must have regarding the souls who still do not realize the error that they could be committing?

"It is not just the fact of the attendance or celebration of the New Mass. It's true that in many other cases where the fault is objectively grave and subjectively it is not because ultimately the conditions of a grave moral culpability do not exist; it is necessary that there is serious matter, knowledge, and full consent. We admit that there is serious matter (materia grave) and that there is full consent. But if there is no knowledge, no knowledge of the seriousness of the sin, then the person is not aware of the grave matter (materia grave). They do not commit a subjective sin.

"They commit an objective sin, but not a subjective sin. I think that people who are accustomed to utter profanities or repeat blasphemies without realizing that it is blasphemy do not know it. They repeat what they hear in their environment, vulgar things to which is associated the name of God, and they are not aware of it -well, one can point it out. They can understand it, but then they could be committing an objectively serious offense but subjectively not be guilty.

Therefore you should not judge all people. You must know how to examine each case. It's precisely the role of the confessor; he must examine, he must be informed... Sometimes, in certain cases, we might even think that it is not always very pastoral to point it out to some people ... If for example we are aware that these people, if  we point out the error that they are committing, these people will continue to do it [attend the New Mass-translator] ... it is sometimes necessary to proceed prudently in order to open their eyes to tell them what to do and not always be harsh in the way we act regarding souls. Souls are delicate objects that we cannot mistreat. When we say "you commit a grave sin", "you will go to hell", etc., we take a chance of doing more damage to a soul by mistreating it than by making it understand things gently. Rather than making one understand, explain it them, open their eyes about the error being committed. It is a pastoral question, I would say, but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these people as well and not condemn them immediately."



Original in French

Alors il me restait quelques considérations à faire justement au sujet du jugement que l’on doit porter sur ceux qui disent cette messe nouvelle ou ceux qui assistent à la messe nouvelle. Là aussi il faut avoir un jugement prudentiel, n’est-ce pas, qui correspond à la pastorale que nous devons avoir vis-à-vis des âmes qui ne se rendent pas compte toujours de la faute qu’elles peuvent accomplir.

Ce n’est pas seulement le fait de l’assistance ou de la célébration de la messe nouvelle, c’est vrai dans bien d’autres cas où une faute objectivement est grave et subjectivement ne l’est pas parce qu’enfin si les conditions de la faute grave ne sont pas réalisées, il faut qu’il y ait matière grave et connaissance et plein consentement, admettons qu’il y ait matière grave, qu’il y ait plein consentement, mais qu’il n’y ait pas connaissance, qu’il n’y ait pas la connaissance de la gravité du péché, alors la personne qui n’a pas la connaissance de la matière grave, alors ne fait pas de faute subjective.

Elle fait une faute objective, mais pas une faute subjective. Je pense, des personnes qui sont habituées à prononcer des blasphèmes ou qui peuvent répéter des blasphèmes sans se rendre compte que c’est un blasphème, ne le savent pas, mais répètent ce qu’ils ont entendu dans leur milieu, des choses grossières auxquelles est associé le nom de Dieu ne savent pas – bon, si on le leur fait remarquer, elles peuvent le comprendre – mais donc elles peuvent faire une faute objectivement grave, mais subjectivement ne sont pas coupables. Il ne faut donc pas toujours juger toutes les personnes, il faut savoir examiner chaque cas.

 C’est le rôle du confesseur justement, il doit interroger, s’informer… Quelquefois, dans certains cas, on peut même penser qu’il n’est pas toujours très pastoral, de faire remarquer cela même aux personnes… Si par exemple on a conscience que ces personnes, si on leur fait remarquer la faute qu’elles commettent, ces personnes continueront à le faire… Il faut quelquefois aller prudemment pour leur ouvrir les yeux, pour leur dire ce qu’elles doivent faire et ne pas toujours être brutal dans la manière d’agir vis-à-vis des âmes, les âmes sont des objets délicats qu’on ne peut pas brutaliser. On risque de faire plus de tort à une âme en la brutalisant qu’en lui faisant doucement comprendre les choses, en lui disant tout de suite : vous commettez un péché mortel, vous allez en enfer, etc., au lieu justement de faire comprendre, d’expliquer, d’ouvrir les yeux sur le tort qu’elles commettent. C’est une question, je dirais, du pasteur, mais il faut agir pour ces personnes-là en pasteur aussi et non pas immédiatement les condamner.


En Español

Me quedan algunas consideraciones a hacer justamente respecto al juicio que debemos tener sobre aquellos que dicen esta misa nueva y sobre aquellos que asisten a la misa nueva. Allí también es necesario tener un juicio prudencial, ¿no es así?, que corresponda a la pastoral que nosotros debemos tener respecto a las almas que no se dan todavía cuenta de la falta que ellas pueden cometer.

No es solamente el hecho de la asistencia o de la celebración de la misa nueva, es verdad en muchos otros casos donde una falta objetivamente es grave y subjetivamente no lo es, porque finalmente si las condiciones de la falta grave no están realizadas, es necesario que haya materia grave y conocimiento y pleno consentimiento, admitimos que hay materia grave, que hay pleno consentimiento, pero no hay conocimiento, no hay conocimiento de la gravedad del pecado, entonces la persona que no tiene conocimiento de la materia grave, no comete la falta subjetiva.

Ella comete una falta objetiva, pero no una falta subjetiva. Yo pienso, las personas que están habituadas a pronunciar blasfemias o que pueden repetir blasfemias sin darse cuenta que es una blasfemia, no lo saben, pero repiten lo que escuchan en su medio, cosas groseras a las cuales está asociado el nombre de Dios y no lo saben -bueno uno se los hace notar, ellas pueden comprenderlo, pero entonces ellos pueden cometer una falta objetivamente grave pero subjetivamente no son culpables.

Por lo tanto no se debe juzgar a todas las personas, hay que saber examinar cada caso. Es el papel del confesor justamente, él debe interrogar, informarse… A veces, en ciertos casos, podríamos incluso pensar que no es siempre muy pastoral hacerle notar esto mismo a las personas… Si por ejemplo tenemos la conciencia que estas personas, si les hacemos notar la falta que ellos cometen, estas personas continuarán haciéndolo… Es necesario a veces ir prudentemente para abrirles los ojos, para decirles lo que deben hacer y no siempre ser brutal en la manera de actuar respecto a las almas, las almas son objetos delicados que no podemos maltratar. Nos arriesgamos a hacerle más daño a un alma maltratándola que haciéndole comprender las cosas dulcemente, diciéndole inmediatamente : usted comete un pecado mortal, usted irá al infierno, etc., en lugar de hacerla comprender, explicarle, abrirle los ojos sobre la falta que cometen. Es una cuestión, yo diría, de pastor, pero es necesario actuar para estas personas como pastor también y no condenarlas inmediatamente.

It would depend on which day of the week it was and whether it was raining or not!

ABL:

Souls are delicate objects that we cannot mistreat. When we say "you commit a grave sin", "you will go to hell", etc., we take a chance of doing more damage to a soul by mistreating it than by making it understand things gently. Rather than making one understand, explain it them, open their eyes about the error being committed. It is a pastoral question, I would say, but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these people as well and not condemn them immediately."

There are numbers of mouthy, self-righteous trads out there who should be hanging their heads in shame,IMO.  How many tens of thousands of words of reproof and indignation have they expended in the aftermath of Bp. Williamson's advice to that woman at an east coast conference in the U.S.

Perhaps I have missed it, but I have seen no public apology from the Ecclesia Militans site to Bishop Williamson for their defamation of him over his comments on the NOM which we see are in the same line as Archbishop Lefebvre.  I would have thought that a Franciscan group would have the humility to do this so to correct their error.

Gerard,

We can show you where Bp. Williamson contradicted himself, in his interviews with Bernard Janzen, but you won't believe it.

http://www.triumphcommunications.net/rwilliamson.html

I repeat, if Bp. Williamson would have simply responded, as he did in his previous sermons, lectures and interviews, there would have been no scandal:

More importantly, here's a more in-depth analysis which explains how Bp. Williamson contradicted +ABL... but you won't believe it.


Concerning Bishop Richard Williamson and the Novus Ordo Missae
Feb 14, 2016

In the post “Question:  May I Ever Assist at the Novus Ordo Missae?  Answer:  No!”,

I wrote that there can never be any justification whatsoever for assisting at a Mass celebrated using the Novus Ordo Missae (i.e., New Mass) because the Novus Ordo Missae is instrinsically evil (i.e., in and of itself).  No good end end or circuмstance, therefore, can justify assisting at it.  
To put it simply, the Novus Ordo Missae is the product of the Conciliar Church, the man-centred religion founded upon the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.  It is not the product of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church founded by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  

As such, the Novus Ordo Missae cannot be pleasing to God.  That the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil was the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that he founded.  

His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson admitted this in his December 1, 1996 Letter of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (emphasis mine):
 
“Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
 
“A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible. When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfill their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
 
In Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” (Issue #445 dated January 23, 2016), he begins with the following statement (emphasis mine):
 
“The purpose of saying half a year ago that a priest is not obliged in every case to forbid a Catholic to attend the New Mass (NOM) was obviously not to say that the NOM is perfectly alright to attend.”
 
Of course, a priest is not obliged, for example, to go stand in front of a Novus Ordo church and forbid people from attending the New Mass.  However, this is not the case Bishop Williamson was faced with during a conference he gave on June 28, 2015 in Mahopac, New York to which conference he alludes in the statement above.  Rather, in this conference at the 1 hour, 1 minute, and 40 seconds mark, a lady tells her story that she attends the Latin Mass on Sunday and the Novus Ordo Missae during the week.  She justifies her attendance by citing two objective circuмstances:
 
1) The priest celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass in a reverent way.
2) She believes that the priest believes he is changing the bread and wine in to the Body and Blood of Our Lord.  (Note:  External action is how the priest’s intention to do what the Church does is manifested.)
 
The lady was seeking the counsel of Bishop Williamson on whether it would be morally acceptable for her to continue attending the Novus Ordo Mass under these good objective circuмstances.  Since Bishop Williamson knows what Archbishop Lefebvre taught regarding this matter (i.e., that the New Mass is intrinsically evil) and since he is a spiritual son of the Archbishop, here was a good opportunity for him to firmly, but gently, tell the lady that she ought not to attend the Novus Ordo Mass anymore.  

However, this is not what we heard from his lips.  Rather, at the 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 5 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson realizes that what he is about to say is controversial and invites the audience to chop off his head nonetheless.  He then proceeds to acknowledge those two circuмstances the lady mentioned and then adds a third objective circuмstance, that is, that it is important that she doesn’t scandalize anybody by her attendance.  Shortly thereafter, he brings up attendance at neo-SSPX Masses and that one needs to watch for potentially negative changes in neo-SSPX Masses.  

If one starts to see such changes, then one must stay away.  He then says that one must be in the same way on guard for potentially negative changes in the Novus Ordo Mass.  Then at the 1 hour, 10 minutes, and 0 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson again states that one needs to watch and make decisions based on one’s own circuмstances and that therefore there are cases where even the Novus Ordo mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.  Then he recognizes that this statement is almost heresy within Tradition, but nonetheless that is what he thinks.

It is clear that Bishop Williamson’s answer to the lady is not consistent with Archbishop Lefebvre’s position that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil because Bishop Williamson admits that there are good objective circuмstances that morally permit one to assist at it.  This is unacceptable for a bishop consecrated as such by the Archbishop’s own hands!
 
Unfortunately, however, the story does not end here.  In addition to acknowledging objective circuмstances that would morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae, Bishop Williamson seems to go even further in the same conference in that one’s subjective view or circuмstances also morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae.  For example, at the 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 40 seconds mark, he states, “The golden rule is this…..the absolute rule of rules seems to me to be this:  do whatever you need to nourish your faith.”  Then at the 1 hour, 9 minutes, and 15 seconds mark, he states, “The essential principle is do whatever you need to keep the Faith.”  

These statements are disturbing because they seem to be based on the perceived truth of the subject rather than on objective truth, which Bishop Williamson has always heralded.  Within the context of the conference, this means that if I believe that I need to go to a Resistance Mass to nourish my faith, so be it;  if I believe I need to go to a neo-SSPX Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to an Ecclesia Dei Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to a Novus Ordo Mass to nourish my faith, so be it.  Why then have we, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers, been fighting for the last 50 years against the Conciliar Church, its rites, and those that defend them if now we can do “whatever we need to nourish our faith”?  Has objective truth given way to subjective perception?  

It was the goal of the Archbishop and the SSPX he founded (and now that part of the Resistance that faithfully maintains the Archbishop’s position) to lead people out of their errors and not pander to them.  If Bishop Williamson wants to continue to claim that he is indeed a faithful son of the Archbishop, he must do the same by clearly acknowledging that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil.  This means that his counsel must be that no good end or circuмstance (objective or subjective) can ever justify assisting at it.  Period.
 
One may naturally inquire, “Why is Bishop Williamson opening up an old wound?  The question of the moral liceity of assisting at the Novus Ordo Missae has already been settled, at least among the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre.  What then are Bishop Williamon’s reasons for bringing this matter onto the front page Traditional Catholic news, so to speak, in the last several months?”  Well, according to His Excellency’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” referenced above, there are at least two reasons:
 
“Firstly, to ward off what is coming to be called ‘ecclesiavacantism’, namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever.”¹
 
It is not a matter of the Newchurch (i.e., Conciliar Church) having nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever. The Anglican Church has Catholic elements in it as well.  However, the Archbishop and his followers hold that these Catholic elements do not make the Conciliar Church any more Catholic than the Catholic elements in the Anglican Church make it any more Catholic.  Rather, the Conciliar Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, is founded upon the man-centered religion of the schismatic Second Vatican Council just as the Anglican Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Anglican Church, is founded upon the man-centred religion of the English schism.  

The analogy is not perfect, of course, because the same man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter, and is hence the head of the Catholic Church, is also the head of the Conciliar Church, whereas this is not the case with the Anglican Church.  Nevertheless, to reject the analogy outright is to deny the distinction that the Archbishop made between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, which is essential to understand if one is to come out of the Conciliar Church without adopting Sedevacantism or if one is to avoid going into the Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church.  I do not believe that denying the distinction is the intention of Bishop Williamson, but in effect the distinction between the two Churches becomes somewhat blurred in his first reason.
 
“Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement.”  
 
I agree with His Excellency that there are those considering themselves to be part of the Traditionalist movement who in their pride think themselves holier than those outside the movement.  However, this is not a problem with those who have a proper understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre’s position and have seen or heard about the love he had for those within the Conciliar Church.  His “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” is one beautiful manifestation of his love for them.
 
Let us pray and hope that His Excellency Bishop Williamson publicly changes his position regarding assistance at the Novus Ordo Missae to be fully in line with the one of his spiritual father.
 
Footnote
1. This point of Bishop Williamson reminds me of Paragraph 8 of “Lumen Gentium” where it states that “these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling (Protestant sects, as such) towards catholic unity”.  This statement tries to give the impression that Protestant sects, as such, take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church of Christ.  However, the Protestant sects, as such, do not take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church.  In a similar manner, the Conciliar Church, as such, takes no legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, itself is a sect.  

I do not imply here that Bishop Williamson adheres to this false idea of the Second Vatican Council and/or deliberately applies it to the Conciliar Church.  I am only trying to make the point that one could, as I do, see an interlacing of the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church in His Excellency’s first reason, thereby blurring the distinction between the two.

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/02/14/concerning-bishop-richard-williamson-and-the-novus-ordo-missae/


http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/02/14/concerning-bishop-richard-williamson-and-the-novus-ordo-missae/