Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]

Author Topic: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015  (Read 13814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godefroy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Reputation: +117/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
« Reply #165 on: August 23, 2024, 02:27:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Hewkonian on August 22, 2024, 08:38:49 PM
    This quote by ABL is pretty clear.
    The link doesn't work for me. Was it there when you posted it ?
    Logged

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17302
    • Reputation: +5216/-1828
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #166 on: August 23, 2024, 12:58:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • He probably wanted the woman to go to Mass instead of not going at all. 

    Logged
    May God bless you and keep you

    Offline Hewkonian

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 97
    • Reputation: +51/-50
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #167 on: August 24, 2024, 08:48:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on March 13, 2023, 03:57:25 PM
    Heresy mixed with truth. That's how Modernism works. And ambiguity.

    See, the SV's don't generally like to talk about the specific heresy of Modernism. They just call it heresy and that's that. End of story. But Modernism is a strange kettle of fish, because it can sometimes give a semblance of truth. It seems to be different than, say, Arianism or semi-Arian heresy. A council was called in order to define and condemn Arianism, but that's not yet happened with Modernism. I don't know why Pius X didn't call a council for this purpose, maybe because Modernism was too entrenched by then - I don't know. Maybe God wanted to punish lukewarm Catholics by taking away the True Mass. Or something like that.
    Hi Meg, 

    The idea that a council was necessary to define and condemn Modernism misunderstands how the Church has historically dealt with this heresy. Unlike Arianism, Modernism was met with immediate and decisive action by the Popes, who spoke clearly and unequivocally, rendering a council unnecessary.

    Pope St. Pius X did not need to call a council to address Modernism because he thoroughly and authoritatively addressed it through a series of key docuмents. Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) is one of the most comprehensive condemnations of Modernism, where Pope Pius X outlines the errors of Modernism in great detail, describing it as the "synthesis of all heresies." This encyclical did not leave room for ambiguity; it clearly defined Modernism and condemned it in its various forms, identifying the methods, doctrines, and goals of the modernists and rejecting them as destructive to the Faith.

    Complementing Pascendi, Pope Pius X issued the decree Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), which condemned 65 specific modernist propositions. These propositions showed that Modernism was not merely a vague or ambiguous threat but a concrete heresy that could be directly identified and condemned.
    Additionally, Sacrorum Antistitum (1910) introduced the "Oath Against Modernism," requiring all clergy, theologians, and religious superiors to reject Modernist doctrines explicitly. This practical measure ensured that the errors of Modernism would not be taught or propagated within the Church.

    Pope Pius XII further addressed modern errors, including those rooted in Modernism, in his encyclical Humani Generis(1950), reaffirming the Church's teachings on faith and reason and standing firmly against theological trends that sought to undermine these teachings.

    Moreover, Vatican I had already provided a foundation for condemning the errors and heresies that modernists would later employ. The council's definitions on papal infallibility, faith, reason, and the nature of revelation clarified key doctrines that modernists sought to undermine. The teachings of Vatican I equipped the Church to recognize and combat the errors that would later be categorized under Modernism.

    God bless you.
    Logged
    banned for being a cult follower of Fr. Hewko

    Offline Hewkonian

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 97
    • Reputation: +51/-50
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #168 on: August 24, 2024, 09:46:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on March 12, 2023, 08:37:26 AM
    It seems that you are incorrect, as I find +Williamson using the same principle way back in 1996 (and basing it on +Lefebvre himself):

    ”Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfils 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 fulfil 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.”
    (Bishop Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)”

    1) Can you explain how +Williamson’s Mahopac advice to the ignorant conciliar woman was any different than the application of Lefebvre’s principle above?

    2) Can you explain how Lefebvre can say one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by committing -as you claim- an intrinsically evil moral act? 

    Clearly, the Williamson of 2015-2023 is the same as that of 1996 (and the same as Lefebvre).

    PS: I’ll let you flounder with #2 for a couple hours, before explaining and resolving your confusion, since this seems to be your foundational error.

    Sean, it is clear that Bishop Williamson departed from his original stance around 2015 and from the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre. We all love Bishop Williamson, but we cannot defend these errors and must reject them. In light of his recent comments on the New Mass, it is essential to clarify and refute the misconceptions he has propagated, particularly regarding the nature of the New Mass and its implications for the faithful. While he raises several points, his assertions fundamentally contradict the clear teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre and the enduring principles of traditional Catholicism.

    • The Nature of the New Mass: Illicit and Intrinsically Evil
      Bishop Williamson states that the New Mass is "illicit" and "intrinsically evil," designed to undermine Catholicism. While he correctly identifies the problematic nature of the New Mass, his subsequent statements suggesting that it can also provide spiritual nourishment contradict the seriousness of labeling it as intrinsically evil. If the New Mass is intrinsically offensive to God, how can it simultaneously be a source of grace or nourishment? The inconsistency undermines his credibility and leads the faithful into confusion.
    • Valid but Illicit—A Dangerous Distinction
      When Bishop Williamson asserts that attending the New Mass is not permissible even if it is valid, he emphasizes the seriousness of its illicit nature. However, his later claims—that the New Mass can give grace and spiritual nourishment—imply a contradiction. If attending an illicit Mass can indeed provide grace, it raises the question: can the faithful fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending something that is, by definition, illicit? This notion not only contradicts the precept of keeping holy the Lord's day but also introduces ambiguity into the faithful's understanding of their moral and spiritual responsibilities.
    • Eucharistic Miracles and Grace
      Bishop Williamson's comments regarding Eucharistic miracles occurring within the New Mass serve to normalize attendance at these liturgies. While it is true that God can perform miracles anywhere, including in the midst of error, it does not imply that the Mass itself is a valid or proper means of worship. Miracles should not be used as justification for attending a Mass that undermines the faith and dilutes the Catholic tradition. The fact that some individuals may be given grace despite their errors in the New Mass, allowing them to convert to Tradition, does not absolve the serious concerns regarding its doctrinal integrity.
    • Ambiguity vs. Heresy
      Williamson's assertion that the New Mass is ambiguous rather than heretical is misleading. The ambiguity present in the New Mass serves to obscure essential Catholic truths, which ultimately leads to the erosion of faith among the faithful. By allowing for such ambiguity, Bishop Williamson appears to downplay the risks associated with regular attendance at the New Mass, potentially leading souls astray from the authentic teachings of the Church.
    • Misleading Statements on Tradition
      Bishop Williamson’s claim that the New Mass can help keep the faith among future generations is troubling. The assertion that children and grandchildren will maintain their Catholic identity through attendance at the New Mass contradicts the experiences of many Traditional Catholics who recognize the dangers inherent in the liturgy. The idea that good people can use the New Mass to sustain their faith overlooks the significant risks of compromising essential beliefs by engaging with a liturgical rite that has been designed to appease a Protestant ethos.
    • Division Within the Resistance
      Lastly, the contradiction between Bishop Williamson’s statements and the consistent teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre has precipitated unnecessary division within the traditionalist movement. The faithful look to their leaders for clarity and guidance, and such contradictory statements only serve to foster confusion and dissent. Father Hewko and others who uphold the unyielding stance against the New Mass are striving to maintain the integrity of the faith amidst these conflicting narratives.




    Below are key statements Bishop Williamson has made that reflect his evolving perspective. Each point raises significant concerns and reveals a stark departure from the clear teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre and the traditional understanding of the Mass:

    · There are Eucharistic miracles happening in the New Mass. These miracles are genuine and they have lessons for Traditional Catholics.

    · The New Mass can nourish your Faith.

    · Though it is the principal destroyer of the Church, the New Mass can give grace and spiritual nourishment.

    · Attending the New Mass may do more good than harm spiritually.

    · The problem with the New Mass is that it is ambiguous.

    · Though not as good as the Traditional Mass, the New Mass is better than nothing.

    · Though dangerous, the New Mass is helping souls to keep the Faith.

    · Not everyone should avoid the New Mass and not every New Mass should be avoided.

    · The New Mass can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it decently, a layman can attend it devoutly. Those who say otherwise are flying in the face of reality.

    · How will your children/grandchildren keep the Faith? By going to the New Mass.

    · The Council of Trent says that there is grace in the New Mass, as long as it is valid.

    · People who say that you don’t get grace from the New Mass are just looking down their noses at Novus Ordo Catholics as though they’re trash. They almost don’t believe that Novus Ordo Catholics have souls.

    · Because the New Mass is a mixture of good parts and bad parts, good people can use it to keep the Faith whilst remaining within the Novus Ordo.

    · That some people find their way out of the New Mass and come to Tradition proves that the New Mass was giving them grace, which is what allowed them to do it.

    · Novus Ordo Catholics who don’t understand about the problems with the New Mass can go to the New Mass and receive grace from it.

    · Traditional Catholics who do understand about the problems with the New Mass can go to the New Mass and receive grace from it.

    · Almighty God and His Blessed Mother are using the New Mass to save the souls of Novus Ordo Catholics in the Novus Ordo and through the Novus Ordo.

    · Many New Masses are liberal and can’t be attended. Others aren’t and can be.





    Logged
    banned for being a cult follower of Fr. Hewko

    Offline Infirmus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 55
    • Reputation: +22/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #169 on: September 18, 2024, 09:17:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on March 05, 2023, 02:10:46 PM
    Here's +Lefebvre being "subjective" in an Econe spiritual conference (i.e., New Mass is poison, but you can eat it in necessity...and it gives grace...precisely as +Williamson says):

    "The father of Mr Pazat who is here told me yesterday that right now, there is not a single mass of St Pius V in Madrid. If there is no more mass of St Pius V in Madrid, if one is logical with those who are strict on the question of the mass, one would have to tell all people in Madrid that they cannot put in a foot in a church, one has to be logical, one has to be logical.. Do you feel in conscience capable to tell all people in Madrid, the whole city of Madrid, all Catholics : you cannot set foot anymore in a Church ? I do not dare saying that in such an absolute manner, since there are quite a few conditions, as I will mention, quite a few circuмstances in which we cannot attend these masses.

    But there are still priests who believe, there are still priests.. the mass is not always invalid, certainly not ! If it was always an invalid mass, of course we cannot go there, if it was always a sacrilegious mass, a mass regularly sacrilegious, evidently, a mass that has a net protestant tendency, it would be evident. But I think there are at the same time circuмstances in which.. we do not know, because there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !

    If on the other hand obviously you say : “But they eat meat that is poisoned !” That’s true, but if one eats a meal that is more or less poisoned, they may still last a little longer, until the moment when better nourishment arrives, while if they would die of hunger, they would be dead in three weeks or a month, they would die of hunger; It would be better to die in six months than to die in one month ! It would be better if they did not die at all, of course. But what do you expect, if not going to mass causes them to die by lack of faith, if by going to a mass that is not not very good because it is poisoning them they can prolong a little.. Take someone in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ who is given a choice : either you don’t eat, and thus you will die in a short time, or you will be given meat that has gone off, knowing well that you will eat bad meat, they know quite well that it will harm them, but they eat it anyway saying : “If I can survive a little longer, maybe my deliverance will come soon !” So, that is what we must say also, maybe our deliverance will come and we will have the mass of St Pius V; it is in this spirit that we have to tell them, I think.. [end of tape]"
    Why doesn't Fr Hewko and the Hewkoknights read this?? All they do is quote Chapter 3 of the "Open Letter To Confused Catholics".
    Logged

    Offline Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3279
    • Reputation: +2325/-206
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Bishop Williamson Admits Mistake re Public Comments on NOM Attendance in 2015
    « Reply #170 on: Yesterday at 12:22:22 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • It’s high time Fr. H. let go of one unfortunate incident from ten years ago.  He should have offered to speak to the woman in private after the conference.  As to Bp. W.’s propensity for locutions, seers, miracles not officially approved, that is nothing new and a weakness (imo) of his.  As for refusing Holy Oils to Fr. Hewko, it likely has more to do with getting excoriated by name in nearly every online sermon for years.  It’s an issue that the two prelates should resolve in private, not in the hearing of his flock and not on a public forum.  If Fr. Hewko no longer feels he can work with Bp. Williamson, he should forget it and move on.  
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]
    « previous next »