Standing on Quicksand…His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson

Pic His Excellency 2
Attendance at the New Mass? (Dominicans of Avrillé)

Is it permitted to take part in the New Mass?

Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God in so far as it is ecumenical and protestant. Besides that, it represents a danger for the faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It must therefore be rejected. Whoever understands the problem of the New Mass must no longer assist at it, because he puts voluntarily his faith in danger, and, at the same time, encourages others to do the same in appearing to give his assent to the reforms.

How can a valid Mass displease God?

Even a sacrilegious Mass celebrated by an apostate priest to mock Christ can be valid. It is however evident that it offends God, and it would not be permitted to take part in it. In the same way, the Mass of a Greek Schismatic (valid and celebrated according a venerable rite) displeases God insofar as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and to the unique Church of Christ.

Can one attend the New Mass however when it is celebrated in a worthy and pious manner by a Catholic priest with a faith that is absolutely certain?

It is not the celebrant who is called into question, but the rite that he is using. It is unfortunately a fact that the new rite has given very many Catholics a false notion of the Mass, which is closer to that of the protestant last supper than that of the Holy Sacrifice. The new Mass is one of the principal sources of the current crises of the faith. It is therefore imperative that we distance ourselves from it.

Can one assist at the new Mass in certain circumstances?

We must apply to the new Mass the same rules we use for the attendance at a non-Catholic ceremony. One can be present for family or professional reasons, but one behaves passively, and especially does not receive Holy Communion.

What can one do when it is not possible to assist every Sunday a traditional Mass?

Whoever does not have the possibility to assist at a traditional Mass is excused from the Sunday obligation. The precept of the Sunday obligation only obliges in the case of a true Catholic Mass. One must however, in this case strive to assist at a traditional Mass at least regular intervals. What’s more, even if one is thus dispensed from assistance at Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not thus so for the commandment of God (“Thou shalt sanctify the Day of the Lord”). One must replace, by one manner or another this Mass which one cannot have, with for example the reading of the text in one’s missal, and uniting the intention, during the time of the Mass to a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and in practicing a spiritual communion.

(Directly translated from “Catéchisme catholique de la crise dans l’Église” [“Catholic Catechism of the crisis in the Church” by Fr Matthias Gaudron SSPX; French translation, subdivisions and revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé.]
=========================
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/attendance-at-the-new-mass/
Postado por MilitiaJesuChristi às 18:00 Nenhum comentário:
Marcadores: anti-catholic position of bishop williamson, bishop williamson liberalism, bishop williamson new mass, Dominicans of Avrillé, eucharistic mass novas ordo
Defending the Indefensible by Fr. Fernando Altamira
Recently, Bishop Williamson said that one could attend the new Mass. He was replying to a lady in a “Questions and Answers” session, after a public conference. When we gave news of this, it provoked a defence of Bishop Williamson’s words by the priest who runs the website Non Possumus.

To do this is to defend the indefensible. Once such a thing happens, and the more so when what has been said is very serious, one has a duty to warn people, regardless of who might have said it. The priest in question is doing with Bishop Williamson what he would not accept doing with Bishop Fellay (and this is a risk which concerns us all).

With Bishop Fellay, warn about all the bad things he says. With Bishop Williamson, make excuses for him and give a false interpretation of what he really meant to say, despite the literal meaning of his words. Thus one falls into the trap of the supporters of Bishop Fellay: he is always the object of misinterpretation.

Let us return to Bishop Williamson. The news of this which we gave did not include everything which he affirmed publicly. We strongly urge all those who understand English to watch this video, in which one finds all the incriminating words. But let us look briefly at the short text which we put out:

“Bishop Williamson and the New Mass

This piece of film represents the words of Bishop Williamson saying that one can assist at the New Mass. This seems to us to be something very serious on his part. One can watch this video at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzI4WKwDlPk. We do not approve the somewhat mocking tone of the video (from about half-way through, more or less), but the content is quite correct. Bishop Williamson’s words last for 12 minutes and the video is in total 30 minutes long.
–At Minute 0.55: “There’s the principles and then there’s the practice” -At Minute 6.46: “There have been Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass.” –At Minute 8.56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.” –At Minute 9.53: “Be very careful, be very careful with the Novus, stay away from the Novus Ordo, 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.”
-At Minute 10.37: “Therefore I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”.

It is sad to say, and I do not say it maliciously (I know I am not lying), this shows the sad state of the spirit of this priest, the things which he is ready to do: defending Bishop Williamson blow for blow. I insist: before, he would not have tolerated this kind of attitude from Bishop Fellay, whereas now…

In the defence which he makes, this priest forgets the heart of the problem and seems to use (we suppose that he does so unconsciously) a sophism to defend the indefensible. If my memory serves, this sophism is called “ignorantio elenchi” (which means answering a question with something which is beside the point).

Let us say things clearly:

The New Mass is bad (I hope that this priest will not change his view of that). That being the case, there is a universally valid moral principle of capital importance: nobody (not even a priest or a bishop) can positively advise someone to do something bad. But that is exactly what Bishop Williamson did several times over with this lady: he advised her to assist at the New Mass.

This principle is absolutely certain. And if this priest wrote that knowingly and not in ignorance (which should have been the case, since he is a priest and it relates to his duty of state), he must assume responsibility for his words. And if he is writing out of ignorance, well that’s not very glorious either.

If it is really necessary, when a priest speaks with one of the faithful who is of good will (a simple soul) who goes to the New Mass, he could keep quiet, out of prudence, if that faithful is still not ready to hear the whole truth. But keeping quiet is one thing, positively advising him to go to the New Mass, as Bishop Williamson did, is something else.

The priest who tries to defend Bishop Williamson even goes so far as to use as an argument the fact that Bishop Williamson was replying to a woman who was sobbing. Well, firstly one does not hear any sobbing in the video. Secondly, even if there were, what kind of an argument is that? Otherwise, we would be reduced to the absurdity of having to declare the following moral principle: “To someone asking if they are allowed to do an evil act (e.g. assisting at the New Mass, abortion, etc.) one may answer in the affirmative, on condition that the person is sobbing.” Comment would be superfluous.

What is more, Bishop Williamson returns insistently to the question of the validity of the New Mass (they “can” be valid). But hold on: first of all we don’t know and we are justified in saying with as much likelihood (if not more so!), that Novus Ordo Masses can be invalid. Secondly, to even suppose that Novus Ordo Masses are valid, all or some of them, that’s not where the problem is at. It is well known: even in such a case it is still not permissible to assist at a Novus Ordo Mass since, whether or not it is valid, this rite is bad in se and is displeasing to God. Thirdly, the Masses of the heretical Russian Orthodox are certainly valid and yet it is obvious that we’re not allowed to assist at them. So: what should we say concerning the New Mass?

At the end you can read the quotes from Bishop Williamson.

I think that we priests who reacted against what Bishop Fellay is doing are wrong to hide the problems which also exist on our side. [Editor’s note – the same surely goes for “we laymen who reacted…”] And there are so many that the only positive attitude one can have is neither to hide them nor to seek to excuse them but to confront them calmly, proving our realism, and trying to remedy them. That is the only constructive thing we can do. Otherwise God will not bless us, nor will He bless what we are doing, and it will all end badly.

And so I cordially greet this priest at Non Possumus, without any hypocrisy, in the hope that this writing will help contribute to improving the current situation. May the Most Holy Virgin Mary come to our aid.

Fr. Fernando Altamira
28th July, 2015

-Minutes 10:45 and 22:05: “If they can trust their own judgment that this…attending this mass [the New Mass] will do more good than harm spiritually… but it does harm in itself, there´s no doubt about that. It´s a rite designed to undermine Catholics´ faith… […]”.

And at that point, the authors of the video add: “Remember: The new mass is poison! But if poison is good for you, then go ahead”.

-Minute 11:27: “But exceptionally… The wise thing would be probably to say in private this to that person, but here I am saying it in public, that may be foolish.”

Note – no one has the right to advise someone to do something wrong (such as assisting at the New Mass) either in public or in private. That’s an absurdity, it’s evil and it’s an error (cf. main text)

-Minute 6:36: “I don´t know if any of you know, again, I´m going to get hanged! But that´s in the contract…”

-Minute 8:56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one´s faith instead of losing it. That´s heresy, almost heresy within Tradition.”

-Minute 1:10: “Therefore, the Archbishop (Lefebvre) would say, in public he would say stay away, keep away from the New Mass.”

Note – these words about Archbishop Lefebvre (“in public he would say…”) seem to be insinuating that in private he would say something different: such an insinuation is disgraceful!

http://www.therecusant.com/altamira-contra-williamson

*

Dom Thomas Aquinas vs. Bishop Williamson Transcription in English below video


By attempting to spread his “speculations” among Dom Thomas Aquina’s flock back in 2013 or 2014(?), Bishop Williamson had forced Dom Thomas to interrupt and publicly rebuke him in order to protect the faithful who were presented with the bishop’s dangerous ideas.

That was back when Dom Thomas was still seeing things clearly.

With all due respect, it is a mystery to have Dom Thomas perceiving this speculation of “Benedict having a good will” as a danger deserving of a public interruption and reproach, WHILE, at the same time, overlooking (and defending!) the more recent and dangerous statements of Bishop Williamson:

– “Archbishop Lefebvre would publicly say ‘stay away’ from
the New Mass”; (…) “but I am going to stick my neck out in a long way (…)”

– “I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”…

– “The New Mass can be attended with the effect of building your Faith”…

– “You make your own judgements…”

– “If the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition? ”

– “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith…”

– “There have been eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass. They are still occurring…”

——–

Since some are prone to believe Bishop Williamson just spills silly words and then “repents” of them, let us look at some recent events to debunk this myth.

If Bishop Williamson had repented of his words he should have made amendments instead of asking Dom Thomas to remove the video from his ‘official’ youtube channel… Unfortunately his wish was swiftly granted. Would that be the beginning of Dom Thomas’ fall?

In any event, we would like to mention this is not the first time Bishop Williamson is believed to have repented of doing/saying something without apologizing or amending; let us present some other similar episodes:

1. Bishop Williamson has said “he was not proud of having his signature” on those grateful words directed towards Benedict XVI upon the releasing of his Motu Proprio, YET he has not done any amendments which would lead us to believe his repentance was true. As a matter of fact, we have a concrete reason to believe he is not repented at all; otherwise he would not have said –together with his own personal visionary– the first “Rosary Crusade” were a success.

*The first “rosary crusade” was a request to free the Traditional Mass, they estimate the endeavor as a success and they credit (blamed, really) Our Lady, along with Benedict XVI as the one who has granted us the Motu Proprio(!).

2. Bishop Williamson has administered Confirmations in the heretical Chapel of the Feeneyites (allegedly without knowing they were Feeneies); upon being informed of this fact he said he was ashamed of it, but no reparation or apology were issued. Someone should let Bishop Williamson know shame is not synonym of repentance. True repentance requires reparation and willingness of not committing it ever again. Shame, by itself, is a sign of pride, as if one were ashamed for being caught, not necessarily for their mistake.

3. Dom Thomas was informed Bishop Williamson was ashamed of the infamous conference. But instead of apologizing and repairing the mess to some extent, he chose to ask this person to remove the video of circulation and to stopping talking about it. Dom Thomas KNOWS about this fact!

Basically, all this mess could have been avoided with a simple acknowlegdement and an apology, but Bishop Williamson is no man of apologies… Well, unless if the ones affected were Benedict XVI and the Jews, that is.

Anyhow, here we have a reproduction posted on another youtube channel of the episode where Bishop Williamson “charitably speculates” about Benedict XVI’s “good will”, which prompted a just and necessary rebuke from Dom Thomas.

It is also hard not to notice at the end the very disturbing mockery the Bishop produces in a so serious matter… Reminds me of the “Bloopers” video produced by Fr. Rostand, and that is obviously very unfortunate. People, specially at that time, were suffering immensely, some were losing their faith, others were compromising, some have had break downs, others were hating each other’s guts, etc., and that’s how Bishop Williamson and Father Rostand were treating the matter… Very telling!

_________

English transcription of the video:

Bishop Williamson: “(…) The heroism is difficult. The heroism is tiresome. And, perhaps, among Traditionalists there is this tiresomeness. They are tired of resisting. I don’t know… I don’t know. The temptation exists nonetheless. And there hasn’t been a clearly resistance regarding this temptation in the past few years. Therefore, how will this all end? I think there’s a danger of an agreement before the end of this year. I’m not saying that will be one. I’m not saying that will be one. But I do say there is a danger there will be one. In other words: the Pope wants to make sure, before dying, the religion of his childhood is compatible, that it does not contradict the religion it has been promoted from his seminary. He wants the assurance they are reconcilable. That they do not contradict each other, so he can die with a clean conscience.
I think this might be how pope is reasoning: he’s looking to have a clean conscience before dying. And if the SSPX reaches an agreement with the council, the Pope will personally have some peace of mind. It is just my speculation. It is not relevant. But it is possible this is the reason why the Pope wants a deal quickly.”

Dom Thomas: But the Pope is smart…

Bishop Williamson: Yes…

Dom Thomas: He knows that if the SSPX comes to them they (SSPX) will accept the Council

Bishop Williamson: Yes!

Dom Thomas: And they (SSPX) will cease to be the Tradition…

Bishop Williamson: Yes!

Dom Thomas: So, It’s confusing. There won’t be Tradition anymore…

Bishop Williamson: Yes! Yes! Sure. The good will of the Pope towards Tradition could be a calculation…

Dom Thomas: I do not know if would be a calculation. But he’s smart enough to know Bishop Fellay will change…

Bishop Williamson: Yes…

Dom Thomas: That the Society (SSPX) will change…

Bishop Williamson: Yes…

Dom Thomas: It is not a contradiction with the religion of his childhood. It is not a reunion with the religion of his childhood, It is an adapted religion.

Bishop Williamson: Who knows? It is my speculation.

It is true that the Pope may have a nobler motivation, to break down the resistance of Tradition, that is. It is perhaps a little more cynical to think that way, but for the modernists this is normal for sure.

Normally, the modernists want to absolutely dissolve the resistance of Tradition. And this may be the main motivation of the Pope. Yes, it can be. God knows. We don’t know.

I was speculating in a charitable manner towards the Pope, saying he wants…

For I am gentle… I am emotional… I’m loving… I’m not hard… I’m not terrible as people say… Ah Ah Ah.

No one understands me… Nobody loves me… Ahhhhh…

I don’t give a [cucumber] damn!