The late Fr Wathen

Maybe you guys have already heard of this priest but it's all new to me.
Seems like a Fr Feeney type and his audio's are worth listening to.

From what I gather he was not a sedevacantist but a firm believer in EENS.
This link will take you to an audio on the New Mass. Poor qualtity sound but worth persevering.

http://www.fatherwathen.com/558.html

How do you figure he's not a sedevacantist? He definitely seems to completely reject Vatican II since he continually refers to the post-V2 Church as the "post-Conciliar" Church and the "New Age" Church. Neither titles are befitting for someone who does not espouse a sedevacantist perspective.

The only thing in his favor is TAN books published one of his books. I don't think I could agree that the new mass was a sacrilege.

MarianLibrarian wrote:How do you figure he's not a sedevacantist? He definitely seems to completely reject Vatican II since he continually refers to the post-V2 Church as the "post-Conciliar" Church and the "New Age" Church. Neither titles are befitting for someone who does not espouse a sedevacantist perspective.

It seems my reply got lost somewhere in cyber-space so here goes again.

The little it tells of him on the website states that he wasn't a sede and that's all I have to go on.
I have heard non-sede's use that term "Post Concilliar Church" before and in one of his (Fr Wathens) radio interviews he uses the term "New Age" as a description of the Vat 2 theological mindset.
I will do a little research and see what I can uncover about Fr M.

Duckbill wrote:
The only thing in his favor is TAN books published one of books. I don't think I could agree that the new mass was a sacrilege.

Objectively speaking I agree, but subjectively in many cases it is.
Sacrilege being the treating of what's holy in an irreverent manner. I see this every Sunday if not always by the priest then at least by the laity.

Don't get wrong, I agree there are many abuses and problems with the way in which the Novus Ordo is celebrated the majority of the time... but calling the Church "post-Conciliar" and/or "New Age" after Vatican II is dangerous. Pope Benedict XVI explicitly warned of this:

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.
...
The Church, both before and after the Council, was and is the same Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, journeying on through time; she continues "her pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God", proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. .

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

There are also sermons of his entitled "It is a Mortal Sin to attend the New Mass for Any Reason", "Souls Will Be Lost In Attending the New Religion of the Conciliar Church"... it was in scrolling through his sermons that I fail to see how Fr. Wathen was NOT a sedevacantist.
http://www.fatherwathen.com/330.html
http://www.fatherwathen.com/399.html
http://www.fatherwathen.com/first-bio.html

I will await any research you can find. The Chapel listed on the homepage is not found on the Diocesan website...

Well, here's what the Dimond's have to say about Fr Wathen.
They speak quite highly of him and then denounce him for believing that Pope JP II was still the legal Pope.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/The_Heresies_of_Fr_James_Wathen.html

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.
...
The Church, both before and after the Council, was and is the same Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, journeying on through time; she continues "her pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God", proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes (cf. Lumen Gentium,

Hmm... the strange thing is, Pope B XVI seems to be pointing the finger at himself by making that statement. At least concerning the New Mass.

Here are the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) regarding the New Mass:

The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication.They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.
(Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)

Would this make the Mass fall under "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture?" Is this still the same Mass both before and after the Council?

I don't think he has ever retracted this statement.

There is no question Father Wathen was not a sedevacantist. I knew him. He was under a strange delusion that he belonged to the historical Order of St. John of Jerusalem (the Knights of Malta), but I'm pretty sure he divested himself of this before his death.

He was very anti-Novus-Ordo and would engage in intemperate speech about the hierarchy (but, then again, so could some saints!). Because of these criticisms, he could sound like a sede, but was certainly not one. In fact, I know of one case where he pulled a man out of sede-ism.

Mancipia wrote:There is no question Father Wathen was not a sedevacantist. I knew him. He was under a strange delusion that he belonged to the historical Order of St. John of Jerusalem (the Knights of Malta), but I'm pretty sure he divested himself of this before his death.

He was very anti-Novus-Ordo and would engage in intemperate speech about the hierarchy (but, then again, so could some saints!). Because of these criticisms, he could sound like a sede, but was certainly not one. In fact, I know of one case where he pulled a man out of sede-ism.

Hmmm … pulled him out of sede-ism and into what - a belief that the New Mass is “illegal”, “immoral”, “not Catholic”, “no Mass at all” and “THE GREAT SACRILEGE”?

But at least he remains in communion with the Roman Pontiff!

Strange times we live in, indeed. It's tough to keep one's footing.

MRyan wrote:Hmmm … pulled him out of sede-ism and into what - a belief that the New Mass is “illegal”, “immoral”, “not Catholic”, “no Mass at all” and “THE GREAT SACRILEGE”?

But at least he remains in communion with the Roman Pontiff!

Strange times we live in, indeed. It's tough to keep one's footing.

That's right, MRyan. I didn't say his positions were correct or even consistent, but them's what they were!

Ok, I'll concede he may not have been a sedevacantist... but if those excerpts from the Dimond Bros. site are accurate, Fr. Wathen held some very strange beliefs about the Church...

Who Shall Ascend?, p. 414: “The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, namely, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved.”

What kind of nonsensical doublespeak is that!?

Hmm perhaps he is saying that it is like a movement within the Church, kind of like Opus Dei or something, LOL.

Well the eighties were tough times I don't think many people knew what to think of the crisis. We still don't but at least now there seems like there is some hope with Summorum Pontificum and the approval of the SBC chapel in Richmond.

Fr. Wathen was living in a time before Summorum Pontificum and before even the Indult (I think).

The way I see it,. Why all this debate sorrounding Vat 2 especially from those who take their priestly ministry very seriously if there really isn't anything to get upset about? Even the FSSP (without being overly explicit) warn their congragations concerning aspects of theology which eminated from the Council.

Instead of clearing up the mess, our present and previous Pope have actually added to the confussion. This is a fair criticism in my mind and there's no excuse for ambiguity when we're speaking of the eternal salvation of the souls under their care, including our own.

My hitting on Fr Wathen was quite accidental. I was searching for some sermons on the Mass when I arrived at that website. As far as I'm concerned the Popes, cardinals and bishops can say or do anything heretical they wish as long as it's clear they ain't making anything binding but if there be a problem with the Mass then that's a totally different matter that cannot be taken so lightly.

Either there's something wrong with the New Mass or there's something wrong with my head. I do concede the latter to be the more likely but even if it is, there is still something wrong with he New Mass. Having for the first 9 years of my life been brought up in the TLM, I can still-even at that young age- remember the transition and my parents clinging to the old rite til the last available TLM was abolished.

Whoever wishes should be allowed to stay with the new but the TLM option shiould be given to those who wish it.