Yeah, but then the priests, clergy, and lay faithful used to elected their bishops also.  Things have changed.  Many theologians hold that the saints canonized in this manner (by grass roots movements) are not infallibly canonized.

But Miser's point stands.  Private revelations, miracles, etc. are under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, and if the local ordinary (that's whom most of these Motu-type tradcasters consider him to be anyway) has told people to stay away, these types should submit to that order / judgment.

There's a distinction between spontaneous veneration by the faithful, even in spite of the hierarchy trying to tamp it down, and full blown disobedience after the Church has issued a ruling. My post referred to the first instance.

The interesting thing about the case of Sr. Wilhelmina is that you have a docuмented factual anomaly encased in an authority vacuum. It seems to me that if this is truly Divinely caused, it must be a universal sign to be pondered in hearts, and likely the first sign of more to come. For I don't see how we can reasonably look to the novus ordo to conduct a proper ecclesiastical investigation. We really have no way of knowing authoritatively if it is a supernatural occurrence. 

Material science can go a long way in helping us understand possible physical causalities, and if they operated in this case. But it cannot judge miracles or preternatural manifestations. The most it can do is conclude that this is not naturally caused. 

Therefore if it is real, then it is anomalous in another way - real but presently incapable of being judged by the Church. Would God do this? I can only imagine that He would if this occurrence belongs to a series of signs that portend a shift. I can think of the example of a series of signs given to Jerusalem before its destruction. These signs were given to warn the faithful to leave. If other signs manifest now, it might be for the sake of the faithful - to enkindle their hope and to encourage them to confess and amend. 

No, you really don't believe what Archbishop Lefebvre did.  His position was that you had to obey the Catholic authorities unless the faith necessitated refusing a command, you know, "Faith is greater than obedience."  As to your "since when have Catholics obeyed ...?", so what?  That doesn't mean they shouldn't have.  In fact, if a visionary disobeys the orders of a Church authority, that entails automatic disqualification of legitimacy.  Question posed earlier had nothing to do with the sedevacantists, but was calling out the non-sedevacantist talking heads over refusing the legitimate orders of someone they consider to be a Catholic prelate.  Your response is an epic fail.

You have re-invented +ABL, just like the ralliers have. I don't mind that you think that my response is an epic fail.

Fr. Chazal mentioned in one of his sermons a few months ago - and he put forth this question: why don't traditionalists have any saints? He said that the Novus Ordo has had saints (martyrs in Africa, I think he said), but we don't have any. He said there is a lack of charity in tradition. I've no idea what he thinks of the Sr. Wilhelmina situation though.

Why would you think I sound like them? I started a Curse of Ham thread some years back and came to the conclusion, based on the information found that though the Church has never sanctioned or condemned the Curse of Ham applying to blacks, those Catholics who have believed the curse applying to blacks haven't been censured or excommunicated.

https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/anne-catherine-emmerich-the-curse-of-ham/

I don't really know if this curse applies to blacks. This Curse of Ham seems to have Jєω-тαℓмυdic origins. For all I know those Catholics who have been influenced by the Curse of Ham are Judaized.

It's troubling that you use the term "white supremacist." Do you have mixed-raced people in your family? Is your spouse non-white?

Humans are designed to prefer their own tribe to other tribes. Some people hate their own tribe, but then they prefer another tribe, so it's still the same thing. It doesn't entail hatred of other tribes, merely preference. Even Catholics are not race-blind or ethnically-blind. Italian-Catholics, Irish-Catholics, et cetera still self-segregate.

I'm never bothered when anyone has racial/ethnic preferences. I consider it normal behavior.

I dislike hypocrisy. Jєωs are the ultimate tribalists. Jesus called them whited sepulchres. They don't like it that gentiles are tribal, but their own tribalism bothers them not a bit.

Oh dear - I seem to have triggered your Jewdar. So what else is new? 

So you do believe, as some white supremacist protestants believe, that Jews are descended from Cain, and therefore are not quite human. You do realize that that is a prot error, and not Catholic? 

I don't have a problem with people segregating themselves as a race. I do, however, like black people. I grew up in poor, black neighborhoods, and they were good to me, and befriended me. Unlike me, they had two parents at home, but that was the 1960's. Things are different now.

There's a distinction between spontaneous veneration by the faithful, even in spite of the hierarchy trying to tamp it down, and full blown disobedience after the Church has issued a ruling. My post referred to the first instance.

Not really.  While no one can prevent the faithful from opining for or against the authenticity of this case, a bishop has the authority to shut down any public activity surrounding the phenomenon, and that's what the debate here is about.

I didn't know we were having a debate about unauthorized public activity, because I am unaware of any. Where's the disobedience?

Debate started early with this post ...

If the Bishop made it clear that people are not to visit, why are so many tradcasters telling people to go visit?

On May, 22nd, the Monday Within the Octave of the Ascension, the "diocesan bishop" issued a public statement on his official website. This was four days after the exhumation. It contains no order, directive, or prohibition.



Then four days later, on May 26th, the "bishop" released another statement:

Here we have one directive: Do not touch, venerate, or treat her body as a relic. He does not prohibit visitation. In fact his message presupposes, and implicitly ratifies the visits of the faithful to pay their respects. His directive is a guideline for the conduct of the faithful during their visits. 

This answers Miser's question: Why are the tradcasters telling people to go visit? Because the "bishop" has not "made it clear that people are not to visit."

Miser set up an argument based on erroneous facts. Therefore her conclusion is absolutely false.

I see.  There are a few things going on that make this a bit confusing.

Here is an excerpt from the Bishop's statement I saw regarding not making visits:

"For these reasons, and for the concerns of civic authorities for the safety and well-being of visitors, I discourage anyone in the Diocese of Jefferson City from visiting the Benedictine Abbey in Gower, Missouri, or treating the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina as relics."
https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2023/05/26/statement-from-bishop-mcknight-regarding-the-remains-of-sister-wilhelmina-lancaster/

This is from Bishop McKnight who oversees the same order of nuns in Ava, Mo. where they are building a new monastery. 

The Bishop you reference above, Bishop Johnston, oversees the monastery in Gower where the body of Sr Wilhemena is being viewed.

Still, many are touching her body and touching items to her body so as to venerate it as relics so they are not obeying his directives either.

I think it's important to understand why the Church put procedures in place to oversee these events.  It's not to be mean or unreasonable.  It's to preserve the integrity of the process so that approved miracles are not discounted by the fraudulent ones.  When the procedures are not followed it can cause doubts about that particular case and about the Church itself.

Like a court case, evidence that has been tampered with or procedures not followed can throw out the whole case.

I see.  There are a few things going on that make this a bit confusing.

Here is an excerpt from the Bishop's statement I saw regarding not making visits:

"For these reasons, and for the concerns of civic authorities for the safety and well-being of visitors, I discourage anyone in the Diocese of Jefferson City from visiting the Benedictine Abbey in Gower, Missouri, or treating the mortal remains of Sister Wilhelmina as relics."
https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2023/05/26/statement-from-bishop-mcknight-regarding-the-remains-of-sister-wilhelmina-lancaster/

This is from Bishop McKnight who oversees the same order of nuns in Ava, Mo. where they are building a new monastery. 

The Bishop you reference above, Bishop Johnston, oversees the monastery in Gower where the body of Sr Wilhemena is being viewed.

Still, many are touching her body and touching items to her body so as to venerate it as relics so they are not obeying his directives either.

I think it's important to understand why the Church put procedures in place to oversee these events.  It's not to be mean or unreasonable.  It's to preserve the integrity of the process so that approved miracles are not discounted by the fraudulent ones.  When the procedures are not followed it can cause doubts about that particular case and about the Church itself.

Like a court case, evidence that has been tampered with or procedures not followed can throw out the whole case.

Hello Miser,

Yes indeed, this case is very confusing. I find it difficult to get facts. All we seem to be getting is pro-sainthood propaganda. I find I am unable to think clearly about the matter, because of the confusion of the relevant facts. 

Yes, the "bishop" you quoted is not the "bishop" of the locality where the body is being put on view. He does not have jurisdiction there, nor does he give directives. He gave only an admonishment. Thus there is still no question of disobedience.

Of course you are correct that there are excellent reasons for prohibiting the faithful from touching the remains. I think the sisters, in their impetuosity and feverish self-promotion, are doing all concerned a great disservice. Perhaps your concerns are more aptly leveled against these sisters, than against the poor deceived faithful whose parched tongues are dragging the ground, panting for a sip of God.   

Now, someone sent me the following video that seems to clear up some facts. Initially I thought it was being reported that Sister died on the Vigil of the Ascension, and was exhumed on the Feast Day. But not so. Apparently she was exhumed on or about April 28, 2023, the Feast of St. Louis Marie de Montfort. The video cites the Feast Day, not the date; but I looked it up and it is April 28th. Note that the reporter in this video says that there were "a few days of digging" - so we do not know exactly what day Mother Cecilia discovered the incorrupt foot. I very much want to know exactly what day that was. 

The reporter says it took the sisters two weeks to clean the mold off the body. That would get us to on or about May 12th - approximately one week before the Feast of the Ascension, May 18th. I'm not sure when the story broke. I posted a thread about it one or two days after I learned of it. 

After washing, the sister's body was found to be "remarkably preserved." According to Mother Cecelia, they had doctors and a coroner examine the remains, and it was certainly anomalous. But with regard to the habit, these professionals were "just dumbfounded." Sister said the habit was completely intact, "every thread," in spite of the damp, the mold, mildew, etc. 

Interestingly, SrW was born on Palm Sunday, 1924.