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

Author Topic: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"  (Read 32910 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Why woud Williamson reconcile with the conciliar church?

Also: Please provide a quote of Williamson describing the Novus Ordo rite as "good and holy."

He should reconcile with the conciliar church since he believes that it’s “mass” is not only valid, but actually is to be highly lauded since it produces miracles.

I have no exact quote, but it’s easily deduced from his staunch opinion that miracles are produced by it. Logically, it must be good and holy since God would never allow miracles to come from something that is not good and unholy.

He should reconcile with the conciliar church since he believes that it’s “mass” is not only valid, but actually is to be highly lauded since it produces miracles.

I have no exact quote, but it’s easily deduced from his staunch opinion that miracles are produced by it. Logically, it must be good and holy since God would never allow miracles to come from something that is not good and unholy.

False reasoning:

1) It is not the rite which (possibly) produces miracles, but God;

2) It does not follow that because there is (possibly) a miracle, the rite is to be lauded.  

For example, I give an exactly opposite reason why God would (possibly) perform a Eucharistic miracle at the No us Ordo:

To instill belief in the real presence, which the Novus Ordo attacks.


I have a feeling that the same people who attack "dogmatic sedevacantists" will defend Bp. Williamson's new dogma and his anathema of all sedevacantists and others who believe God wouldn't approve the Bogus Ordo by miracles.

I wonder if belief in Garabandal and whatever the other false apparitions Williamson promotes are also required for salvation.
Right?  Could you imagine if this was Father Cekada or Bishop Sanborn?  :laugh1:

On a serious note, however....is it possible that there is something seriously wrong with Bishop Williamson (cognitively speaking)? These comments seem totally imbalanced.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Right?  Could you imagine if this was Father Cekada or Bishop Sanborn?  :laugh1:

On a serious note, however....is it possible that there is something seriously wrong with Bishop Williamson (cognitively speaking)? These comments seem totally imbalanced.


I agree and actually that is a charitable interpretation.

Offline Meg

He should reconcile with the conciliar church since he believes that it’s “mass” is not only valid, but actually is to be highly lauded since it produces miracles.

I have no exact quote, but it’s easily deduced from his staunch opinion that miracles are produced by it. Logically, it must be good and holy since God would never allow miracles to come from something that is not good and unholy.

Well, regarding just the issue validity for a moment, the SSPX and +ABL always maintained that the New Mass is valid. Does that in itself mean that whoever believes in the validity of the New Mass should reconcile with Rome? If that's the case, then maybe the SSPX should have reconciled long ago?

I'm not sure that God wouldn't allow miracles from something unholy. How about all of the martyrs that suffered torture and death, often put to death by pagans or heretics, who were doing evil in killing Catholics. Yet good came from those martyrs; not only did some of their tormentors and killers convert, miracles were sometimes attributed to the intercession of the martyrs.