CathInfo.com

What +Williamson is objecting to in Fr. Hewko, is the latter’s erroneous contention that miracles at a valid NOM are impossible (an error derived from the mistaken and arbitrary notion that any such miracle can ONLY be interpreted as endorsing that rite, rather than reinstalling belief in the Real Presence which that rite attacks).

Naturally, the Pfeifferian dupes now invading CI (ie., a Hewkonian is merely a Pfeifferian without Pfeiffer) find natural allies among the sedes, who believe the same.

Yet it is always overlooked by the Pfeifferites that something miraculous happens at every valid Novus Ordo: Transubstantiation.  And if bread and wine can be transformed into the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of God himself, how much easier to allow the possibility of a consecrated host showing tangible signs of that reality?

How you characterize the dispute in your first paragraph would leave it at the level of a theological disagreement.  But evidently Father Hewko's opinion on the matter is objectionable enough for Bishop Williamson to declare that they're not in the same Church and to withhold Holy Oils over it.  At best this is a theological disagreement that the Church has not settled.

For all intents and purposes, God working a miracle related to the NOM would EFFECTIVELY serve as His endorsement of the NOM, as God knows full well that it would be construed as such and, if it's invalid as many of us believe, would be construed as a sign that it's invalid.  So it is Father Hewko's opinion, and I agree, that God WOULD NOT do so.  Clearly when we're discussion hypotheticals regarding what we believe God WOULD or WOULD NOT do, we're in the realm of pure speculation.  So how can this be elevated to some kind of quasi-dogmatic issue that would justify withholding Holy Oils from the faithful associated with Father Hewko?

Assuming that there is such a thing as a valid Novus Ordo, there's a major difference between the miracle of Transubstantiation and an outward miracle, for the former is only known by faith and therefore would not serve as an outward sign that could be construed as an endorsement of the NOM.

Your reasoning here is completely faulty.

How you characterize the dispute in your first paragraph would leave it at the level of a theological disagreement.  But evidently Father Hewko's opinion on the matter is objectionable enough for Bishop Williamson to declare that they're not in the same Church and to withhold Holy Oils over it.  At best this is a theological disagreement that the Church has not settled.

For all intents and purposes, God working a miracle related to the NOM would EFFECTIVELY serve as His endorsement of the NOM, as God knows full well that it would be construed as such and, if it's invalid as many of us believe, would be construed as a sign that it's invalid.  So it is Father Hewko's opinion, and I agree, that God WOULD NOT do so.  Clearly when we're discussion hypotheticals regarding what we believe God WOULD or WOULD NOT do, we're in the realm of pure speculation.  So how can this be elevated to some kind of quasi-dogmatic issue that would justify withholding Holy Oils from the faithful associated with Father Hewko?

Assuming that there is such a thing as a valid Novus Ordo, there's a major difference between the miracle of Transubstantiation and an outward miracle, for the former is only known by faith and therefore would not serve as an outward sign that could be construed as an endorsement of the NOM.

Your reasoning here is completely faulty.

Naturally, you pretend the dispute between Hewko and Williamson is confined to this matter of Eucharistic miracles, as though there weren’t 10 additional matters of disagreement incessantly publicized by Hewko, and going back 10 years, which color this email exchange.

And naturally, you conveniently “overlook” the fact that it is the Hewkonians who are forbidding clergy and faithful from associating with Williamson (or any other priest or bishop who collaborates with him), and not the other way around.  So your contention that Williamson is behaving inappropriately toward Hewko by cutting him off seems plainly disingenuous, in that you condemn the former, while giving a pass to the latter.

The reality is that Hewko’s dupes should be condemning him as a hypocrite for attempting to associate with Williamson, when he claims that doing so is compromise.

Hewko is above his own principles, but his faithful dare not point out tge emperor’s new clothes (particularly when they stand to gain from it)?

No, you do not.

Let's not muddy the waters. +W doesn't require any of his priests or faithful to believe in any private revelations, nor to have a positive opinion of any particular works of literature (Valtorta for example).

I agree with the other poster who said Fr. Hewko is not sincere. How do you deal with such a situation?

Next point -- you don't know how things worked before Vatican II. Priests didn't just get holy oils from "the nearest bishop". There was structure, hierarchy, and certainly obedience going from the priests towards their bishop. There was jurisdiction and a flow of authority from the top down. Bishops had specific territories. Priests had assignments where they were placed by their bishop.

Many independent priests in Tradition today (of whom Fr. Hewko is a *classic* example) want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to owe obedience to no bishop, but they want those bishops to give them holy oils and Confirmations. Demand them, even. How is that proper?

From what I coud understand reading the opeing post, Bishop Williamson requires that this particular priest accept that miracles can exist in the Novus Ordo. Is it not a matter that is open to debate?

Before Vatican II, priests received the oils from the diocesan bishop, who was usually "the nearest bishop". Of course there was jurisdiction and hierarchy, but, still, any Catholic priest in good stading with the Church could get Holy Oils without further questioning.

I remember reading in the official biography of Abp. Lefebvre how he disagreed with a modernist religious priest that worked in his diocese in Africa. After attempting to remove him, he could not do anything else (this is what the book says). Did he deny Holy Oils to this priest? I don't think so.

By denying to provide this priest with the Holy Oils, Bishop Williamson might be preventing some Catholics from receiving the sacraments. Is it a good thing? Should the bad attitude of this particular priest be a reason to put his flock away from the sacraments?