On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bp. Williamson wrote:
Make up your mind. Choose.
Either you write in public, to all those people that you normally write to, that you have been wrong to deny the possibility of Eucharistic miracles at Novus Ordo Masses, and you quote several cases of such miracles which you now admit to have taken place. And you will have to persuade me that you sincerely mean what you write, and that you are not writing it just to deceive me. Judging by your past behavior that will be very difficult for you to do. And I have to remain the judge as to whether you may or may not have done it. And if you try any form of weaseling out of it, I will never again read an email of yours. Choose.
Or you find yourself a bishop who agrees with you. How about Bishop Pfeiffer?
Fr. Hewko responded:
Post scriptum: The Thuc line is out of the question because it swims in doubt, scandals and craziness, as Archbishop Lefebvre advised, stay away! Therefore, Fr. Pfeiffer is out of the question.
How can a Traditionalist bishop have such love for Novus Ordo miracles?:confused:
His Lordship has been a puzzling figure for many. How can a Traditionalist bishop have such love for Valtorta and the Poem of the Man-God or for Garabandal?Another great question.
Source (https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5381)Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, what is wrong with all these 'trad' clergy. Whether it's the sspx or the resistance or sedes, they all make some sort of compromise. :fryingpan:
The following is a transcript of this past April's correspondence between Bishop Williamson and Fr. Hewko where His Excellency states that for a priest to receive Holy Oils from him, it is necessary to believe in and preach on the veracity of Novus Ordo Eucharistic Miracles. Father recently went public with this exchange in a conference from Canada. (link below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dimNRwG65Qk&t=2542s
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, what is wrong with all these 'trad' clergy. Whether it's the sspx or the resistance or sedes, they all make some sort of compromise. :fryingpan:
Another great question.
There was a time when being Catholic was enough for getting Holy Oils from the nearest bishop...not anymore.
Now you need to believe in doubtful things as if they were dogma.
Fr Hewko has essentially excommunicated all other traditional clergy axe and sundry, he has demanded that his faithful red light all “compromised” Masses, etc,Except when a familly member wants to get married or they need a Requiem Mass and burial for a loved one then they demand the services of the SSPX then walk out the door back to Fr. Hewko until the next time they need something. He's trained them well.
When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.:facepalm: +Bishop Williamson, I will continue to pray for you, but you've lost it. :facepalm:
Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.
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?
Our Life as Catholics might be much better without them maybe? Since we laity are just so much better than the trad clergy. So much smarter, and more knowledgeable about just about....everything, huh? ::)I would expect the clergy to be held to a higher standard than the laypeople. Yet some of them think it's ok to refuse communion to those not professig certain beliefs (bod/bob have never been specifically defined), others are allowed to publish all kinds of heresies in books and are promoted, others also, are too quick to believe in 'miracles' because of 'science'(tm) instead of following sound doctrine to make their decisions based on Catholic dogma. Or not doing their due diligence when accepting and promoting private revelation.
Wasn't it Bishop Williamson who said that the time for structures is over? I see that's the biggest problem with what is called the Resistance. Add that with the secretive episcopal consecrations, outrageous statements about attendance at the New Mass, and now demanding adherence to Novus Ordo "miracles" that aren't even validated as such yet by those in authority? This is sad for someone that I respect a lot.Agree on every point, not the least of which, Fr Hewko's comments were very deferential and respectful to +Williamson, while the bishop wrote with derision. Rather telling.
I don't see Fr. Hewko as "demanding" for the holy oils, but rather begging for it.
My point is why should priests holding differing opinions be punished since they are not dogmas but opinions? Why should we be refused Holy Oils? Who else can we turn to? Thuc line? No. Sedevacantists? No.Yeah. But it's okay to say you would not turn to a sede bishop for Holy Oils over a difference of opinion.
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).
When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.
Did everyone miss this statement from Bishop Williamson here?Assuming this is what he wrote, that is interesting wording. It makes it sound like the NO "miracles" are a dogmatic issue for him. It also makes me wonder whether he considers himself part of the NO Church.
When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.
The first miracle at a real mass is called Transubstantiation. If God will not permit miracles to confirm an odious Rite of Mass such as the novus ordo, how will God permit that first miracle called Transubstantiation to take place in such an odious rite of mass such as the novus ordo?
✠ ✠ ✠
On Friday, April 21, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote [this was an excellent reply!]:
Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,
I guess if St. Thomas Aquinas were to treat this subject, he would admit that, in the case of a valid Mass where the Consecration truly took place, a miracle of this sort would be possible in the realm of God's omnipotence, but he would certainly have raised questions if it came from the New Mass. Belief in the New Mass "miracles," he couldn't deny, leads directly to the New Mass. The New Mass, although admittedly can be valid, nevertheless, leads to a loss of Faith, is often sacrilegious and represents a Rite that is "odious in God's sight" (as Our Lord told Marie-Julie Jahenny). True miracles confirm the Truth. True miracles confirm Catholic doctrine and the Faith. Will God permit miracles to confirm an odious Rite of Mass? Will God work miracles to reinforce errors, heresy and sacrilege that are nearly intrinsic to the New Mass? This is the question that poses the problem.
With all things considered, perhaps the more prudent ground to stand on, is to patiently withhold judgement and wait for Mother Church to come back to Tradition. Then the world will have the final reliable decision. All the while publicly promoting the pre-Vatican II Eucharistic miracles (of which there are plenty!) and saints, while at the same time, being extremely cautious with the post-Vatican II phenomena and so-called miracles. If the Conciliar Modernist episcopate can parade before the whole world (with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II's presence and approval) a fake Sister Lucia of Fatima, as has been forensically and scientifically proven, what other frauds are they not capable of flaunting?
Humbly asking your blessings, filially yours,
Fr. David Hewko
Post scriptum: The Thuc line is out of the question because it swims in doubt, scandals and craziness, as Archbishop Lefebvre advised, stay away! Therefore, Fr. Pfeiffer is out of the question.
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.
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.
Reverend,
When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.
Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.
With good wishes, in Christo,
Bp. Williamson
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?
This also implies the converse, namely, that if Father Hewko would come around to accepting this "reality," then he might go ahead and reques the Holy Oils again.
Precisely the argument which proves my first comment in this thread (ie., Williamson is merely telling Hewko to buzz off, by stipulating a condition he knows Hewko will not accept):
Does anyone believe that Williamson would really give Hewko oils if the latter acknowledged that NOM miracles were possible?
Of course not.
There’s still several other statements, positions, and conditions Hewko would need to retract or amend before Williamson would agree to associate with him (eg., Hewko’s heretical notion that a well-disposed Novus Ordo communicant receives no increase of sanctifying grace at a valid Mass).
OK, but that seems like he's playing proverbial "mind games" there and he should just be more transparent. "I'm not inclined to give you the Holy Oils for reasons A, B, C". When this letter gets out, it does make it sound like he's turning belief in the NO Eucharistic miracles into a dogmatic necessity that disqualifies someone from being in the same Church he's in. He didn't really articulate this well.
Bishop Williamson is simply asking F. Hewko to accept physical realities and the impossibility of certain things.Why should he have to do even that if he doesn't believe they are true miracles? You're asking him to agree to something he doesn't believe just so he can obtain the Holy Oils. Despite his hypocrisy I noted in the previous page, I happen to agree with him here.
Fr. Hewko can easily draft a statement saying that he accepts these realities while saying it is a mystery to him as to why God would do it.
Williamson is merely telling Hewko to buzz off, by stipulating a condition he knows Hewko will not acceptIf so, then this is a horrible lack of leadership skills and an immature way of resolving conflict. He should have kept the debate focused on matters of principle; instead he allowed it to veer off course, into matters of opinion and speculation. No one can win such a debate.
If so, then this is a horrible lack of leadership skills and an immature way of resolving conflict. He should have kept the debate focused on matters of principle; instead he allowed it to veer off course, into matters of opinion and speculation. No one can win such a debate.
The "parents" forget the standards demanded of their high calling, take their fights public, so then the children are drug into it, and voila, a dysfunctional shit-show, driving unnecessary division in traddie-land. Another fine job, Clergy.
+W needs a PR manager, because this is just messy.One of the problems we have is that we've had too many PR managers putting things in nice pretty packages for us to accept.
If I were Bishop Williamson, I would have responded with an open letter that, "For the good of the faithful who depend upon you, I will grant your request for the Holy Oils, but this should not be construed as an endorsement by myself of your various theological positions." I think that His Excellency should rise above the personal disagreements with Father Hewko for the sake of the faithful.Yes, why air your dirty laundry in public? FYI holiness is attractive, say no more.
At the same time, Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko should also have kept their disagreements with Bishop Williamson much more civil than they ended up being. It's obvious that the primary animus driving their hostility was Bishop Williamson's refusal to consecrate Father Pfeiffer and to endorse his seminary, and so various matters that should have been respectful disagreements transformed into hostile attacks, and Father Hewko was largely dragged along by Father Pfeiffer's stronger will.
One of the problems we have is that we've had too many PR managers putting things in nice pretty packages for us to accept.
Give me a straight forward, blunt talking person any day: someone who says what he means and means what he says. Only when I know the raw facts can I draw an informed conclusion.
+Williamson is from my generation when we spoke our minds and the truth as we knew it and let the chips fall where they may... then moved on.
I'm saddened for the faithful who might be deprived of the Holy Oils...
In a sermon by Fr. Hewko, he said that if St. Therese the Little Flower were alive today, she'd go to Broadstairs and slap Bp. Williamson for endorsing the NO. Ha.
This whole situation is scuffed.
Meanwhile, where did you get this nonsense about Williamson endorsing the Novus Ordo??I'm not endorsing Fr. Hewko here. The point was to show how ridiculous all of this is.
In a sermon by Fr. Hewko, he said that if St. Therese the Little Flower were alive today, she'd go to Broadstairs and slap Bp. Williamson for endorsing the NO. Ha.
Do you agree with what Fr. Hewko has stated above?No. I posted it because it illustrates the absurdity of thinking he can expect to receive favors from someone he's spoken about like this. I also think it's a wildly inappropriate comment to make re: a Saint.
No. I posted it because it illustrates the absurdity of thinking he can expect to receive favors from someone he's spoken about like this. I also think it's a wildly inappropriate comment to make re: a Saint.
I disagree with Bp. W's position on NO miracles, and I dislike seeing +W not provide Holy Oils to him at the expense of the faithful, but despite my opinions, I understand why he wouldn't want to do this for Fr. Hewko.
Have I made myself clear?
Agreed, but let us not forget who the one was that took it public.Who was it? Not that it really matters!
I don't think that disagreements are all that uncommon among trads groups, or between trad groups. It's just that this one has been made public, presumably by someone who seems to have an ax to grind.Disagreements are 100% normal, an inevitable result of Original Sin. God knew this so He appointed the Hierarchy and Magisterium to deal with them. There’s no sin until there’s actual sin, souls are harmed. Both Bp. W. and Fr. H. have taken it to the point where souls are being harmed. They need to repent, deal with matter IN PRIVATE, and get on with it. End of story.
Disagreements are 100% normal, an inevitable result of Original Sin. God knew this so He appointed the Hierarchy and Magisterium to deal with them. There’s no sin until there’s actual sin, souls are harmed. Both Bp. W. and Fr. H. have taken it to the point where souls are being harmed. They need to repent, deal with matter IN PRIVATE, and get on with it. End of story.
Make up your mind. Choose.
Either you write in public, to all those people that you normally write to, that you have been wrong to deny the possibility of Eucharistic miracles at Novus Ordo Masses, and you quote several cases of such miracles which you now admit to have taken place. And you will have to persuade me that you sincerely mean what you write, and that you are not writing it just to deceive me. Judging by your past behavior that will be very difficult for you to do. And I have to remain the judge as to whether you may or may not have done it. And if you try any form of weaseling out of it, I will never again read an email of yours. Choose.
Or you find yourself a bishop who agrees with you. How about Bishop Pfeiffer?
In Christ,
Bp. Williamson
Disagreements are 100% normal, an inevitable result of Original Sin. God knew this so He appointed the Hierarchy and Magisterium to deal with them. There’s no sin until there’s actual sin, souls are harmed. Both Bp. W. and Fr. H. have taken it to the point where souls are being harmed. They need to repent, deal with matter IN PRIVATE, and get on with it. End of story.
I find this demand to be rather strange:
It does seem to indicate that Bishop Williamson would give him the Holy Oils if he were to publicly agree not only in the "possibility" that NO Eucharistic miracles have taken place but to cite "several case" where he admits that they HAD taken place. I have to say this is bizarre, to make this a condition for receiving Holy Oils. Who doesn't know that belief in miracles and private revelations is not obligatory? If Bishop Williamson had other, deeper, problems with Father Hewko, that would be one thing ... but to fixate on something this trivial?
The fact that Bishop Williamson still promotes Garabandal is baffling. I understand that it was what converted him back when it was new, but now it is obvious that it is a false apparition. Rejecting new mass miracles is the safer route, since were not obliged to believe private revelations. As Ladislaus said, for them to be real, it would imply that God approves of the bogus ordo.
Consider that both Fr. Hewko and Bp. Williamson were subjected to occult curses from a Santeria Warlock.
1. Fr. Hewko was exposed to Cuban voodoo for 7 years. :facepalm:
2. Bp. Williamson surely suffered an attack when he stayed at the Pfeiffer farm in 2013.
(HE starts condoning the Novus ordo missae in the late Fall of 2015).
3. Even Bp. Tissier was exposed to a Santeria malefice, when Pablo crashed his Chicago priory living quarters around 2015.
Make no mistake.
Infiltration of traditional Catholic venues and Santeria curses are the only thing that makes the demonically inspired, Mexican warlock tick.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bishop Williamson replies:
Reverend,
When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.
Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.
With good wishes, in Christo,
Bp. Williamson
Wasn't Fr. Chazal with Fr. Pfeiffer's group at one time? Maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.
You’re in a rut. This has already been explained to you.Sean, the OP shows that the reason Fr. Hewko wants the Holy Oil is for extreme unction: "Your Excellency, all I'm requesting are the basic tools for saving souls! Baptisms and Extreme Unctions cannot be given without Holy Oils (aside from emergency baptisms). Why would a differing opinion be an obstacle to receiving Holy Oils?"
Sean, the OP shows that the reason Fr. Hewko wants the Holy Oil is for extreme unction: "Your Excellency, all I'm requesting are the basic tools for saving souls! Baptisms and Extreme Unctions cannot be given without Holy Oils (aside from emergency baptisms). Why would a differing opinion be an obstacle to receiving Holy Oils?"
When a soul is in their last agony, even a heretical, excommunicated apostate priest who hates and always slanders +Williamson can validly administer Extreme Unction. All I will say, and I hate to say it, is +Williamson will be in big trouble with Our Lord if it ends up that a soul in need of the sacrament does not receive it due to his decision.
As greatly as I respect +Williamson, he is gravely wrong here. He just is.
The ends don’t justify the means.No, that is not at all my rationale and you're allegiance to +Williamson is clouding clear thinking. Do you think Fr. Hewko is going to sell it or use the Holy Oil for frying fish or quieting a squeaky wheel? Of course not - there is no good reason to withhold it, certainly not the reason +Williamson gave, there is only good reason to give it.
According to your rationale, every bishop is required to give oils to every priest who comes knocking, no matter what crazy and/or heretical positions he holds (eg., Pope Michael, or Palmar de Troya), simply because these renegades have duped some faithful.
But giving such renegades oils only enables their poisoned ministry, and THAT is what a bishop needs to worry about (particularly when Hewko’s dupes have many other priests from whom they can receive extreme unction, but choose not to). If they choose to exclude all those priests because of Hewko’s indoctrination, that’s on them, not Williamson.
No, that is not at all my rationale and you're allegiance to +Williamson is clouding clear thinking.
A gratuitous post which ignores the substance of my response.No, what I said answers directly your response, otoh, you are blinding yourself for the sake of defending the good bishop whom *we all* care deeply for.
No, what I said answers directly your response, otoh, you are blinding yourself for the sake of defending the good bishop whom *we all* care deeply for.
You're lumping of Fr. Hewko as a renegade priest is irrelevant, even tho I agree he's a renegade, he is still a priest and can save a dying soul - IF he has the holy oil to do it.
You’re in a rut. This has already been explained to you.
Your "explanation" was clearly false. Here Bishop Williamson explicitly states that he would give him the Holy Oils on the condition that he publicly came out and assented to the legitimacy of "several" NO "Eucharistic miracles". There are no other conditions laid out.
From a former Hewkonian:Here are the souls being harmed, those who depend upon Fr. Hewko for Sacraments, specifically Extreme Unction and Baptism. Can these souls be saved without the Holy Oils? Yes, of course. Our Lord can save whom He Wills. Surely He saved the souls of numerous Japanese Catholics during the period of geopolitical persecution and isolation.
“22. As we have been manipulated by Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko to think of and label Bishop Williamson and his flock of faithful sheep as the “fake and false Resistance”, the damage has been great to the Catholic Resistance at large. The terms “fake and false Resistance” were devised in order to control the faithful in a propaganda campaign against the Bishop Williamson enemies of the so called “true Resistance”. We have been deceived and divided by what can be argued as a personal battle between the leaders of Boston, Kentucky and their adherents with those who follow Bishop Williamson as their leader. This has been devastating to the Resistance fight for the Catholic Faith. When will Father Hewko do the right thing, and repair the damage that he has caused?”
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/problems-questions-and-considerations-regarding-fr-hewko/
A second issue of complaint stemming from Your Lordship’s words to Fr. Hewko is that Your Lordship is morally obligated to give oils to him (or any other renegade priest on the planet, regardless of his positions, for the good of their faithful), or it is tantamount to “weaponizing” the sacraments.
Here are the souls being harmed, those who depend upon Fr. Hewko for Sacraments, specifically Extreme Unction and Baptism. Can these souls be saved without the Holy Oils? Yes, of course. Our Lord can save whom He Wills. Surely He saved the souls of numerous Japanese Catholics during the period of geopolitical persecution and isolation.
It’s unfortunate, but there are now people who are more or less trapped so far as “following” Fr. Hewko. This is why God does not intend Catholics to operate like Protestants! The adults can swallow their pride and return to the SSPX or other places, but enough time has passed that there are children who’ve grown up knowing no other “church” save the Mass whose priest they “follow.”
Should Bp. W. give oils for the sake of these? I think so, but apparently His Excellency thinks not.
The very fact that there are six, going on seven pages of discussion on CI of this matter, a forum whose members are not dependent upon Fr. Hewko for Mass and Sacraments proves that souls are in harm’s way.
No, Bp. W. is NOT obliged to give oils to every crazy person who asks. The question here is whether Fr. Hewko is a crazy person.
He said what? When and where? Maybe he had the wrong Teresa?Here is the sermon, his comment begins at the 11 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjS4JPDPeB8&t=655s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjS4JPDPeB8&t=655s)
Let's not make it a battle of interpretations.
I sent +Williamson the following email, and if he responds, I will post his reply:
Greetings Your Lordship-
Last week, Fr. Hewko published an email correspondence between him and yourself which contained the following passage:
“Reverend,
When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.
Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.”
Some online commentators are construing Your Lordship’s words as requiring belief in Novus Ordo miracles as a prerequisite for the reception of holy oils, while others are saying this is simply Your Lordship’s way of telling Fr. Hewko to buzz off (not just because of disagreement on this issue, but 10 others over the years as well), by requiring a condition Your Lordship knows he won’t accept.
In this matter, the Hewkonians have found an ally in the sedevacantists, since both consider Novus Ordo miracles impossible (the sedes, because they allege the Mass is per se invalid; the Hewkonians because they think it would mean God is endorsing the new Mass).
A second issue of complaint stemming from Your Lordship’s words to Fr. Hewko is that Your Lordship is morally obligated to give oils to him (or any other renegade priest on the planet, regardless of his positions, for the good of their faithful), or it is tantamount to “weaponizing” the sacraments.
May I request an additional comment from Your Lordship to clarify your thoughts on:-Whether belief in Novus Ordo miracles is required in order to receive holy oils;
-A response to those who say Your Lordship is required to give oils to anyone who requests them
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
+Williamson responds:Sounds an awful lot like Fr. Paul Robinson touting the 'scientific evidence' behind the Big Bang.
Dear Sean,
It is clear and repeated denial of true scientific evidence which renders anyone guilty of one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Ghost. Let anybody in doubt look them up.
Common sense says that precious gifts of God should hardly be handed out to people hardly able to appreciate reality.
God bless, BpW.
Sounds an awful lot like Fr. Paul Robinson touting the 'scientific evidence' behind the Big Bang.
In the most recent Kolbe report, highlighting Fr. Robinson emphasizing the "science" over the supernatural (this report was posted here but I can't find it now):
Presenting what he purports to be scientific data, Fr. Robinson asserts that Reason is not to be ignored and, thus, insists we must reject Genesis as traditionally understood. It is true that “faith and reason can never come into conflict.” But the reasoning must be sound. The theories Fr. Robinson promotes do contradict the text of Genesis, and also the Church Fathers and Doctors. The problem, however, is not with the words of Moses and tradition, but with the theories The Realist Guide promotes.
Ironically, even the local bishop at Sokółka won't absolutely declare this a true miracle but simple concludes "The case of Sokółka does not contradict the faith of the Church, but rather confirms it.” More Novus Ordo ambiguity.
Are the phony miracles associated with the canonizations of Paul VI 'scientific' and therefore belief in them grounds for receiving Holy Oils? Where does one draw the line with Novus Ordo miracles? It is clear that this is completely arbitrary on Bp. Williamson's part.
Firstly, nobody depends upon Fr. Hewko for sacraments:I guess the situation has deteriorated beyond what I imagined. I knew Fr. Hewko when he was still with the Society and for a few years afterward, but haven’t attended a Mass or had any personal contact since he was still in Boston, KY. That situation with the warlock was very bad. I separated myself from it and everyone who had anything to do with it in 2015.
His “faithful” are perfectly content to go years without any sacraments (in order to be “faithful!”).
There are validly ordained priests all around them whom they could approach, but they choose not to.
As for the length of the thread getting stretched by those not “dependent” upon Hewko for sacraments, I would say firstly that you are deceived regarding the identity of some of this thread’s posters, and secondly that it is their preference for Hewko which is placing them in harm’s way, and not the fact that Williamson won’t facilitate that poisoned ministry:
Was it not Hewko himself who sold his “faithful” that stupid bill of goods by which they must shun all other clergy but himself (eg., red-lighting SSPX Mass attendance, etc.)?
+Williamson responds: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.
Dear Sean,
It is clear and repeated denial of true scientific evidence which renders anyone guilty of one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Ghost. Let anybody in doubt look them up.
Common sense says that precious gifts of God should hardly be handed out to people hardly able to appreciate reality.
God bless, BpW.
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.
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'd also like to add that it is related in Our Lady of Fatima by W. T. Walsh that most of the priests initially rejected the apparitions. Were they sinning against the Holy Ghost? Who'd dare say such a thing?
I wonder if belief in Garabandal and whatever the other false apparitions Williamson promotes are also required for salvation.
"The Chewbacca Defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation.2 The defense dates back to the 1998 episode of South Park, "Chef Aid," where a parody of legendary lawyer Johnnie Cochran defends his clients by talking about how Chewbacca, an 8-foot-tall Wookie, "lives on the planet Endor." It is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument."
Of course you do.When Williamson dies who will be your next infallible guide?
+Williamson responds:
Dear Sean,
It is clear and repeated denial of true scientific evidence which renders anyone guilty of one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Ghost. Let anybody in doubt look them up.
Common sense says that precious gifts of God should hardly be handed out to people hardly able to appreciate reality.
God bless, BpW.
It's perplexing, but I don't automatically have ill-will against him for this, as some here do.
Until now, I've not seem that +W ever required anyone to fall in line with any of his views or opinions regarding the New Mass, or New Mass miracles. It's perplexing, but I don't automatically have ill-will against him for this, as some here do.Catholic instinct would be that a small dose of poison is as bad as the whole. The new religion is a religion of universal compromise not universal truth.
Maybe it has to do with the lack of charity of certain traditionalists, in that they believe that the New Mass is completely evil, as is the conciliar church, and that both are completely devoid of anything Catholic. I think that this is the idea that +W is rebelling against, but maybe I'm wrong. He seems to believe that the hardline trads are not able to appreciate reality. Fr. Hewko in particular definitely has within himself a big problem with a lack of charity toward all those who don't agree with him.
If the new mass is valid, but illicit (as +ABL held), then there may be a possibility of miracles associated with it. I think that's what +W really means by all of this, but I could be wrong. I too believe that the new mass is valid but illicit.
Catholic instinct would be that a small dose of poison is as bad as the whole. The new religion is a religion of universal compromise not universal truth.
An anomaly isn't the rule. The novus ordo is a schismatic rite which destroys Catholic belief in many doctrines. Just have nothing to do with it besides rescuing souls from it. Pray for each other that we keep the Faith.
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.
Until now, I've not seem that +W ever required anyone to fall in line with any of his views or opinions regarding the New Mass, or New Mass miracles. It's perplexing, but I don't automatically have ill-will against him for this, as some here do.
Maybe it has to do with the lack of charity of certain traditionalists, in that they believe that the New Mass is completely evil, as is the conciliar church, and that both are completely devoid of anything Catholic.
I don't think anyone really has bad will against Bishop Williamson (except for SSPX, perhaps, and Bishop? Pfeiffer, and to a lesser extent Father Hewko).
I like Bishop Williamson very much.
But I think he's going off the rails here, as others have said; he's even doubling down by holding the rejection of NO "Eucharistic miracles" to be tantamount (loosely speaking I hope) to a sin against the Holy Ghost. Never has the Catholic Church required belief in private miracles and private revelations. I could see some other reasons for Bishop Williamson not wanting to cooperate with Father Hewko, but this?
I don't think anyone really has bad will against Bishop Williamson (except for SSPX, perhaps, and Bishop? Pfeiffer, and to a lesser extent Father Hewko).
I like Bishop Williamson very much.
But I think he's going off the rails here, as others have said; he's even doubling down by holding the rejection of NO "Eucharistic miracles" to be tantamount (loosely speaking I hope) to a sin against the Holy Ghost. Never has the Catholic Church required belief in private miracles and private revelations. I could see some other reasons for Bishop Williamson not wanting to cooperate with Father Hewko, but this?
My guess is that he made a lame excuse to deny the oils, and now he doesn't want to take it back.
Description of the Sokolka incident (2008):
https://fargodiocese.net/news/the-eucharistic-miracle-of-sokolka
Description of a similar incident in Utah (2015):
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33173/utah-diocese-miracles-happen-the-bleeding-host-wasnt-one
Description of a similar incident in Minnesota (2011):
https://www.startribune.com/archdiocese-blood-red-host-not-a-miracle-but-result-of-fungus/135600233/
https://www.startribune.com/blood-red-host-is-no-miracle-lab-tests-show/135632408/
Description of a similar incident in New Jersey (2020):
http://www.livedigitaleditions.com/publication/?i=652763&article_id=3620539&view=articleBrowser
The last three were proven to be a red bread fungus by laboratory scientists.
Yeah, so ... according to Sean Johnson's initial speculation as well. If that's the case, +Williamson really should articulate the REAL reasons, because this is misleading to the faithful, giving the impression that acceptance of NO "Eucharistic miracles" is a requirement to be Catholic and to not sin against the Holy Ghost.
In fact, there are other researchers who are skeptical about the alleged “miracle”. But Bishop Williamson does not tell his readers about them. For example, Professor Lech Chyczewski, one of Sobaniec-Lotowaska’s own colleagues at the same medical university in Bialystok, Poland, disagrees with her. He criticized the way his colleague (Sobaniec-Lotowaska) carried out her test on which Bishop Williamson relies. Id. Chyczewski added that Sobaniec-Lotowaska saw what she wanted to see and that she has an emotional approach to faith. Id.
Another inconvenient point for those supporting the supposed Sokolka “miracle” is that Dr. Pawel Grzesiowskia (a biologist from Poland’s National Medical Institute) proposes a natural (bacterial) explanation for the “red discoloration” in the host. Id.
There are many levels on which Bishop Williamson acts rashly concerning these false “miracles”. First, it is obvious that the devil greatly gains when people promote “miracles” which lend credence to the conciliar revolution, which is his work. It would be very easy for the devil to work these false “miracles”, through both natural and preternatural means.
Further, besides the devil’s interest in promoting these “miracles”, it is natural for conciliar Catholics to want to believe that God is working in their revolutionary church. These conciliar Catholics should know by the natural law that they have a duty to be God-centered and might even naturally yearn for this. Yet they plainly belong to a man-centered (false) conciliar religion. It is only natural for conciliar Catholics to want to quiet the “little voice” inside themselves by latching onto these conciliar “miracles” which purport to “show” that God approves of their man-centered conciliar religion.
Also, there are other conciliar Catholics who try to “canonize” the conciliar revolution by promoting conciliar “miracles” and “visions” (such as Medjugorje). A prudent Traditional Catholic would no more accept the conciliar church promoting “miracles” at the new mass than he would accept “miracles” attributed to so-called “saint” John Paul II.
.... misleading to the faithful, giving the impression that acceptance of NO "Eucharistic miracles" is a requirement to be Catholic and to not sin against the Holy Ghost.Actually, he said the sin against the Holy Ghost is the "repeated denial of true scientific evidence" and not the "acceptance of NO 'Eucharistic miracles.' " The qualifying condition is that the evidence must be both "scientific" and "true." If the evidence is speculative, falsified, or even disputed, then the condition the bishop states regarding the sinfulness of the denial will not apply.
Very well written article about these alleged NO miracles, including some citations from "scientists" who disagree with even the scientific conclusion:
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-bad-fruits-miracles
... and ...
Fr. Raphael Arizaga, OSB
Does anyone know who this priest is?
+Williamson responds:
Dear Sean,
It is clear and repeated denial of true scientific evidence which renders anyone guilty of one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Ghost. Let anybody in doubt look them up.
Common sense says that precious gifts of God should hardly be handed out to people hardly able to appreciate reality.
God bless, BpW.
It seems to me that if the good bishop sincerely believes these miraculous fruits come from the Novus Ordo Missae, he should reconcile with the church who authored it. If the NO missae comes from the Church and is thus valid, good and holy (in some cases?), what was the purpose of defending the Tridentine Mass all of these years?
It looks like the "Catholic Candle" website is run by a layman, who doesn't provide his name, and that's fine. He says that he attends a mass offered by a Fr. Rafael, from Mexico, but that they don't have a bishop, and that they are the "Real Resistance."
Does anyone know who this priest is? He isn't sedevacantist, since the website owner warns against sedevacantism as being schismatic. The website owner also has big problems with the Resistance under Bp. Williamson, as well as the SSPX.
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/living-in-the-catacombs-for-fifty-plus-years-with-no-end-in-sight
It seems to me that if the good bishop sincerely believes these miraculous fruits come from the Novus Ordo Missae, he should reconcile with the church who authored it. If the NO missae comes from the Church and is thus valid, good and holy (in some cases?), what was the purpose of defending the Tridentine Mass all of these years?
When Williamson dies who will be your next infallible guide?
I will gladly attack any eccentrics who believe in any dogmas proclaimed after 1950.
Judging from Bp. Williamson's response posted by Sean Johnson, the good bishop has apparently become much more eccentric than usual lately.
I have a huge respect for him, but somethings simply cannot be accepted.
Bogus Marian apparitions, Valtorta, attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass, and now, the "reality" of a "miracle".:facepalm:
Yeah, scientific "evidence" is regularly being debunked.
And, if there is one that stands up to scientific scrutiny, there's always the possibility that the devil could have simulated such "miracles". It would be a very simple matter for the devil to swap out the bread for a piece of heart tissue, with the correct blood type (matching the Shroud, for instance), etc.
Actually, he said the sin against the Holy Ghost is the "repeated denial of true scientific evidence" and not the "acceptance of NO 'Eucharistic miracles.' " The qualifying condition is that the evidence must be both "scientific" and "true." If the evidence is speculative, falsified, or even disputed, then the condition the bishop states regarding the sinfulness of the denial will not apply.
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.
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.Right? Could you imagine if this was Father Cekada or Bishop Sanborn? :laugh1:
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.
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 note you are always emphasizing the possibility the evidence could be tampered with, bunk, diabolic, etc.
What you never allow is that it is possibly authentic (i.e., even the possibility is a priori unacceptable/impossible).
That's YOUR error, not Williamson's.
1) You are arguing over semantics since God is supposedly using that “rite” as a vehicle to display his miraculous powers.
2) I disagree. There is no precedent for God using a false rite to perform miracles and why would He confirm the truth of the real presence by using that abomination?
2) It does not follow that because there is (possibly) a miracle, the rite is to be lauded.:facepalm:
For example, I give an exactly opposite reason why God would (possibly) perform a Eucharistic miracle at the No us Ordo:6 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-6.htm)Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. (Matt 7)
To instill belief in the real presence, which the Novus Ordo attacks.
I disagree. There is no precedent for God using a false rite to perform miracles and why would He confirm the truth of the real presence by using that abomination?Agree, God has told us He would not act in this way. Not even those that work miracles, are 100% from God.
This fighting between two traditional men with Holy Orders is probably the saddest thing I've seen on this forum. Can't one of them take the high road? Is the counsel of Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount just theoretical and not practical? "Blessed are the peacemakers..." We are supposed to be the Cream of the Crop among Catholics. No one ever said that the virtue of Charity is easy. What's happened to us? "...if you have anything against your neighbor, make amends before you bring your gift to the altar"....."Lord, how many times must I forgive my neighbor, seven times? "No, Peter, seventy times seven." I've lost tons of respect for both of them. And I do hope that +Zendejas doesn't figure in to Fr. Hewko's having to beg for Oils from His Grace. Why would FrH have to appeal to +Williamson way across the sea when he could receive them locally? Unless....
Right? Could you imagine if this was Father Cekada or Bishop Sanborn? :laugh1:Well, +Bp. W. HAS noticeably aged the last couple of years. His speech has slowed down and he no longer thunders as before. Sometimes he forgets and pauses to search for words. This isn’t a personal criticism or finding of fault, simply an observation of reality.
On a serious note, however....is it possible that there is something seriously wrong with Bishop Williamson (cognitively speaking)? These comments seem totally imbalanced.
This thread has little to do with Eucharistic miracles and everything to do with a defiant priest very publicly and energetically attacking the sole faithful bishop of the SSPX, to the point of "Fake Resistance", and then expecting his support.
Why the attack on Bishop Williamson by this priest, Fr David Hewko? For holding opinions that are not forbidden by the Catholic Faith.
This is not at all about Eucharisitc miracles - Bishop Williamson is as good as saying to Fr Hewko that he will come to his succour the moment he publicly apologises for his outrageous attacks and publicly reconciles with the bishop he should never have separated from. As the Bishop says, he needs to choose.
This thread has little to do with Eucharistic miracles and everything to do with a defiant priest very publicly and energetically attacking the sole faithful bishop of the SSPX, to the point of "Fake Resistance", and then expecting his support.Preach it, Pardner! :cowboy:
Why the attack on Bishop Williamson by this priest, Fr David Hewko? For holding opinions that are not forbidden by the Catholic Faith.
This is not at all about Eucharisitc miracles - Bishop Williamson is as good as saying to Fr Hewko that he will come to his succour the moment he publicly apologises for his outrageous attacks and publicly reconciles with the bishop he should never have separated from. As the Bishop says, he needs to choose.
Publishing this correspondence of his with the good Bishop is the latest of the miserable attempts of Fr Hewko at self-justification. Nothing could give BW clearer proof of his unrepentance.
The idea that BW ought to accede to the requests of this priest without his publicly reconciling with him are utterly outrageous and neither for the glory of God nor the salvation of souls. Fr Hewko has led faithful all around the world down a dead end of no priests, no sacraments, no Church... there are faithful of his that are already effectively at this point, so isolated are they from this "one faithful priest" (!) that they will never receive another sacrament before they die.
Only one thing must happen: this delinquent priest must fall on his knees and ask Bishop Williamson forgiveness and get back to work with the other good priests advancing the Kingdom of God on Earth.
Let us pray that he does that.
Preach it, Pardner! :cowboy:
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.
1) You are arguing over semantics since God is supposedly using that “rite” as a vehicle to display his miraculous powers.
2) I disagree. There is no precedent for God using a false rite to perform miracles and why would He confirm the truth of the real presence by using that abomination?
You're changing the subject, Johnson. Burden of Proof here +Williamson, since has declared it a requirement to be in "his Church" and to avoid sinning against the Holy Spirit. You're entitled to your opinion, even though you're wrong. But the problem here is that of +Williamson effectively dogmatizing the issue.
Don't get sucked in here by Johnson, who's deliberately changing the subject. We've debated about whether God WOULD work miracles through the NOM. Since we're not God, it's purely speculative on both sides. I think Johnson is wrong, but that's NOT the issue here. What's at issue is +Williamson's dogmatizing the NO "Eucharistic miracles", characterizing them as a requirement to be in "his Church", to receive Holy Oils, and to avoid sinning against the Holy Ghost.
Sean needs to defend that assertion from +Williamson and not the possibility that the NO "Eucharistic miracles" might be legit. He's been sidestepping that by distraction, arguing about the NO "miracles" instead.
:facepalm:
Christ tells us, emphatically, that bad trees (i.e. new mass) cannot bear good fruit (miracles). He also begins this lesson by telling us to "beware of false prophets". It really can't get any clearer.
15 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-15.htm)Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-16.htm)By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-17.htm)Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-18.htm)A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-19.htm)Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-20.htm)Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. (Matthew ch 7)
6 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-6.htm)Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. (Matt 7)
Agree, God has told us He would not act in this way. Not even those that work miracles, are 100% from God.
21 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-21.htm)Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-22.htm)Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/7-23.htm)And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. (Matt 7)
“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” Matthew 24:24.
This fighting between two traditional men with Holy Orders is probably the saddest thing I've seen on this forum. Can't one of them take the high road? Is the counsel of Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount just theoretical and not practical? "Blessed are the peacemakers..." We are supposed to be the Cream of the Crop among Catholics. No one ever said that the virtue of Charity is easy. What's happened to us? "...if you have anything against your neighbor, make amends before you bring your gift to the altar"....."Lord, how many times must I forgive my neighbor, seven times? "No, Peter, seventy times seven." I've lost tons of respect for both of them. And I do hope that +Zendejas doesn't figure in to Fr. Hewko's having to beg for Oils from His Grace. Why would FrH have to appeal to +Williamson way across the sea when he could receive them locally? Unless....
It's petty and childish, with little regard paid to the good of souls. They're not even bickering about anything of serious import to the Catholic faith here.
This thread has little to do with Eucharistic miracles and everything to do with a defiant priest very publicly and energetically attacking the sole faithful bishop of the SSPX, to the point of "Fake Resistance", and then expecting his support.
Why the attack on Bishop Williamson by this priest, Fr David Hewko? For holding opinions that are not forbidden by the Catholic Faith.
This is not at all about Eucharisitc miracles - Bishop Williamson is as good as saying to Fr Hewko that he will come to his succour the moment he publicly apologises for his outrageous attacks and publicly reconciles with the bishop he should never have separated from. As the Bishop says, he needs to choose.
Publishing this correspondence of his with the good Bishop is the latest of the miserable attempts of Fr Hewko at self-justification. Nothing could give BW clearer proof of his unrepentance.
The idea that BW ought to accede to the requests of this priest without his publicly reconciling with him are utterly outrageous and neither for the glory of God nor the salvation of souls. Fr Hewko has led faithful all around the world down a dead end of no priests, no sacraments, no Church... there are faithful of his that are already effectively at this point, so isolated are they from this "one faithful priest" (!) that they will never receive another sacrament before they die.
Only one thing must happen: this delinquent priest must fall on his knees and ask Bishop Williamson forgiveness and get back to work with the other good priests advancing the Kingdom of God on Earth.
Let us pray that he does that.
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.
So you're saying that Bishop Williamson is a liar? He stated very concretely that it is "all about Eucharistic miracles" (as you put it) in terms of whether he'd give Father Hewko the Holy Oils, that denying the NO "miracles" means that he's not in the "same Church" that he's in and that it's tantamount to a sin against the Holy Ghost.
Why the attack on Bishop Williamson by this priest, Fr David Hewko? For holding opinions that are not forbidden by the Catholic Faith.
Too bad he's a liar and completely distorted what Bishop Williamson said.
My personal observation is that Bishop Williamson is going down the Thuc way. I fear that his love of dwelling on matters not related to the Faith he insists must be taken as the absolute truth is going to confuse souls even further. It's sad.
As an aside, has His Excellency stated his views one way or the other regarding the Flat Earth/Globe Earth debate?
No, but obviously he would say that is only for dipshits (as anyone with a sound mind would know immediately).
Gee, the Asian Accordist pretending sorrow for the "decline" of Williamson.
As if that wasn't predictable.
:facepalm:
If jokers like you are going to go around labelling others as Accordists just because they happen not to agree with everything said by your idol Bishop Williamson, I feel really sorry for you.
Too bad he's a liar and completely distorted what Bishop Williamson said.Take it up with Ladislaus. I’m not into arguing about the matter.
Why woud Williamson reconcile with the conciliar church?+Williamson CLEARLY implies the Novus Ordo is good and holy when he says,
Also: Please provide a quote of Williamson describing the Novus Ordo rite as "good and holy."
+Williamson CLEARLY implies the Novus Ordo is good and holy when he says,
"Attending the New Mass can build your faith.
"Not everyone needs to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass.
"Attending the Novus Ordo may do more good than harm spiritually."
All direct quotes taken from +Williamson's infamous Mahopac, NY talk.
Or perhaps even worse, "Not every priest needs to leave the Conciliar church or stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass" - taken from a talk in 2014 in St. Catharine's Ontario.
Anyone can see he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. "Let your yes be yes and your no be no," Christ said.
And yet the same schizophrenic Loudestmouth said in post #47:
"Maybe, but, as Sean suggested, he really wasn't "speaking his mind". +Williamson had other reasons for not wanting to help out Father Hewko besides the stated reason of his not accepting NO Eucharistic miracles"
This was BEFORE you posted the direct response he made to you, Johnson, where he reiterated the demand and explained why ... that it would be tantamount to a sin against the Holy Ghost.
+Williamson saying new Mass is intrinsically evil (https://isle-of-patmos.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Miscellaneous/Bishop Williamson New Mass & Satanic Mass are both Valid & illicit, both are Evil.mp4)
How can valid miracles be generated in something so evil?
:popcorn:
Everyone will note how Johnson is constantly changing the subject and attempting to distract from having to deal with the central problem here.
Bishop Williamson responded to him directly, doubling down on his condition that Father Hewko accept the NOM "Eucharistic miracles", making statements along the lines of someone being required to do so in order to ...
1) be in the same Church he is
2) avoid sinning against the Holy Ghost, and
3) receive Holy Oils
I know that you believe in the NOM "miracles", Johnson, but will you defend the above? You've desperately avoided touching this subject with one distraction after another because you're always trying to shill for Bishop Williamson, and yet at the same time no thinking Catholic can possibly agree with the above assertions, since it's pretty basic knowledge that Catholics are not required to believe in any private revelations.
Everyone will note how Johnson is constantly changing the subject and attempting to distract from having to deal with the central problem here.
Bishop Williamson responded to him directly, doubling down on his condition that Father Hewko accept the NOM "Eucharistic miracles", making statements along the lines of someone being required to do so in order to ...
1) be in the same Church he is (i.e., in order to be a Catholic)
2) avoid sinning against the Holy Ghost, and
3) receive Holy Oils
I know that you believe in the NOM "miracles", Johnson, but will you defend the above? You've desperately avoided touching this subject with one distraction after another because you're always trying to shill for Bishop Williamson, and yet at the same time no thinking Catholic can possibly agree with the above assertions, since it's pretty basic knowledge that Catholics are not required to believe in any private revelations.
This.
Please quit posting such feeble arguments.
Actually, he said the sin against the Holy Ghost is the "repeated denial of true scientific evidence" and not the "acceptance of NO 'Eucharistic miracles.' " The qualifying condition is that the evidence must be both "scientific" and "true." If the evidence is speculative, falsified, or even disputed, then the condition the bishop states regarding the sinfulness of the denial will not apply.
I think what “everyone will note” is how you keep getting refuted, and are starting to have another one of your typical hissy fits because of it.No Sean, you are not refuting anything. Lad is right, every time a worthy point is brought up, you ignore it, change the subject, and throw in an ad hominem or two. Either you're reading comprehension is in need of improvement or you're purposely ignoring / changing what is being said. Just FYI.
Quit being such a toady to Bishop Williamson. He'd be better served if people would disagree with him about some of his assertions than to be surrounded by a bunch of kiss-ups and brown-nosers. Since you're in e-mail contact with him, be a man and question him regarding his statements to the effect that Catholics are required (as a condition of remaining in the Church) to believe in these miracles, and that it's tantamount to a sin against the Holy Ghost to not believe in them. There's no precedent ever, anywhere, in Catholic theology backing these assertions. Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations and miracles. Period. You can tell him that you understand that his problems with Father Hewko run deeper, but that those do not justify these false statements he's made.
No Sean, you are not refuting anything. Lad is right, every time a worthy point is brought up, you ignore it, change the subject, and throw in an ad hominem or two. Either you're reading comprehension is in need of improvement or you're purposely ignoring / changing what is being said. Just FYI.
Since Johnson keeps bloviating about this post, he's CLEARLY applying that principles concretely to the case of NO "Eucharistic miracles," citing the latter as an example of this principle. Pathetic that Johnson thinks this "refutes" anything.
Projection.No, reality. Face it.
No, reality. Face it.
So you're saying that Bishop Williamson is a liar? He stated very concretely that it is "all about Eucharistic miracles" (as you put it) in terms of whether he'd give Father Hewko the Holy Oils, that denying the NO "miracles" means that he's not in the "same Church" that he's in and that it's tantamount to a sin against the Holy Ghost.All that time in the American seminary, and you don't know the man? Or perhaps you know him better than I. You may be right. At any rate, that is how it appears to me, but perhaps I am projecting my beliefs onto the good Bishop.
Quit being such a toady to Bishop Williamson. He'd be better served if people would disagree with him about some of his assertions than to be surrounded by a bunch of kiss-ups and brown-nosers. Since you're in e-mail contact with him, be a man and question him regarding his statements to the effect that Catholics are required (as a condition of remaining in the Church) to believe in these miracles, and that it's tantamount to a sin against the Holy Ghost to not believe in them. There's no precedent ever, anywhere, in Catholic theology backing these assertions. Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations and miracles. Period. You can tell him that you understand that his problems with Father Hewko run deeper, but that those do not justify these false statements he's made.
In other words, the dogmatic sede wants revenge for SSPXers and Resistance questioning the validity of Thuc consecrations, and means to get that ball rolling here and now.No, I am noting the clear hypocrisy on this forum by certain posters. Many of those defending Bishop Williamson's comments would not have given any benefit of the doubt to the likes of Father Cekada or Bishop Sanborn.
:facepalm:
I agree with this…☝️☝️☝️
Frankly, he lost me when he endorsed Valtorta.
No, I am noting the clear hypocrisy on this forum by certain posters. Many of those defending Bishop Williamson's comments would not have given any benefit of the doubt to the likes of Father Cekada or Bishop Sanborn.
However, I am trying to give the Bishop the benefit of the doubt regarding his comments rather than jump all over him.
My personal observation is that Bishop Williamson is going down the Thuc way. I fear that his love of dwelling on matters not related to the Faith he insists must be taken as the absolute truth is going to confuse souls even further. It's sad.What do you mean by this?
A curious statement coming from a sede (i.e., you were never on board with him in the first place).
How, then, could he have "lost you?"
Sean, you should know I’m not a dogmatic sede. I’ve stated that many times in the past. I gained a lot of respect for him during his ouster from the SSPX for his steadfastness.
Ahhh, so +W does have a PR manager…it’s Sean, the revisionist, double-speak-interpreter. Too bad +W didn’t talk to Sean BEFORE he created another theological snafu.
Seems +W and Sean are being pulled, inch by inch, to the left by their admiration for +Vigano, who has a doubtful consecration and who may argue (I’m not certain but it’s probable) that the new mass is “theoretically” ok.
+Vigano is right on many things but he’s also unspoken on many important topics. I’d label him an indulter at this point. A good but not a great thing. He’s got a long way to go but seems +W has been prematurely enamored without him. Thus, +W (who criticizes +Fellay and Co for cozying up to new-rome), is cozying up with +Vigano. Both situations lead to indult-world, the land of compromise and (false) peace.
Let’s us all pray for +W. He needs it. The fight isn’t over.
I agree with this…☝️☝️☝️
Frankly, he lost me when he endorsed Valtorta.
I wonder if Fr. Hewko gave a recent (or maybe not so recent) talk or sermon about New Mass miracles. There must be something that set off +W in this regard, to cause +W to require this stipulation about believing in New Mass miracles. I'm fine with believing that miracles could happen in a New Mass, as Sean's catechetical refutation points out that every time that transubstantiation occurs in the New Mass (when it does occur), a miracle takes place. That makes sense. There must be a further reason why +W is taking this stance of needing this requirement for holy oils being provided to the very uncharitable Fr. Hewko.
That in turn is proof that Williamson does not really believe that belief in NOM miracles is a dogma of the faith.
So you're calling him a liar. He doesn't "really" believe it. He's said it several times now, in different ways, and doubled down on the claim when you wrote him.
I don't think he's lying. You are, deliberately distorting what he actually said in the interests of your shilling.
The illusion Lad is trying to create bursts once one considers that, were Williamson talking to anyone besides Hewko, no such "condition" would be erected.
That in turn is proof that Williamson does not really believe that belief in NOM miracles is a dogma of the faith.
A little common sense would have suggested that to anyone without an agenda.
I sent +Williamson the following email, and if he responds, I will post his reply:
Greetings Your Lordship-
...
Some online commentators are construing Your Lordship’s words as requiring belief in Novus Ordo miracles as a prerequisite for the reception of holy oils, while others are saying this is simply Your Lordship’s way of telling Fr. Hewko to buzz off (not just because of disagreement on this issue, but 10 others over the years as well), by requiring a condition Your Lordship knows he won’t accept.
...
+Williamson responds:
Dear Sean,
It is clear and repeated denial of true scientific evidence which renders anyone guilty of one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Ghost. Let anybody in doubt look them up.
Common sense says that precious gifts of God should hardly be handed out to people hardly able to appreciate reality.
God bless, BpW.
Williamson never counted on Cathinfo morons reading a private "buzz-off" email to Hewko, and thinking (contriving, actually) he was erecting a new dogma.+W said what he said. Now you're spinning what he said, to mean something else. CNN would be proud, Sean.
The illusion Lad is trying to create bursts once one considers that, were Williamson talking to anyone besides Hewko, no such "condition" would be erected.Knowing +Bp. W., this is likely correct. He’s giving Fr. a dose of his own medicine. Try to imagine the bishop intoning the words!
That in turn is proof that Williamson does not really believe that belief in NOM miracles is a dogma of the faith.
A little common sense would have suggested that to anyone without an agenda.
were Williamson talking to anyone besides Hewko, no such "condition" would be erected.I don't believe this and there's no evidence to suggest it. +W's push for acceptance of NO miracles is perfectly consistent with his over-emphasis on other apparitions, and how such affects his theology.
Knowing +Bp. W., this is likely correct. He’s giving Fr. a dose of his own medicine. Try to imagine the bishop intoning the words!
Meg, +W's comments go far beyond just holy oils. You don't think +W made sure that all the Bishops he consecrated agreed with N.O. "miracles"? Based on his previous comments regarding the "maybe, possibly, sometimes it's ok to attend the new mass" then this push for acceptance of miracles, shows that +W is not being led 100% by principles but also by emotion. In matters of doctrine/theology, this is dangerous.
And such thinking probably permeates all of the Resistance. Which leads to a further question: What is the major difference between the Resistance (i.e. accepts the new mass as ok, in theory) and the new-sspx (i.e. same views on the new mass)? Seems to me the only difference is the resistance rejects an agreement with new-rome (similar to +ABL), while the new-sspx wants an agreement. But the underlying principles for both organizations are indult-ish.
+ABL was indult-ish in attitude until 1988, when he finally said 'no!' to new-rome and consecrated bishops. Then +Fellay took over and slowly morphed the sspx back towards the indult mentality. Surprising that the Resistance (i.e. +W's leadership) is also morphing back to the indult mentality.
Did +W not learn anything from +Fellay's maneuverings and manipulations?
Or has +Vigano pulled on +W's heart-strings by his anti-rome writings?
If he's playing some childish mind-games (and, yes, they come across as very childish), then it's highly irresponsible, since a lot of the faithful are influenced by things he says. But, as Pax points out, there's no evidence to suggest it. Not only did he double down, but he even stipulated the exact things Father Hewko would have to do in order to get the Holy Oils.
Meg, +W's comments go far beyond just holy oils. You don't think +W made sure that all the Bishops he consecrated agreed with N.O. "miracles"? Based on his previous comments regarding the "maybe, possibly, sometimes it's ok to attend the new mass" then this push for acceptance of miracles, shows that +W is not being led 100% by principles but also by emotion. In matters of doctrine/theology, this is dangerous.
And such thinking probably permeates all of the Resistance. Which leads to a further question: What is the major difference between the Resistance (i.e. accepts the new mass as ok, in theory) and the new-sspx (i.e. same views on the new mass)? Seems to me the only difference is the resistance rejects an agreement with new-rome (similar to +ABL), while the new-sspx wants an agreement. But the underlying principles for both organizations are indult-ish.
+ABL was indult-ish in attitude until 1988, when he finally said 'no!' to new-rome and consecrated bishops. Then +Fellay took over and slowly morphed the sspx back towards the indult mentality. Surprising that the Resistance (i.e. +W's leadership) is also morphing back to the indult mentality.
Did +W not learn anything from +Fellay's maneuverings and manipulations?
Or has +Vigano pulled on +W's heart-strings by his anti-rome writings?
Why would I or anyone else believe that +W has required all Resistance bishops whom he has consecrated to believe in NO miracles? Fr. Hewko is not a bishop, and he isn't affiliated with +W's branch of the Resistance.That would make a nice middle ground between the sspx and the straight sedes.
I can see why you might think that the Resistance is morphing into an Indult mentality, but really, I think that +W just doesn't want to support fanatics like Fr. Hewko.
What direction would you prefer to see the Resistance morph? Sedeprivationism, perhaps?
Why would I or anyone else believe that +W has required all Resistance bishops whom he has consecrated to believe in NO miracles?At this point, what evidence do we have that he wouldn't? He's endorsed the new mass *sometimes* and also the related "miracles". We even have direct quotes from Fr Chazal that he didn't want to "correct" +W on the new mass snafu, because...(insert sentimental reason).
Fr. Hewko is not a bishop, and he isn't affiliated with +W's branch of the Resistance.He was affiliated with the Resistance in the early days. He was one of the early priests who met in DC with Fr Pfeiffer and others to discuss plans (after being kicked out of the new-sspx) to start the Resistance. I was there personally.
I can see why you might think that the Resistance is morphing into an Indult mentality, but really, I think that +W just doesn't want to support fanatics like Fr. Hewko.That's your opinion, similar to Sean's, which is based on no hard evidence. Based on what +W ACTUALLY said (twice), he's a supporter of the indult (i.e. +Vigano).
What direction would you prefer to see the Resistance morph? Sedeprivationism, perhaps?:laugh1: How about we start with...the direction AWAY FROM V2 and the new mass. That's the whole point of Traditionalism. :facepalm:
Since this was private correspondence, did Bishop Williamson authorize Fr. Hewko to make it public?
If the NOM is valid, gives grace and is producing legitimate miracles (NOT including the miracle of the Consecration itself, but others), then WHY DOES TRADDIELAND EXIST AT ALL????
Unlikely, but irrelevant at this stage. He has no authority over anyone, just like every other vagus cleric in Traddieland.
He said some problematic things, but acting as if they are not, in fact, problematic does not help.
If the NOM is valid, gives grace and is producing legitimate miracles (NOT including the miracle of the Consecration itself, but others), then WHY DOES TRADDIELAND EXIST AT ALL????
Unlikely, but irrelevant at this stage. He has no authority over anyone, just like every other vagus cleric in Traddieland.It's not about authority, it's about revealing private correspondence that was not intended or authorized for public viewing. Bishop Williamson has mountains of public speeches and sermons, so that is where this should be coming from, not private letters that he did not give permission to publish.
He said some problematic things, but acting as if they are not, in fact, problematic does not help.
If the NOM is valid, gives grace and is producing legitimate miracles (NOT including the miracle of the Consecration itself, but others), then WHY DOES TRADDIELAND EXIST AT ALL????
How about the Resistance moves towards Fr Chazal's sede-impoundism? But then, I have to wonder if Fr Chazal even believes his view 100%? Being that he was hesitant to correct +W on the new mass issue, I wonder if Fr Chazal believes that such a bastard rite could still be "ok" to attend, because it could "give grace"?
It's not about authority, it's about revealing private correspondence that was not intended or authorized for public viewing. Bishop Williamson has mountains of public speeches and sermons, so that is where this should be coming from, not private letters that he did not give permission to publish.I don't think anyone here thinks Fr Hewko had the right to make this exchange public; however, that doesn't seem to be an issue for Bishop Williamson as his email to Sean suggests since Sean would never share his response without his approval. It is clear that Bishop Williamson allowed Sean to publish his response and also reiterated what he said in the exchange with Fr Hewko.
Since Johnson keeps bloviating about this post, he's CLEARLY applying that principles concretely to the case of NO "Eucharistic miracles," citing the latter as an example of this principle. Pathetic that Johnson thinks this "refutes" anything.
I agree with this…☝️☝️☝️
Frankly, he lost me when he endorsed Valtorta.
:popcorn:
People tell me, "Stop reading Cathinfo, it's a waste of time!"
I respond: "But... it's an educational resource?"
verb
INFORMAL•US
gerund or present participle: bloviating
- talk at length, especially in an inflated (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=556318805&sxsrf=AB5stBhxz7AZkIsg43rFtskYPNXHqgAEjw:1691851798471&q=inflated&si=ACFMAn-fuhiZynqzEWN5DhRvBVhtTF7Q_H2FBv_VfSqnfttldLHJXy7AhXVHcVnwmiBHiEOQyaG-vf5WWRCerIJtlptRTQB56Q%3D%3D&expnd=1) or empty way.
"when so many people are bloviating, it's easy to dismiss all discourse as chatter"
(https://i.imgur.com/QJtMxfC.png)
Confirmed Sean's Google search for this image was "jive Negro".
Glad Lad helped you find a new word, Incred! That’s wonderful!
Thank you Sean.
BTW, it's Saturday.
Time to get off the computer and do your chores. :cowboy:
It's not about authority, it's about revealing private correspondence that was not intended or authorized for public viewing.
It's not about authority, it's about revealing private correspondence that was not intended or authorized for public viewing.
Bishop Williamson wants to have it both ways: i) there are N.O. miracles, ii) there’s a shadow of doubt with episcopal consecrations.
There can be no consecration of the Eucharist if the priest hasn’t been validly ordained.
Bishop Williamson wants to have it both ways: i) there are N.O. miracles, ii) there’s a shadow of doubt with episcopal consecrations.
There can be no consecration of the Eucharist if the priest hasn’t been validly ordained.
It's not about authority, it's about revealing private correspondence that was not intended or authorized for public viewing. Bishop Williamson has mountains of public speeches and sermons, so that is where this should be coming from, not private letters that he did not give permission to publish.
+Williamson believes neither that the alleged miracles are certainly legitimate (only that there is serious evidence in favor of their authenticity),
Sloppy thinking:
+Williamson believes neither that the alleged miracles are certainly legitimate (only that there is serious evidence in favor of their authenticity) ...
Sean, who are you kidding? Is this a deliberate lie? +Williamson has clearly stated that these miracles are certainly legitimate, that to deny them would be tantamount to a sin against the Holy Ghost, and belief in their legitimacy necessary to be in the same Church he is.
So, we keep getting distractions, on purpose. I agree that Father Hewko should not have revealed this private correspondence without explicit permission from Bishop Williamson. But, then, Sean Johnson also posted an e-mail response he received from Bishop Williamson. But, either way it doesn't matter. That's a distraction, water under the bridge, since the fact remains that the correspondence has been revealed. Nor is it about Father Hewko's history of uncharitably criticizing Bishop Williamson in public or the "bad blood" between the two as a result. Nor is it about arguments one way or the other in favor of or against the legitimacy of the NOM "miracles". Since the Church hasn't ruled on the matter (as Father Hewko rightly points out to Bishop Williamson), anyone has a right to speculate and have a personal opinion about the matter, since it's all in the realm of what we believe God WOULD or WOULD NOT do. Who here can speak for God?
What this is about is Bishop Williamson effectively dogmatizing his view that the NO miracles are legitimate. Even IF the Church were to rule in favor of them, it's still well known that Catholics are not obliged to believe in any private revelations or miracles. There are some here who have impugned Fatima. No other private revelation has received more approbation from the Church, and yet it's still not strictly obligatory for Catholics to believe in Fatima. Sure, it might be rash or arrogant to reject the Church's judgment, but that's as far as it goes. One cannot be effectively excommunicated, declared outside the Church, or denied the Sacraments for not believing in Fatima, and much less so for some NOM "miracles", which have received no more approbation from the actual Church than the canonization of Wojtyla.
We can put aside the distractions.
Latest post on topic here is Sean claiming that Bishop Williamson does not hold the miracles to be certainly true. This is clearly false from Bishop Williamson's revealed correspondences. But perhaps Sean can write Bishop Williamson and ask him directly. Of course, I doubt he believes them to be certainly true with the certainty of faith, but he clearly holds them to be certain on some level, that of moral certainty ... or otherwise he couldn't state that belief in them is necessary to belong to the same Church he's in, making a public profession of belief in them THE condition for receiving Holy Oils for the Sacraments, and declaring it tantamount to a sin against the Holy Spirit to reject them.
How can you sin against the Holy Spirit, be excluded from the Church, and excluded from the Sacraments for rejecting something that is uncertain? Clearly you can't.
Sloppy thinking:
+Williamson believes neither that the alleged miracles are certainly legitimate (only that there is serious evidence in favor of their authenticity), nor that the NREC is certainly invalid (i.e., there is merely a "shadow of a doubt").
Consequently, it remains logically consistent to allow the possibility of a legitimate Eucharistic miracle.
That that possibility is being dismissed in priniciple, a priori, and without any consideration of the evidence, is what he is opposing in Hewko.
No it’s rational thinking. It’s not just he thinks there’s “serious evidence” but he draws a conclusion from the evidence, “I conclude … Our Lord stepped in to work a miracle”:
I conclude … Our Lord stepped in to work a miracle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyu4m_8fdS0)
Therefore, he believes them to be valid, but he also believes there’s a doubt about the validity of N.O. episcopal consecrations…
It’s the equivalent of reading two weather reports ‘it’s raining in New York’ and ‘there are clear skies over New York’ and simultaneously believing them both.
:facepalm: Sean, you mentioned +Ottaviani earlier who said, point blank, that the new mass consecration can be positively doubted. Add in the doubtful ordinations/consecrations and there is MORE doubt.
How you are twisting such to say “probable validity” is just a lie.
Valtorta's notebooks, ushered into the Vatican by Cardinal Augustin Bea, "the "hero of Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations", :jester:
strikes me as having occult properties.
Like many people who visit Medujorge, those who read it become obsessed with it
No it’s rational thinking. It’s not just he thinks there’s “serious evidence” but he draws a conclusion from the evidence, “I conclude … Our Lord stepped in to work a miracle”:
I conclude … Our Lord stepped in to work a miracle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyu4m_8fdS0)
Therefore, he believes them to be valid, but he also believes there’s a doubt about the validity of N.O. episcopal consecrations…
It’s the equivalent of reading two weather reports ‘it’s raining in New York’ and ‘there are clear skies over New York’ and simultaneously believing them both.
6 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=6-#x)And I saw another angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the eternal gospel, to preach unto them that sit upon the earth, and over every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people:
Et vidi alterum angelum volantem per medium caeli, habentem Evangelium aeternum, ut evangelizaret sedentibus super terram, et super omnem gentem, et tribum, et linguam, et populum :7 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=7-#x)Saying with a loud voice: Fear the Lord, and give him honour, because the hour of his judgment is come; and adore ye him, that made heaven and earth, the sea, and the fountains of waters.
dicens magna voce : Timete Dominum, et date illi honorem, quia venit hora judicii ejus : et adorate eum, qui fecit caelum, et terram, mare, et fontes aquarum.8 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=8-#x)And another angel followed, saying: That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen; which made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
Et alius angelus secutus est dicens : Cecidit, cecidit Babylon illa magna : quae a vino irae fornicationis suae potavit omnes gentes.9 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=9-#x)And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice: If any man shall adore the beast and his image, and receive his character in his forehead, or in his hand;Et tertius angelus secutus est illos, dicens voce magna : Si quis adoraverit bestiam, et imaginem ejus, et acceperit caracterem in fronte sua, aut in manu sua :10 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=10-#x)He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels, and in the sight of the Lamb.11 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=11-#x)And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name.
et hic bibet de vino irae Dei, quod mistum est mero in calice irae ipsius, et cruciabitur igne, et sulphure in conspectu angelorum sanctorum, et ante conspectum Agni :
et fumus tormentorum eorum ascendet in saecula saeculorum : nec habent requiem die ac nocte, qui adoraverunt bestiam, et imaginem ejus, et si quis acceperit caracterem nominis ejus.
The Warning will be about three things: the counterfeit Mass, the counterfeit Church and the counterfeit Pope. Those who heed the final Warning will be saved.
So there is no need to posit Bogus Ordo miracles as evidence for God's mercy. God has his own way of showing mercy, and it does not involve propagation of a sacrilegious anti-liturgy through false miracles.
Is it from a private revelation (regarding Sacred Scripture) that you come to the above conclusion?
Only your addled brain would conclude that a doubt + a doubt = certain invalidity.:facepalm: Basic canon law says that we must treat positively doubtful sacraments as invalid. +Ottaviani says we can positively doubt the new mass, ergo we must treat it as invalid.
:facepalm: Basic canon law says that we must treat positively doubtful sacraments as invalid. +Ottaviani says we can positively doubt the new mass, ergo we must treat it as invalid.You are a water head who has no idea what he’s talking about.
You, on the other hand, and contrary to canon law, are arguing for "possible validity" as if that's a good thing. You are minimizing the dangers of positive doubt, and re-defining such as "possible validity"....just because you want to win an argument.
Sean, how many people who don't know as much as you, are you leading down a wrong path, with faulty theology, and ignoring canon law, simply because you want to be right? You have followers, because you are close to +W. I hope you don't forget that if people listen to you, and go to the new mass, or use your faulty arguments (which causes others to go), YOU are responsible. YOU will answer for their attendance at such a bastard rite.
These debates are not simply theoretical. People read and take actions based on what they read.
I provided the evidence in Apocalypse 14:6-11. What is described there is a "warning" from Heaven.
In fact, there are three separate "warnings."
1. "Fear the Lord, and give him honor, because the hour of his judgment is come; and adore ye him, that made heaven and earth, the sea, and the fountains of waters." This part is about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where we show God proper adoration.
2. "That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen; which made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." This part is about the counterfeit Church [Babylon=Rome].
3. "If any man shall adore the beast and his image, and receive his character in his forehead, or in his hand; He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels, and in the sight of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name." This part is about the false Pope being adored and leading Catholics into the abyss of his false Synodal teachings.
So the above is how the Catholic Church has interpreted this part of Scripture? And the official Church teaching says that it pertains to our time, right now?
What Williamson concludes from the Sokolka "evidence" is a theological, not a scientific, conclusion. At timestamp 3:45 he states,
"...what I conclude is that Almighty God is not wanting to abandon a tremendous number of sheep...."
A few points: 1. The only thing that might make this situation a bit more comical and crazy is if Bp. Williamson were to consecrate Fr. Hewko a bishop. Why not? Crazier things have happened in the history of traditional Catholicism.
2. The Church - and correct us if we are wrong in this - has never required an individual to affirm with Catholic assent any miracle contained outside the Deposit of Faith. One is never free to deny the miracles contained in Holy Scripture (miracles of Our Lord), because to do so is to deny the divine authenticity of Holy Scripture. The Depositum Fidei closed with the death of St. John the Evangelist, and Holy Scripture is contained within this Deposit. It has never been known that the Church has censured a Catholic for not believing even in approved apparitions/miracles, e.g. a man could theoretically deny Fatima, deny La Salette, and still be a Catholic.
3. Concerning the New Mass and grace, we must distinguish. One can attend the New Mass and receive actual graces. One could even attend a Clown Mass and receive actual graces. He might see a pretty crucifix in the church or see some lady clutching a rosary, and these are actual graces. But for heaven's sake, a man could receive actual graces at a brothel, e.g. the prostitute might have a picture of the Sacred Heart in her room for all we know - and even this is an actual grace. But one can never say, Visit a brothel because there are actual graces to he had, because Molly Malone has a picture of the Sacred Heart in her room.
The question then becomes, Does the N.O. Mass confer Sanctifying Grace?, and the answer, most traditional Catholics will agree, is no. For this reason we tell Catholics that they may not attend the N.O. Mass because it does not and will not sanctify an individual. Most of the Eucharistic N.O. miracles seem to point back to the New Mass. One says to himself, If it is a valid Eucharistic N.O. miracle, then God must give his approbation to the New Mass. But this is not logical. It is like saying, the Virgin Mary appeared to some good-hearted Jєω in a ѕуηαgσgυє, which led to his conversion, therefore God gives his approbation to Judaism. This is not logical.
4. Maria Valtorta has come up several times in this thread. I read the 1,000 pg. Kindle version of The Poem of the Man-God and did not find it contrary to Catholic Faith. It is not exactly fair to bring up Valtorta in this thread, as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
5. Bp. Williamson was gracious enough to tell me at the dinner table some years ago, "Mr. Shepherd, if you find some woman crazy enough to marry you, fly over to England, I will do the marriage." I was honored that he would say that, but now I must inform any would-be-wife, "Make no mention of N.O. Eucharistic miracles, he might not marry us."
Post Scriptum - I have always been fond of both Bp Williamson and Fr Hewko, and they can be assured of my prayers. At least the Bishop of Broadstairs is consecrating other bishops. No traditional bishops equals no traditional priests, and then the faithful are left with their rosaries, their scapulars, their perfect act of contritions, and their guardian angels.
3. Concerning the New Mass and grace, we must distinguish. One can attend the New Mass and receive actual graces. One could even attend a Clown Mass and receive actual graces. He might see a pretty crucifix in the church or see some lady clutching a rosary, and these are actual graces. But for heaven's sake, a man could receive actual graces at a brothel, e.g. the prostitute might have a picture of the Sacred Heart in her room for all we know - and even this is an actual grace. But one can never say, Visit a brothel because there are actual graces to he had, because Molly Malone has a picture of the Sacred Heart in her room.
The question then becomes, Does the N.O. Mass confer Sanctifying Grace?, and the answer, most traditional Catholics will agree, is no. For this reason we tell Catholics that they may not attend the N.O. Mass because it does not and will not sanctify an individual. Most of the Eucharistic N.O. miracles seem to point back to the New Mass. One says to himself, If it is a valid Eucharistic N.O. miracle, then God must give his approbation to the New Mass. But this is not logical. It is like saying, the Virgin Mary appeared to some good-hearted Jew in a ѕуηαgσgυє, which led to his conversion, therefore God gives his approbation to Judaism. This is not logical.
I provided the evidence in Apocalypse 14:6-11. What is described there is a "warning" from Heaven.
In fact, there are three separate "warnings."
1. "Fear the Lord, and give him honor, because the hour of his judgment is come; and adore ye him, that made heaven and earth, the sea, and the fountains of waters." This part is about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where we show God proper adoration.
2. "That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen; which made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." This part is about the counterfeit Church [Babylon=Rome].
3. "If any man shall adore the beast and his image, and receive his character in his forehead, or in his hand; He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels, and in the sight of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name." This part is about the false Pope being adored and leading Catholics into the abyss of his false Synodal teachings.
So far, the references you have posted don't say anything about a false pope being adored and leading Catholics into the abyss with false synodal teachings. Nor do your references say anything specific about the Mass, or a counterfeit church. Not that these things aren't a possibility, but there's no direct reference for such, nor does it imply that that is what is happening now. These are your interpretations, which you are entitled to, but opinions are just opinions.
Jesus speaks about this problem in Matthew 13:
10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? 11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12 For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. 15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
+ABL was indult-ish in attitude until 1988, when he finally said 'no!' to new-rome and consecrated bishops.You probably meant something completely different, but surely "indult-ish" is not the correct term here.
You probably meant something completely different, but surely "indult-ish" is not the correct term here.Right, not a perfect term. What I meant was, before +ABL cut off ties with new-rome in 1988, he was thinking/pondering "making a deal". He would've effectively become the indult (even though the indult didn't exist until after +ABL cut off ties). Had he made a deal, +ABL would've gotten the "personal prelature" type deal that the new-sspx is trying to get now - independence from new-rome (in the short term), but acceptance (to some degree) of the new mass/V2.
An indult is permission to be an exception to the rule. By accepting an indult, you recognize the rule.
The indulterers who celebrate the Mass of all time officially agree with the modernists that the Novus Ordo is the ordinary rite of the Church, and content themselves with an imagined special permission to use an older rite that they simply have a personal preference for.Yes. This is the path +ABL was on, before 1988.
The Archbishop rightly called the indulterers traitors because they had officially accepted the Novus Ordo. The Mass of all time is the only rite of the Roman Catholic Church, not something to be used by indult.Yes. And +ABL avoided this compromise, thankfully.
What is it that you intend to say, by posting the above quote from Sacred Scripture?
Are you saying that you have a far better and more profound idea of what is going on with the Crisis in the Church, and the rest of us haven't got a clue?
Had he made a deal, +ABL would've gotten the "personal prelature" type deal that the new-sspx is trying to get now - independence from new-rome (in the short term), but acceptance (to some degree) of the new mass/V2.Specifically, the "acceptance to some degree" of the Novus Ordo to which +Lefebvre was ready to sign was only as to the validity of the form. He was never willing to agree to its legitimacy. That is radically different from the indulterers.
Meg, you seemed not to have understood the words of the Apocalypse that I quoted. Nor did you seem to understand the words of the Catechism. In the last Scripture, Jesus referenced those who don't understand his words, and the reason he gave is that some people are hard of heart.
I don't want to fight with you. Frankly, you seem to be very angry about something. I feel sorry for that ,and I hope I have not done something to offend you. If you will read those things in the Apocalypse and the Catechism again with an open heart, asking for the help of the Holy Spirit, I think you might be rewarded.
Maybe you will see something different than I do and can enlighten me.
It's quite simple. I disagree that what you originally wrote is a teaching of the Church. You have not shown that they are teachings. Evidently, not agreeing with you is tantamount to being hard of heart, angry, and offended. On a forum such as this, we debate subjects, which often causes differences of opinion. It's a common thing to do here. Perhaps you haven't noticed that.
Yes, Meg. The Catholic Church has interpreted the Apocalypse and the related Biblical prophecies to be talking about the "apostasy from the truth," which it calls the "Church's ultimate trial."
Below is a quote from the JPII Catechism. Make sure you read all of docuмents and verses referred to in the footnotes. Otherwise, you may not be able to put all of the pieces together. Keep in mind that everything referenced occurs within the context of the Church. It is not "the World's ultimate trial." It is "the Church's ultimate trial."
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1V.HTM#-UO
-----------------------
The Church's ultimate trial
675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.573 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth574 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.575
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.577
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.578 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.579 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.580
573 Cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12.
574 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20.
575 Cf. 2 Th 2:4-12; I Th 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; I Jn 2:1 8, 22.
576 Cf. DS 3839.
577 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21.
578 Cf. Rev 19:1-9.
579 Cf Rev 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4.
580 Cf. Rev 20:12 2 Pt 3:12-13.
-----------------------
The deception occurs within the Church. The deceived are warned just before the "final unleashing of evil.
Oh Meg. Did you forget about this post of mine? The Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated by a Pope that you recognize as a valid Pope, right? Does this JPII Catechism not contain "the teaching of the Church" on the interpretation of end time prophecy?
Specifically, the "acceptance to some degree" of the Novus Ordo to which +Lefebvre was ready to sign was only as to the validity of the form. He was never willing to agree to its legitimacy. That is radically different from the indulterers.If I wrote a book on why Catholicism is false and put a sticky note on it saying everything in the book should be interpreted in accord with the truth, would you accept the book as true?
Similarly, he was ready to accept Vatican II 'as a whole', including the famous Explanatory Note which suicidally allows one to reject the council. This also is different from the indulterers who will accept individual docuмents like Dignitatis Humanae at face value.
If I wrote a book on why Catholicism is false and put a sticky note on it saying everything in the book should be interpreted in accord with the truth, would you accept the book as true?The Note was included in the council text more definitively than a sticky note placed on the cover of a book.
Because that's exactly what that explanatory note nonsense means.
Nothing done after the fact can change what the Council meant.
If you accept the Council you've accepted the Council, whether or not you're pretending it means something different because you have some head-canon sticky note which you like but reject 60 years of encyclicals and other explanations of V2.
Classic picking and choosing, which happens to be the root meaning of heresy from the greek.
I think that this extraordinary, visible, tangible, perceptible, verifiable sign of this manifestation of the blood of the Lord in an obscure community in the midst of the most extreme rurality of our agricultural environment says a lot at this time.
The Note was included in the council text more definitively than a sticky note placed on the cover of a book.Intervention of the Holy Ghost in response to what? Himself? You forgot the part where the Holy Ghost is the author of the Council.
If within your book there was a statement saying I could throw out any part of the book I choose, I would agree to it. Of course, for the sake of avoiding confusion, I would wait until there was a gun on my head, and even then I would sign nothing before making clear that I was using the permission granted by the book to reject everything wrong within it. Meanwhile I would write books and give speeches loudly condemning all those errors.
The Note is 'legal ѕυιcιdє' for the council. A clear intervention of the Holy Ghost.
Intervention of the Holy Ghost in response to what? Himself? You forgot the part where the Holy Ghost is the author of the Council.In an Ecuмenical Council, the Holy Ghost is the Author of the infallible pronouncements therein. Vatican II does not contain a single infallible pronouncement. In fact, both conciliar popes explicitly stated, 'We will not define anything in this council'. Consequently, I cannot even see how Vatican II could possibly be a Council (capital 'C').
So, after the promulgation of the Council and before the addition of the note we had the Church teaching unacceptable heresies but afterwards it's all good?
Insane.
And this is all on your false premise that the note means you can throw out anything you want. IT DOESN'T!!! IT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN THAT EVEYTHING INSIDE CAN BE RECONCILED WITH TRADITION USING MODERNIST MENTAL GYMNASTICS/EVOLUTION OF DOGMA.
The note is there to keep the gullible traditionalist tied to the Vatican II sect, its fake pope, fake doctrine and its fake sacraments.
In an Ecuмenical Council, the Holy Ghost is the Author of the infallible pronouncements therein. Vatican II does not contain a single infallible pronouncement. In fact, both conciliar popes explicitly stated, 'We will not define anything in this council'. Consequently, I cannot even see how Vatican II could possibly be a Council (capital 'C').Every docuмent of the Council ends with the solemn approval and promulgation by Paul VI's imaginary apostolic authority.
Paul VI inserted the Note into the official council text during the sessions. It is officially part of the text, not just a sticky note stuck on afterwards.
Read the relevant passage again, "...the sacred [sic] council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding". As there is no such instance in the entire collection of docuмents, this passage means in plain English, "Throw out whatever you choose in these docuмents".
Interpreting that line in the way you did in the capitalized section of your post ironically involves Olympic-level mental gymnastics to say the least.
What is it that you intend to say, by posting the above quote from Sacred Scripture?The imposter hierarchy are heretics using a schismactic rite. Therefore it's prudent to hold doubts regarding thier office in the Church. Catholics want Catholic rites and Catholic clergy period. If not then resisting VII modernism is meaningless.
Are you saying that you have a far better and more profound idea of what is going on with the Crisis in the Church, and the rest of us haven't got a clue?
The imposter hierarchy are heretics using a schismactic rite. Therefore it's prudent to hold doubts regarding thier office in the Church. Catholics want Catholic rites and Catholic clergy period. If not then resisting VII modernism is meaningless.
Then why did Archbishop Lefebvre resist Vll Modernism?Our Lord sent many Faithful Catholics the Grace to discern the revolution within the Church. My parents responded to the Grace as did Archbishop Lefebvre.
Our Lord sent many Faithful Catholics the Grace to discern the revolution within the Church. My parents responded to the Grace as did Archbishop Lefebvre.
Every docuмent of the Council ends with the solemn approval and promulgation by Paul VI's imaginary apostolic authority.The pope does not make an infallible pronouncement just by approving something. One of the conditions for an infallible pronouncement is that the pope must say explicitly that he intends to bind every Catholic forever. Usually this is done in the negative form: "Whoever says such-and-such is not so, let him be anathema". This never occurs even once in the council text. On the contrary, once again, the council itself explicitly denies its infallibility.
If you believe he had apostolic authority your Church's official, binding teaching is the whole of V2.
Also, parts of the council indicate heresies are contained in Divine Revelation, which is infallible language.
See here for ample proof:
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/vatican-ii-infallible/