Author Topic: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils" (Read 19809 times)

trento · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2023, 11:52:43 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on August 07, 2023, 10:29:49 PM

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?

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.

I don't see Fr. Hewko as "demanding" for the holy oils, but rather begging for it.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #16 on:** August 08, 2023, 12:42:39 AM »

Quote from: Meg on August 07, 2023, 09:10:42 PM

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.

Deipara · « **Reply #17 on:** August 08, 2023, 03:57:07 AM »

Quote from: trento on August 07, 2023, 11:52:43 PM

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.

I don't see Fr. Hewko as "demanding" for the holy oils, but rather begging for it.

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.

If +Williamson is supposed to be the "true successor of Archbishop Lefebvre" it doesn't appear he is following in his footsteps with his comments on the Novus Ordo Missae and making plainly doubtful miracles a pivot point for acceptance.

I stand to be corrected but the miracle +Williamson insists on hasn't even been approved by the local bishop after it was investigated?

2Vermont · « **Reply #18 on:** August 08, 2023, 05:45:50 AM »

Quote from: bvmariae on August 07, 2023, 05:00:02 PM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** August 08, 2023, 06:35:07 AM »

While I generally respect Bishop Williamson, this is AWFUL in every sense. He makes a statement that someone who doesn't believe in NO miracles is not "in the same Church" as he is. Is he kidding? Surely he must not that it is not required for a Catholic to believe in ANY private revelation or miracle to remain Catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** August 08, 2023, 06:38:47 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on August 07, 2023, 10:29:49 PM

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).

Did everyone miss this statement from Bishop Williamson here?

Quote

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.

On top of everything else, it's also rather petty and vindictive of Bishop Williamson to refuse the Holy Oils and thus deprive the faithful of them ... merely to punish Father Hewko. He's ordained priests for some very shady groups (such as some Ukrainians), but will deprive the faithful of Holy Oils out of vindictiveness against Father Hewko? This reminds me somewhat of the childish attitude he exhibited when slamming the door on Father Pfeiffer after the "Bishop of Broadstairs" incident. I've heard that in old age, some men revert in some respects to childhood, but I find this extremely immature and petty.

See, the episcopacy was not given to +Williamson for power plays like this, but to serve the faithful. This has been my chief criticism of groups like the SSPV, who use the Sacraments as weapons to promote their agenda.

I can see not giving them out in some cases, where he might be endorsing some group that could be harming the faithful (i.e. not giving Holy Oils to Father Pfeiffer's group ... though even then I'd look past Fr. Pfeiffer to the faithful who are under his influence), but for something so petty as not believing in NO "Eucharistic miracles"? Ridiculous.

This also does not say good things to me about +Zendejas. Can't he put politics and personal grudges aside, swallow his pride, and help out the faithful who are served by Father Hewko and may not have any other viable options?

2Vermont · « **Reply #21 on:** August 08, 2023, 07:30:16 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 08, 2023, 06:38:47 AM

Did everyone miss this statement from Bishop Williamson here?

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.

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.

Gloria Tibi Domine · « **Reply #22 on:** August 08, 2023, 07:42:18 AM »

Quote from: bvmariae on August 07, 2023, 05:00:02 PM

✠ ✠ ✠

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.

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?

Will God permit miracles to confirm an odious Rite of Mass?
Holy Mother Church is tradition, it can't leave tradition and come back to tradition, and tradition can't leave Holy Mother Church. The Catholic Church is tradition itself, which is the divinely revealed truth.
Mother Church to come back to Tradition.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** August 08, 2023, 07:45:13 AM »

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?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** August 08, 2023, 07:51:31 AM »

If the NOM is harmful to souls and displeasing to God, as we Traditional Catholics believe, then, agreeing with Father Hewko, I don't believe that God would work miracles that could be construed as an "endorsement" of said Mass, regardless of what one might say about its validity. Father Hewko quoted Our Lord's (alleged) words to Marie-Julie Jahenny to the effect that the NOM is "odious" to Him and contains "words from the abyss". That latter is, IMO, a clear reference to the replacement of the Catholic Offertory with a тαℓмυdic table "blessing".

We also know that, regardless of the "scientific evidence" that Bishop Williamson keeps citing, it would be childsplay for the devil to simulate such "miracles" so as to confound "science". That is why the first thing the Church does in examining such claims is to test the theology, the doctrine, and the virtues of the individuals related to the alleged miracles or revelations. If they fail the theological test, if there's anything doctrinally questionable, or disedifying, about the miracle, they would instantly get the old non constat from the Church ... regardless of the "scientific" tests. So, for instance, even if there was "chain of custody" for the evidence (which in the case of the Polish "miracles" there doesn't appear to be) and it's proven to be living heart muscle, how difficult would it be for the devil to acquire some heart tissue? It would be no trouble at all. We had one case with that possessed nun where the devil simulate a full virgin pregnancy and virgin birth.

Why would the devil simulate such miracles vis-a-vis the NOM? To snooker people into believing that the NOM pleases God and is not objectionable or, if it is in fact invalid, to snooker people (including Traditional Catholics) into believing that it's valid.

This really isn't that difficult, so I don't understand why Bishop Williamson doesn't recognize that the devil can simulate miracles.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** August 08, 2023, 08:01:34 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 08, 2023, 07:45:13 AM

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.

Gloria Tibi Domine · « **Reply #26 on:** August 08, 2023, 08:07:51 AM »

It is impossible for the Catholic Church to promulgate liturgies, sacraments that are flawed, doubtful and somehow still remain Catholic. Only a church disguised as the true Catholic Church (wolves disguised as sheep) (Matthew, 7 v12-25) will promulgate false liturgies, etc. If liturgies and sacraments are not catholic, there is no grace in them. The fruits of the "sacraments" in New Church speak for themselves. Christ said we will know them by their fruits. The voice of the Good Shepard is the voice of Christ that we hear now speaking only through what the Catholic Church always did and taught, as St. Peter says, Christ spoke without guile, so does the Catholic Church always speak without guile. We call this voice tradition. But not so for the New Church. Guile, clever manipulation, ambiguity, heresy, uncertainty, doubt is the voice of the New Church and are not the voice of the Good Shepard. Mistakes, errors, ambiguities mixed with truth which are then incorporated into sacraments and liturgies cannot come from the Catholic Church.

The novus ordo is as real as both of obama's birth certificates.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #27 on:** August 08, 2023, 08:34:46 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 08, 2023, 08:01:34 AM

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

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

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

Your reasoning here is completely faulty.

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

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

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

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** August 08, 2023, 08:55:40 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 08, 2023, 08:34:46 AM

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.

I do not deny that there's been other "bad blood" there, but the reasons articulate by Bishop Williamson in this exchange focus on the alleged NO miracles. If he had articulated other reasons for refusing the Holy Oils, then that would have been a different matter entirely.

This is the sole reason Bishop Williamson gave for denying Father Hewko's request for the Holy Oils:

Quote

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

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.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #29 on:** August 08, 2023, 08:57:41 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on August 07, 2023, 10:29:49 PM

No, you do not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Topic: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils" (Read 19809 times)

trento

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

AnthonyPadua

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Deipara

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

2Vermont

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Ladislaus

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Ladislaus

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

2Vermont

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Gloria Tibi Domine

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

SeanJohnson

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Ladislaus

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Ladislaus

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Gloria Tibi Domine

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

SeanJohnson

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Ladislaus

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"

Giovanni Berto

Re: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"