+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.

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 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.

 It's perplexing, but I don't automatically have ill-will against him for this, as some here do.

FWIW, disagreement is not the same this as ill will, something that should not be presumed in such circuмstances.  Carry on...

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 agree that an anomaly isn't the rule. I would hope that +W would agree with that too. But where does one draw the line? There's no hard and fast rule, since there's a terrible Crisis in the Church.

Those of us who believe that the visible Church is occupied, rather than completely non-existent (except in some trad chapels), take a different view of the situation. Will we be allowed a differing view from that of the hardliners? I think not.

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?

+Williamson's statement was actually even a bit more broad, stating that the rejection of scientific evidence might constitute such a sin against the Holy Spirit, so it could just be a matter of time before he says that rejecting the "scientific evidence" for a Globe Earth would be a sin also.

And that speaks to "scientific evidence", much of which is very subject to interpretation and often falsification.  Bishop Williamson's only window into the scientific evidence is from links on the internet (which we all know are all true).  Also, there's the very simple problem that the devil can easily simulate such "miracles".

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 think that there are few here who have bad-will, but I'll try to not judge them so much from now on. 

You may be correct, in that he's going off the rails, but I think there's more at play here. Given his reason for being fine with the woman at the conference going to a New Mass (which he later took back), he said his reason for this was stance charity. He's said that about other situations too. That may be what's behind all of this, but maybe not.

Given my respect for +W, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since this particular issue centers around the extremely uncharitable Fr. Hewko. 

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, 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.

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

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.

... and ...

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.