+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.

All refuted here:

https://ca-rc.com/a-catechetical-refutation

How can valid miracles be generated in something so evil?

 

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.

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.

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.

As mentioned above, your objection is refuted by Mr. G at post #104.

This.

...is refuted at post #104.

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.

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.

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.

Yet another feeble argument:

I understand the flat-earth Feeneyite pope-deposer wants Williamson to be wrong.  I really do.  But if you can't refute him, at least you can quit whining.

You're refuted at post #104.

Take it like a man, instead of being a public liar, and pretending Williamson requires belief in privatee revelations.

I used to think you were just plain stupid, but now I see you are a malicious deceiver.