Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bsp. Williamson: "Belief in N.O. Eucharistic Miracles Necessary for Holy Oils"  (Read 19832 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3162
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Why don't you man up, and ask +Williamson if belief in private revelations is necessary to be a Catholic?

    Because you know he would call you an idiot for suggesting such a thing?

    Yes, that's surely it.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14708
    • Reputation: +6059/-904
    • Gender: Male
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1516
    • Reputation: +1246/-97
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    I agree with this…☝️☝️☝️

    Frankly, he lost me when he endorsed Valtorta.

    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11412
    • Reputation: +6380/-1119
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    :facepalm:
    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.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I agree with this…☝️☝️☝️

    Frankly, he lost me when he endorsed Valtorta.

    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?"
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Too bad you can't pass some of that prudent reserve along to Loudestmouth.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11412
    • Reputation: +6380/-1119
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?  

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    OK, fair enough.  I retract my previous comment.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12102
    • Reputation: +7626/-2304
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Gunter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 310
    • Reputation: +128/-80
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • So much good could be done in terms of restoration, if men would clear up the controversies by using tradition as the measure of discernment.   Doubtful rites, avoid them. Doubtful orders,  charitably repair the doubt.  This isn't high-school but with all the drama I'm getting mixed signals.   Grow up people. 

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Pax-

    Please do inform us once you have completed your prayers.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."