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.

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?

  How about we start with...the direction AWAY FROM V2 and the new mass.  That's the whole point of Traditionalism. 


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"? 

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????

Absolutely! This is what it ultimately comes down to.

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????

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.   

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.

I'm still wondering about the Bishop's response in that he certainly knows that belief in private revelation is not obligatory for Catholics. This is basic for a man of his stature in the Church.  His comments just don't add up for me.

I agree with this…☝️☝️☝️

Frankly, he lost me when he endorsed Valtorta.

Valtorta's notebooks, ushered into the Vatican by Cardinal Augustin Bea, "the "hero of Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations", 
strikes me as having occult properties.

Like many people who visit Medujorge, those who read it become obsessed with it.



                 Holey notebooks



Cardinal Bea link

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.