It's not about authority, it's about revealing private correspondence that was not intended or authorized for public viewing. 

While that much is as clear as the summer sun...

Once done, discussing whether or not it should have been done is meaningless, at least in this arena.  That discussion, which is basically about decorum/etiquette/etc, should be directed at Fr. H, not CI members who are simply addressing what has, in fact, been released.

Should it have happened?  No.  It did and someone saw fit to post it on CI.  Now, deal with the content, problematic or otherwise, not the appropriateness of the irreversible release.  That horse left the barn before this discussion began.

Bishop Williamson wants to have it both ways: i) there are N.O. miracles, ii) there’s a shadow of doubt with episcopal consecrations.

There can be no consecration of the Eucharist if the priest hasn’t been validly ordained.

Bishop Williamson wants to have it both ways: i) there are N.O. miracles, ii) there’s a shadow of doubt with episcopal consecrations.

There can be no consecration of the Eucharist if the priest hasn’t been validly ordained.

Sloppy thinking:

+Williamson believes neither that the alleged miracles are certainly legitimate (only that there is serious evidence in favor of their authenticity), nor that the NREC is certainly invalid (i.e., there is merely a "shadow of a doubt").

Consequently, it remains logically consistent to allow the possibility of a legitimate Eucharistic miracle.

That that possibility is being dismissed in priniciple, a priori, and without any consideration of the evidence, is what he is opposing in Hewko.

+Williamson believes neither that the alleged miracles are certainly legitimate (only that there is serious evidence in favor of their authenticity),

From which it necessarily follows that, if Williamson is not INFALLIBLY certain in the authenticity of whatever alleged Eucharistic miracle (as he would have to be, did he believe such to be dogma), he would be guilty of doubting the very dogma he is accused of erecting!

So, we keep getting distractions, on purpose.  I agree that Father Hewko should not have revealed this private correspondence without explicit permission from Bishop Williamson.  But, then, Sean Johnson also posted an e-mail response he received from Bishop Williamson.  But, either way it doesn't matter.  That's a distraction, water under the bridge, since the fact remains that the correspondence has been revealed.  Nor is it about Father Hewko's history of uncharitably criticizing Bishop Williamson in public or the "bad blood" between the two as a result.  Nor is it about arguments one way or the other in favor of or against the legitimacy of the NOM "miracles".  Since the Church hasn't ruled on the matter (as Father Hewko rightly points out to Bishop Williamson), anyone has a right to speculate and have a personal opinion about the matter, since it's all in the realm of what we believe God WOULD or WOULD NOT do.  Who here can speak for God?

What this is about is Bishop Williamson effectively dogmatizing his view that the NO miracles are legitimate.  Even IF the Church were to rule in favor of them, it's still well known that Catholics are not obliged to believe in any private revelations or miracles.  There are some here who have impugned Fatima.  No other private revelation has received more approbation from the Church, and yet it's still not strictly obligatory for Catholics to believe in Fatima.  Sure, it might be rash or arrogant to reject the Church's judgment, but that's as far as it goes.  One cannot be effectively excommunicated, declared outside the Church, or denied the Sacraments for not believing in Fatima, and much less so for some NOM "miracles", which have received no more approbation from the actual Church than the canonization of Wojtyla.

We can put aside the distractions.

Latest post on topic here is Sean claiming that Bishop Williamson does not hold the miracles to be certainly true.  This is clearly false from Bishop Williamson's revealed correspondences.  But perhaps Sean can write Bishop Williamson and ask him directly.  Of course, I doubt he believes them to be certainly true with the certainty of faith, but he clearly holds them to be certain on some level, that of moral certainty ... or otherwise he couldn't state that belief in them is necessary to belong to the same Church he's in, making a public profession of belief in them THE condition for receiving Holy Oils for the Sacraments, and declaring it tantamount to a sin against the Holy Spirit to reject them.  

How can you sin against the Holy Spirit, be excluded from the Church, and excluded from the Sacraments for rejecting something that is uncertain?  Clearly you can't.

So, we keep getting distractions, on purpose.  I agree that Father Hewko should not have revealed this private correspondence without explicit permission from Bishop Williamson.  But, then, Sean Johnson also posted an e-mail response he received from Bishop Williamson.  But, either way it doesn't matter.  That's a distraction, water under the bridge, since the fact remains that the correspondence has been revealed.  Nor is it about Father Hewko's history of uncharitably criticizing Bishop Williamson in public or the "bad blood" between the two as a result.  Nor is it about arguments one way or the other in favor of or against the legitimacy of the NOM "miracles".  Since the Church hasn't ruled on the matter (as Father Hewko rightly points out to Bishop Williamson), anyone has a right to speculate and have a personal opinion about the matter, since it's all in the realm of what we believe God WOULD or WOULD NOT do.  Who here can speak for God?

What this is about is Bishop Williamson effectively dogmatizing his view that the NO miracles are legitimate.  Even IF the Church were to rule in favor of them, it's still well known that Catholics are not obliged to believe in any private revelations or miracles.  There are some here who have impugned Fatima.  No other private revelation has received more approbation from the Church, and yet it's still not strictly obligatory for Catholics to believe in Fatima.  Sure, it might be rash or arrogant to reject the Church's judgment, but that's as far as it goes.  One cannot be effectively excommunicated, declared outside the Church, or denied the Sacraments for not believing in Fatima, and much less so for some NOM "miracles", which have received no more approbation from the actual Church than the canonization of Wojtyla.

We can put aside the distractions.

Latest post on topic here is Sean claiming that Bishop Williamson does not hold the miracles to be certainly true.  This is clearly false from Bishop Williamson's revealed correspondences.  But perhaps Sean can write Bishop Williamson and ask him directly.  Of course, I doubt he believes them to be certainly true with the certainty of faith, but he clearly holds them to be certain on some level, that of moral certainty ... or otherwise he couldn't state that belief in them is necessary to belong to the same Church he's in, making a public profession of belief in them THE condition for receiving Holy Oils for the Sacraments, and declaring it tantamount to a sin against the Holy Spirit to reject them. 

How can you sin against the Holy Spirit, be excluded from the Church, and excluded from the Sacraments for rejecting something that is uncertain?  Clearly you can't.

Refuted in the previous post.

Again. 

Sloppy thinking:

+Williamson believes neither that the alleged miracles are certainly legitimate (only that there is serious evidence in favor of their authenticity), nor that the NREC is certainly invalid (i.e., there is merely a "shadow of a doubt").

Consequently, it remains logically consistent to allow the possibility of a legitimate Eucharistic miracle.

That that possibility is being dismissed in priniciple, a priori, and without any consideration of the evidence, is what he is opposing in Hewko.

No it’s rational thinking. It’s not just he thinks there’s “serious evidence” but he draws a conclusion from the evidence, “I conclude … Our Lord stepped in to work a miracle”:



Therefore, he believes them to be valid, but he also believes there’s a doubt about the validity of N.O. episcopal consecrations…

It’s the equivalent of reading two weather reports ‘it’s raining in New York’ and ‘there are clear skies over New York’ and simultaneously believing them both.