Sean, you mentioned +Ottaviani earlier who said, point blank, that the new mass consecration can be positively doubted.  Add in the doubtful ordinations/consecrations and there is MORE doubt. 

How you are twisting such to say “probable validity” is just a lie.

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.

6 And I saw another angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the eternal gospel, to preach unto them that sit upon the earth, and over every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people:
Et vidi alterum angelum volantem per medium caeli, habentem Evangelium aeternum, ut evangelizaret sedentibus super terram, et super omnem gentem, et tribum, et linguam, et populum :

 7 Saying with a loud voice: Fear the Lord, and give him honour, because the hour of his judgment is come; and adore ye him, that made heaven and earth, the sea, and the fountains of waters.
dicens magna voce : Timete Dominum, et date illi honorem, quia venit hora judicii ejus : et adorate eum, qui fecit caelum, et terram, mare, et fontes aquarum.

 8 And another angel followed, saying: That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen; which made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
Et alius angelus secutus est dicens : Cecidit, cecidit Babylon illa magna : quae a vino irae fornicationis suae potavit omnes gentes.

 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice: If any man shall adore the beast and his image, and receive his character in his forehead, or in his hand;

Et tertius angelus secutus est illos, dicens voce magna : Si quis adoraverit bestiam, et imaginem ejus, et acceperit caracterem in fronte sua, aut in manu sua :

 10 He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels, and in the sight of the Lamb.
et hic bibet de vino irae Dei, quod mistum est mero in calice irae ipsius, et cruciabitur igne, et sulphure in conspectu angelorum sanctorum, et ante conspectum Agni :

 11 And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name.
et fumus tormentorum eorum ascendet in saecula saeculorum : nec habent requiem die ac nocte, qui adoraverunt bestiam, et imaginem ejus, et si quis acceperit caracterem nominis ejus.

Is it from a private revelation (regarding Sacred Scripture) that you come to the above conclusion?

  Basic canon law says that we must treat positively doubtful sacraments as invalid.  +Ottaviani says we can positively doubt the new mass, ergo we must treat it as invalid.


You, on the other hand, and contrary to canon law, are arguing for "possible validity" as if that's a good thing.  You are minimizing the dangers of positive doubt, and re-defining such as "possible validity"....just because you want to win an argument.

Sean, how many people who don't know as much as you, are you leading down a wrong path, with faulty theology, and ignoring canon law, simply because you want to be right?  You have followers, because you are close to +W.  I hope you don't forget that if people listen to you, and go to the new mass, or use your faulty arguments (which causes others to go), YOU are responsible.  YOU will answer for their attendance at such a bastard rite.

These debates are not simply theoretical.  People read and take actions based on what they read. 

So the above is how the Catholic Church has interpreted this part of Scripture? And the official Church teaching says that it pertains to our time, right now?

A few points:  1. The only thing that might make this situation a bit more comical and crazy is if Bp. Williamson were to consecrate Fr. Hewko a bishop.  Why not?  Crazier things have happened in the history of traditional Catholicism.

2.  The Church - and correct us if we are wrong in this - has never required an individual to affirm with Catholic assent any miracle contained outside the Deposit of Faith.  One is never free to deny the miracles contained in Holy Scripture (miracles of Our Lord), because to do so is to deny the divine authenticity of Holy Scripture.  The Depositum Fidei closed with the death of St. John the Evangelist, and Holy Scripture is contained within this Deposit.  It has never been known that the Church has censured a Catholic for not believing even in approved apparitions/miracles, e.g. a man could theoretically deny Fatima, deny La Salette, and still be a Catholic. 

3.  Concerning the New Mass and grace, we must distinguish.  One can attend the New Mass and receive actual graces.  One could even attend a Clown Mass and receive actual graces.  He might see a pretty crucifix in the church or see some lady clutching a rosary, and these are actual graces.  But for heaven's sake, a man could receive actual graces at a brothel, e.g. the prostitute might have a picture of the Sacred Heart in her room for all we know -  and even this is an actual grace.  But one can never say, Visit a brothel because there are actual graces to he had, because Molly Malone has a picture of the Sacred Heart in her room. 

  The question then becomes, Does the N.O. Mass confer Sanctifying Grace?, and the answer, most traditional Catholics will agree, is no.  For this reason we tell Catholics that they may not attend the N.O. Mass because it does not and will not sanctify an individual.  Most of the Eucharistic N.O. miracles seem to point back to the New Mass.  One says to himself, If it is a valid Eucharistic N.O. miracle, then God must give his approbation to the New Mass.  But this is not logical.  It is like saying, the Virgin Mary appeared to some good-hearted Jєω in a ѕуηαgσgυє, which led to his conversion, therefore God gives his approbation to Judaism.  This is not logical. 

4.  Maria Valtorta has come up several times in this thread.  I read the 1,000 pg. Kindle version of The Poem of the Man-God and did not find it contrary to Catholic Faith.  It is not exactly fair to bring up Valtorta in this thread, as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. 

5.  Bp. Williamson was gracious enough to tell me at the dinner table some years ago, "Mr. Shepherd, if you find some woman crazy enough to marry you, fly over to England, I will do the marriage."  I was honored that he would say that, but now I must inform any would-be-wife, "Make no mention of N.O. Eucharistic miracles, he might not marry us." 

Post Scriptum - I have always been fond of both Bp Williamson and Fr Hewko, and they can be assured of my prayers.  At least the Bishop of Broadstairs is consecrating other bishops.  No traditional bishops equals no traditional priests, and then the faithful are left with their rosaries, their scapulars, their perfect act of contritions, and their guardian angels.   

Okay, a Valtorta truce for now.
(Psst... we'll argue about it at another time... )


Besides most of us on this forum still love Bp. Williamson and Fr. Hewko.

But warlock Pablo had close access to them and his Cuban voodoo curses appear to have affected both men.

We pray for their recovery to rejoin the battlefield in full fitness, to fight against the forces of Babylon.