CathInfo.com

There is no need to repeat what has been more than sufficiently stated on the other thread - but again, an apparition is not deemed acceptable by default, rather for an alleged apparition to be accepted as authentically supernatural, and deemed worthy of credence by the Catholic Church, the standard of proof is high.

First, there often is some sort of supernatural confirmation that the message is indeed from heaven, and not owing to something within the power of nature, or to human beings deceiving or being deceived. Think of, for example, the Tilma that Our Lady of Guadalupe gave St. Juan Diego, that even to this day completely astounds secularist scientists, and was instrumental in the Bishop recognizing it truly was from Heaven. Second, and no less important, the "seers" must distinguish themselves by an exemplary life, and the practice of virtue in the highest degree, usually in such a way as is admitted by opponents, and which leads other souls to conversion to God. Saints who received genuine apparitions routinely demonstrated the greatest piety in their personal lives, beside announcing some miraculous act performed by Heaven, as even their opponents admitted. Not only did 70,000 eyewitnesses see the Miracle of the Sun as announced by the three saintly Fatima children, but even the Marxist press did not deny the piety and sincerity of the children, and moreover the miracle happened at exactly the prophesied time, astounded the godless skeptics present, and led to the conversion of several faithless men.

Personally, while I do not pass judgment on the personal motives of the seer and do not need to, I think all Catholics can easily have moral certitude that these particular "apparitions" are not from the Blessed Virgin, in the same way we can have that same certitude concerning many other recent alleged "apparitions". No apparition is presumed supernatural until proven otherwise, quite the contrary. It is a capital mistake for His Excellency Bishop Williamson to give to these messages anywhere near the same credence Catholics have always given to the approved apparitions. When Heaven speaks, men need to obey, certainly. When someone misspeaks in the name of Heaven, in Heaven's name, do not obey them.

What a disapointment.

More than that !

None of what the Bishop writes so far (parts 1 and 2 ) is not already known.

Question: Why is he now publicly supporting it ?  

Question: What is the real motive for "going public" ?

Fr. Cekada once wrote: "We learned to ask ourselves what Fr. Williamson wasn't saying rather than what he was saying to find the real truth behind what he was saying."

Bishop Williamson must be short of things to do...

And that is the curious thing (because he shouldn't be): These "revelations" speak of an English prelate who is unknown and without power who will bring these messages to fulfillment. Yet, if +W is this "prelate" why does he always refuse the mantle of leading the resistance ?

Why do we have ECs ad nauseam telling us he has no canonical mission from the Church, he cannot lead, he needs the Pope to tell him what to do (video talk in Post Falls in March this year - and another in Spanish in Brazil around the same time) ?

If he really believes the revelations and thinks they apply to him - why isn't he out calling for Rosary crusades - he did push +Fellay in EC column after column and got the push...

Again what's the real reason he now espouses these events publicly after 8 years since they started and after telling me 2 years ago he didn't believe in them any more ?

Curiously also - don't you find it strange that DM was prepared to write +Fellay asking for the first crusade but wasn't prepared to tell him the why and the wherefore i.e. the circuмstances ? I mean if she believes she is seeing Our Lady then why not be like Juan Diego and tell "+ Zumarraga" up front what is going on even if he does laugh at you ?

Everything about this story has my alarm bells ringing.