We all know that God only works miracles in confirmation of the truth, not a confirmation of a falsehood. A miracle in the NO would give legitimacy to the Modernist Conciliar schismatic religion, which Archbishop Lefebvre called a bastard rite.
(It appears that turning to the Archbishop earns oneself the name of 'Hewkonian.' But that is simply a distraction. And a poor one at that.)
A sede commentary on +W's position on these fake Eucharistic miracles - which I don't agree with that position but in this case, the author is spot on. And if anyone has taken the time to study the docuмents of Vatican II, it becomes quickly apparent that there is a truth to the last paragraph in particular:
"How does Williamson claim to know that these reported miracles are genuine and not fake? Is he relying on the Vatican II Church to tell him this — the same church whose canonizations he doubts, whose teachings he rejects, whose laws he denounces, whose marriage annulments he sneers at? The same church which has introduced a new, apostate religion whose job it is to undermine and destroy Catholicism? Seriously — is this the basis on which he accepts alleged miracles as genuine? Or is it simply his own, fallible discernment, his mere “opinion”, so to speak? ... "It is quite frightening to see how much Williamson’s theology resembles that of Vatican II and the Neo-Modernists. For example, he effectively takes a line of “reject[ing] nothing that is true and holy in [false] religions” (Vatican II, Declaration Nostra Aetate, n. 2) and tries to find “elements” of goodness and truth in the Novus Ordo worship service that can “impel” towards Catholicism (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 8) inasmuch as they “nourish your faith.” This is straight out of the Modernist playbook!"
Topic: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804) (Read 10288 times)