CathInfo.com

2. Any private revelation, Marian or otherwise, post-1970 that fails to mention the Traditional Movement is suspiciously avoiding the elephant in the room.

I’ve always held His Excellency in the highest regard but +Williamson’s near-obsession with private revelation and dubious apparitions has always confused and bothered me. Even if there’s nothing that explicitly contradicts the faith, there’s nothing of substance here that +Williamson couldn’t have said better in his own words without running the risk of potentially luring readers in to some strange apparition.

I remember once Bishop Tissier was asked about Fatima in an interview. He simply said “Fatima is private revelation so I don’t speak of it publicly.” At the time I was confused. But I understand his position now. Bishops have an incredible hold and influence on the faithful. If a traditional priest says something, most of us take it seriously. How much more a Bishop. Bishops need to be EXTREMELY careful what devotions they promote. It isn’t like you or I saying something off  the cuff at a coffee hour after Mass. people take +Williamson very seriously so I think he needs to do a better job of vetting things like this. If Bishop Tissier was unwilling to speak publicly about Fatima, a devotion with mountains of evidence about as close to “de fide” as a revelation like that can get, what does that say about +Williamson’s willingness to speak publicly about apparitions and visions like the one above…Just my two cents…

I don't think it's traditional to separate the message from the recipient. Those claiming to receive messages from Heaven have always been heavily scrutinized. Why would a message about Tradition be delivered to a N.O. nun?