The Recusant: Bishop Williamson - More Novus Ordo Madness!

[Stone]

The Recusant.com:

Bishop Williamson: More Novus Ordo Madness!

Whereas we thought the issue had been dealt with, within recent weeks Bishop Williamson has released a series of “Eleison Comments” emails defending and elaborating on his novel position regarding the New Mass. Error, and indeed anything liable to harm or weaken the Faith, must be resisted vigorously, no matter from what quarter it emerges. Therefore some comment on this is necessary and unavoidable. We deal with them in reverse order, the most recent first. All the main (unattributed) quotes are from the “Eleison Comments” indicated.

Source:  stmarcelinitiative.com/eleison-comments/back-issue/

1. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.438 (5th December, 2015):
“Catholics, be generous! Recognize God’s goal / To save, outside “Tradition,” many a soul.”


Bp. Williamson:
“However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition who have to some extent or another stood back from the Novus Ordo framework.”

Recusant Comment:
Is it really wise to “assume they are authentic”? (See 2. ‘Eleison Comments’ 437, p.24)

Secondly, “Novus Ordo framework” seems to mean ‘the conciliar church.’ But Archbishop Lefebvre told us not just to “stand back from” it “to some extent or another”, but to have nullam partem, nothing whatever to do with it! What new lessons do Catholics outside the conciliar church need to be taught, and why? And how do these “lessons” differ from what Archbishop Lefebvre taught us? Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX had to say about the “extent” to which we should “stand back from” the “framework” of the conciliar church:

• “We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, the conciliar church, to which we have no wish to belong! This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is, therefore, not Catholic.” (‘Reflections on suspensio a divinis’, 1976)
  
• “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this conciliar church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (‘Minute’ interview, 30th July 1976)
  
• “We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the conciliar church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared excommunicated…excluded from impious communion with infidels.”  (‘Open Letter to Card Gantin’, 6th July 1988)
  

Bp. Williamson:
“Therefore the NOM and the Novus Ordo Church as a whole are dangerous for the Faith, and Catholics are right who have clung to Tradition to avoid the danger. But as they have had to put a distance between themselves and the mainstream Church, so they have exposed themselves to the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality.”

Recusant Comment:
Why did Archbishop Lefebvre say he was happy about something which is in fact dangerous? Was he really so ignorant and irresponsible? Why did the SSPX superiors in 1988 write to Rome asking for something dangerous?

Or is not this talk about the “danger” of being “isolated” the “mainstream Church” (note - not the ‘conciliar church’) exactly what we have heard in recent years from Fr. Pfluger and Bishop Fellay? Likewise the supposed “danger” of becoming “pharasaical”, “sectarian” and “disconnected from reality” if we are not more open minded towards the conciliar church? Did Bishop Williamson get Fr. Pfluger to write this for him..?!



Bp. Williamson:
“...while since the 1960’s a mass of Catholic sheep have become too worldly to deserve to keep the true rite of Mass, [yet] they have loved the Mass enough not to lose it altogether.”

Recusant Comment:
So: people were too worldly to have the true Mass, but they had some redeeming virtue, so God rewarded them a little bit by letting them have the Novus Ordo? Does this not imply that the Novus Ordo is ‘good but not as good as’ the Traditional Mass? Yet the SSPX always used to say that the Novus Ordo is evil.

If the Novus Ordo is evil, surely those Catholics who lapsed and ended up with no Mass were better off? Does not the experience of the last 40 years bear this out: Catholics who lapsed forty years ago still sound like Catholics when one talks to them, whereas Catholics who have been pickled in the un-Catholic Novus Ordo for the last 40 years have nothing about them which previous generations would recognise as Catholic. Two generations of SSPX priests have witnessed how the former often convert easily back to Tradition, whereas the latter are virtually irretrievable and much harder to convert. How can God use the Novus Ordo, a rite which replaces ones Faith with another religion, as a reward for those who “have loved the Mass enough”..?



Bp. Williamson:
“The NOM [Novus Ordo Mass] may have been allowed by God to make it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith if they wanted to, but not impossible to keep it if they wanted to.”

Recusant Comment:
This seems to confirm our suspicions about the portion quoted above. Last year an SSPX priest told the London congregation that whereas the Traditional Mass gives a waterfall of grace, the New Mass gives only a trickle of grace. This idea that the New Mass is only “not as good as” the Traditional Mass seems to be what Bishop Williamson is advocating too when he says that it “makes it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith … but not impossible to keep it.”

This is very, very different from saying that it actually destroys and is harmful to one’s Faith. Not having Mass, a chapel, the Blessed Sacrament to visit, a priest to confess regularly to, being poorly catechised as a child or ignorance of Catholic doctrine generally, having a non-Catholic spouse - these are all things which make it easier to lose the Faith. To use an analogy: not having enough food or water, shelter or warm clothing in winter makes it easier to die. But if an evildoer puts arsenic in your tea or turns the gas at night on so that you are poisoned to death while you sleep, that is something altogether different. One is a mere defect, the other a positive evil. Once again, here is Archbishop Lefebvre:

• “Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church.” (Note to Agence France Presse, 12th July, 1976)
  
• “Well! It is precisely the insistent demands of those sent from Rome that we change our rite which makes us reflect. And we are convinced that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This new Mass is a symbol, an expression, an image of a new faith, a Modernist faith.” (Ordinations sermon at Econe, 29th June 1976)
  
• “This Mass is not evil in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly evil. It was based on the model of the Mass according to Cranmer and Taize. As I said in Rome to those who interviewed me: It is a poisoned Mass” (Abp. Lefebvre, 1981, see: ‘Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, p.465)
  

2. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.437 (30th November, 2015):
“The eucharistic miracles are where / God shows that He Himself is truly there.”


Bp. Williamson:
“Facts are stubborn - as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research..”

Recusant Comment:
The limited research of this author, given limited time and resources, suggest a couple of concerns, not least that there seem to be several accounts of what took place, particularly how/where/when the host was dropped, and also that at least two of the scientists whose testimony plays a major part in the story are Novus Ordo Catholics.



Bp. Williamson: “But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008. And a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic.”

Recusant Comment:
In other words: “There are lots of miracles! There are so many that at least one of them has to be genuine!” Non sequitur. If one is false, they might just as easily all be false. Like the man who falls for one scam after another and says to himself: “One of them has to be genuine!” If there are bogus Saints and bogus miracles in the Novus Ordo, then all that tells us is that we cannot trust the Novus Ordo to give us genuine Saints and miracles.



Bp. Williamson: "This is because the NOM, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church…”

Recusant Comment:
The last part, that the New Mass “has led numberless souls out of the Church” is correct. That Vatican II “is ambiguous”, however, is a dangerous lie, one subscribed to for years by many a Novus Ordo conservative, and sold to us more recently by Bishop Fellay and the liberals in the neo-SSPX. There are many things in Vatican II which are not ambiguous, which have only one interpretation, and which are irreconcilable with Tradition (Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching on ‘Religious Liberty’ being perhaps the most infamous).



Bp. Williamson:
“Doctrinally, the NOM [Novus Ordo Mass] is ambiguous, poised between the religion of God and the Conciliar religion of man. Now in matters of faith, ambiguity is deadly, being normally designed to undermine the Faith, as the NOM frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the NOM does not absolutely exclude the old religion.”

Recusant Comment:
“Normally” designed to undermine the Faith? Which it “frequently” does?! So not always, then? In other words, it is not intrinsically evil, only sometimes; whereas sometimes it does not undermine the Faith! Likewise, the Novus Ordo is not merely “ambiguous”!

As Archbishop Lefebvre says, “There is something in it that is truly evil”. Since the rest of what Bishop Williamson writes is based on that false premise (that the Novus Ordo is only ambiguous), his conclusion, that the Novus Ordo “does not exclude the old religion” is equally flawed. Again, Archbishop Lefebvre talks about the “radically incompatibility” between the old religion and the new one, epitomised by the New Mass. How can a thing be radically incompatible with something but at the same time not exclude it?



Bp. Williamson:
“That does not make the NOM acceptable as such, because its intrinsic ambiguity still favours the new direction, but it does mean for instance that the Consecration can still be valid, as Archbishop Lefebvre never denied. Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either.”

Recusant Comment:
Discussion of validity is surely beside the point altogether. A priest who is a secret Satanist or Freemason, for example, might confect a valid sacrament in order to perform sacrilegious desecration. That it is valid is no consolation whatsoever, and is certainly no indication of whether good can ever come from attending it. Attending a satanic Black Mass would not help you get to heaven, even if it were valid.



Bp. Williamson:
“In brief, the NOM as such is bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts.”

Recusant Comment:
All evil is only “evil in parts but not all its parts.” There is not such thing as “pure evil”, because the definition of evil is that it is the absence of a due good. A table with only three legs is a bad table. A table missing all its legs and the table-top cannot be so described. Only one part evil makes the whole evil. Therefore, what Bishop Williamson ought to say is simply “The Novus Ordo is evil.” (why ‘bad’?). As it is, what looks like a redeeming qualification is really no more than an rhetorical illusion.


Bp Williamson:
“What specified Vatican II and the NOM was precisely the officialisation of the modernist heresy within the Church. So does it not make sense that in punishment of their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward of their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass?”

Recusant Comment:
No, it does not. Almighty God does not “reward” people by giving them something evil, something poisoned, something radically incompatible with the Catholic Faith. One fares better attending no Mass at all than attending the Novus Ordo. Once again, the idea that the New Mass is somehow not as good as the Traditional Mass but still better than nothing, is novel, untrue, disproved by the experience of the past forty years. In its full implications this idea is also very, very dangerous to the Faith.




3. ‘Eleison Comments’ No.436 (21st November, 2015):
“God has worked miracles with the N.O. Mass? / That’s what the evidence suggests. Alas?”

Bp. Williamson:
“When in June of 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre was on the brink of ordaining the first large batch of SSPX priests despite Rome’s disapproval, a Roman official came to promise him the end of all problems with Rome if only he would celebrate one Novus Ordo Mass. On principle, for doctrinal reasons, he refused. Then how can Almighty God have worked eucharistic miracles with and for this new Mass? Read here next week a suggested answer.”

Recusant Comment:
It should be clear by now that Bishop Williamson’s ideas about the New Mass are at radical variance with those of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X of old. Archbishop Lefebvre was quite right to refuse to say the New Mass and to prefer suspension in 1976. With his final question (“The how can Almighty God…?”), Bishop Williamson sows doubt into the mind of his reader not only about the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Mass, but also about Archbishop Lefebvre and what he stood for. Was the Archbishop perhaps deliberately being difficult towards the Romans, just to make a point, where he could have chosen to be more accommodating and not been any the worse for it? Is it enough to say that he refused “on principle, for doctrinal reasons” and leave it at that? It is true, his refusal was principled, and it was for doctrinal reasons. But I rather suspect that Archbishop Lefebvre would have said that he had no right to say the New Mass, since it was evil and poisoned and was destroying the Faith of countless millions; that he had no option, that to have agreed and said the New Mass would have been a sin.

As to Bishop Williamson’s “suggested answer” to his own question, presented in the two subsequent Eleison Comments, we have already examined it above. In short, his answer is that the Traditional Mass is a reward for fidelity and lack of worldliness, whereas the New Mass is a lesser reward for ‘loving the Mass’. It is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but still good and does not exclude the old religion. If you feel tempted to leave the Faith, the New Mass will be less of an obstacle than the old Mass.

One thing we have avoided touching on is whether the Novus Ordo miracles are really genuine. Well? Are they? The simple truth is I do not know, at least in the scientific sense, but every Catholic instinct in me says no. Three possibilities occur. The first is that they are fakes and frauds. That is not impossible. The world is full of lies now like it never was before. Lies throughout the media, education, banking and finance, everywhere. People generally are more used to the idea that one tells lies to get ahead, they are numb to it. We know that the conciliar church is not above a little dishonesty, now and then, in order to get its way (if they can’t be trusted with the Third Secret of Fatima, why should they suddenly be trusted concerning these ‘miracles’?)

The second possibility is that we are witnessing something like the “signs and prodigies” which Sacred Scripture prophesies will be seen towards the end of times. Certainly, if these ‘miracles’ have the power to lead many Traditional Catholics including some souls with the Resistance and one bishop (who is not, though many think he is) to a softening towards the abominable Novus Ordo, then that might well be an example of “deceiving, if possible, even the elect.” I only suggest it as a possibility - I may be wrong, and I await correction from any priest who would care to put me right.

The third possibility is that they are genuine and are sent as a warning from Almighty God against the sacrilege of the Novus Ordo Mass. There have been cases of miracles warning people off sacrilege. In Belgium, a couple of centuries ago, some Jews stole a host and stabbed it with knives. It bled. They converted. Clearly, desecrating a host by stabbing it with knives is not something God wants us to do, and the miracle does not lend approval to the action which prompted it in any way.

One thing is certain. That Almighty God can be using miracles to give His divine seal of approval to the New Mass is not a possibility. What is worrying is that Bishop Williamson discusses none of the three possibilities mentioned above. Nowhere in three separate ‘Eleison Comments’ does he even entertain the idea that the ‘miracles’ might be fakes or prodigies. Nor does he suggest that they might be a warning against sacrilege. Instead, he begins with the assumption that they are genuine (which in itself is staggering, when you think about it) and talks about “facts” being “stubborn” as though the matter were already proven beyond question. He then proceeds to use that unfounded assumption to push through a novel teaching about the New Mass of his own device, one which is completely at variance with Archbishop Lefebvre. The entire fiasco is summed up neatly in, and hinted ominously by, one word: the last word of the little jangle at the start of the first email. (“Alas?”), its question mark loaded with suggestiveness.

I am not much of a dab hand at silly rhyming couplets, but in an attempt to summarise the whole sorry business, here is my poor offering:


The Bishop thinks the New Mass can be good?
That’s bad enough. What’s worse is why he would!

"Viva Cristo Rey!"

[Stone]

Taken from the OP:

Bp. Williamson:
“But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008. And a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic.”

Recusant Comment:
In other words: “There are lots of miracles! There are so many that at least one of them has to be genuine!” Non sequitur. If one is false, they might just as easily all be false. Like the man who falls for one scam after another and says to himself: “One of them has to be genuine!” If there are bogus Saints and bogus miracles in the Novus Ordo, then all that tells us is that we cannot trust the Novus Ordo to give us genuine Saints and miracles.

There is a "whole centre of pilgrimage" around Medjugorje too but we all know that is false and has never been approved by even the Conciliar Church.

But let us follow the Bishop's advice, let us look up and research the 'miracle' at Sokólka in Poland in 2008 ...

The following is extracted from an article entitled, The Eucharistic miracle of Sokolka: The host is tissue from heart of a dying man, from Aleteia - published on 09/23/17 [my comments in brackets].

[The event] took place on Sunday, October 12, 2008, two weeks after the beatification of Servant of God Fr. Michael Sopocko [spiritual director of St. Faustina of the Divine Mercy apparitions which were condemned by the Holy Office in 1959].

During the Holy Mass celebrated at the parish church of St. Anthony in Sokolka, at 8:30 a.m., a consecrated host fell from the hands of one of the priests during the distribution of Communion, next to the altar. The priest interrupted the distribution of Communion and picked up the host, and, in accordance with liturgical norms, placed it in a small container of water—in this case, one found in some churches beside the tabernacle, where the priest may wash his fingers after distributing Communion. The host was expected to dissolve in the water, which would later be disposed of properly.

Sister Julia Dubowska, of the Congregation of the Eucharistic Sisters, was the parish sacristan [nuns may be sacristans in convents but not in parish churches]. At the end of the Mass, at the request of the pastor, Fr. Stanislaw Gniedziejko, she poured the water and the host into another container [only the priest should be touching anything related to the Eucharist - certainly not a nun]. Knowing that the consecrated host would take some time to dissolve, she placed the new container in the safe located in the parish sacristy. Only she and the pastor had the keys to the safe.

A week later [it typically takes 24 hours to for a host to dissolve and should be attended to in that time frame, out of respect], on October 19, Mission Sunday, when the pastor asked her about the condition of the host, Sister Julia went to the safe [again, only the priest should have any interaction with the host - but the Novus Ordo embraces lay and female Eucharistic 'ministers']. When she opened the door, she noticed a delicate aroma of unleavened bread. When she opened the container, she saw, in the middle of the host—which was still largely intact—a curved, bright red stain, like a blood stain: a living particle of a body. The water was untainted by the color.

The sister immediately informed the priest, who brought in the other priests at the parish and the visiting missionary, Fr. Ryszard Gorowski. They were all amazed and left speechless by what they saw.

They kept a discreet and prudent silence about the event, considering its importance; this was a consecrated host which, by the power of the words of Christ at the Last Supper, was truly His Body. From a human point of view, it was difficult at that point to define if the altered form of the remainder of the host was the result of an organic growth, a chemical reaction, or some other cause.

They immediately notified the metropolitan archbishop of Bialystok, Edward Ozorowski, who went to Sokolka with the chancellor of the Curia and other diocesan officials. They were all deeply moved by what they saw. The archbishop ordered that the host be protected while they waited to see what would happen.

On October 29, the container with the host was transferred to the Divine Mercy Chapel in the rectory, and placed in the tabernacle. The next day, by decision of the archbishop, the stained host was taken out of the water and placed on a small corporal, which was then put back in the tabernacle. The host was kept this way for three years, until it was solemnly brought to the church on October 2, 2011. During the first year, it was kept secret. During that time, the Church authorities reflected on what to do, since they were dealing with a sign from God which needed to be interpreted.

By mid-January of 2009, the altered fragment of the host had dried out naturally, and remained like a blood stain or clot; since then, its appearance has not changed.

That same month, the archbishop requested histopathological studies be done on the host. On March 30, he created an ecclesial commission to study the phenomenon.

A piece of the altered host was taken and analyzed independently by two experts, Prof. Maria Sobaniec-Lotowska, MD, and Prof. Stanislaw Sulkowski, MD, in order to ensure the credibility of the results. Both are histopathologists at the Medical University of Bialystok. The studies were carried out at the university’s Department of Pathomorphology.

The specialists’ work was governed by the scientific norms and obligations for analyzing any scientific problem in accordance with the directives of the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The studies were exhaustively described and photographed. The complete documentation was given to the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok.

When the samples were taken for analysis, the undissolved part of the consecrated host had become embedded in the cloth. However, the red blood clot was as clear as ever. This transformed part of the host was dry and fragile, inextricably interwoven with the rest of the fragment, which had kept the form of bread. The sample that was taken was large enough to carry out all the necessary studies.

The results of both independent studies were in perfect agreement. They concluded that the structure of the transformed fragment of the host is identical to the myocardial (heart) tissue of a living person who is nearing death. The structure of the heart muscle fibers is deeply intertwined with that of the bread, in a way impossible to achieve with human means, according to the declaration of Prof. Maria Sobaniec-Lotowska.

The studies proved that no foreign substance was added to the consecrated host; rather, part of the host took the form of heart muscle of a person near death. This kind of phenomenon is inexplicable by the natural sciences. At the same time, the Church teaches us that the consecrated host becomes the Body of Christ, by the power of His own words at the Last Supper, repeated by priests during the consecration of the Mass.

The results of the histopathological studies, dated January 21, 2009, were included in the dossier given to the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok.

In its official communiqué, the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok stated:

“The Sokolka event is not opposed to the faith of the Church; rather, it confirms it. The Church professes that, after the words of consecration, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, and the wine into His Blood. Additionally, this is an invitation for all ministers of the Eucharist to distribute the Body of the Lord with faith and care, and for the faithful to receive Him with adoration.”

Notice, there is no formal pronouncement of a miracle by the Bishop. There is only the ambiguous statement that this event 'confirms the faith of the Church'. This must be the same 'church' that canonized Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and which has its own collection of 'saints' and 'miracles' to prop up a corrupt, schismatic church.

Another article published by catholic.org in 2011 on this 'miracle,' notes that "the [conciliar] Church has not yet declared this apparent miracle in Sokolka to be authentic ..."

This 'miracle' has all the hallmarks of a typical Novus Ordo mess:

• The host was from a Novus Ordo Mass (which brings up many significant many concerns about validity);
  
• the host was moved from one container to another, thus indirectly handled, by a nun;
  
• it was disrespectfully left unattended for a week despite the fact that it typically only takes 24 hours for a host to dissolve;
  
• once it was found to be abnormal, it was left for three months before studies were done;
  
• and the local bishop did not declare it a miracle, he simply said it confirms faith in the church.
  

Let us pray for Bishop Williamson for promoting what the sensus fidei of a [traditional] Catholic dictates is false.  

a + b = c

false conciliar miracles + promotion by traditional bishop = promotion of Conciliar Church/New Mass from whence the 'miracle' originated

[Stone]

Let's hope the adoration for this Polish 'miracle' isn't along the lines of other conciliar 'adorations':

Disco adoration at Lodz Cathedral in Poland
Taken from here

In late October 2012, a Holy Night that included adoration of the Blessed Sacrament began with a procession bringing relics of Saints to the Altar at the Cathedral of Lotz, Poland. The event was an initiative of the priest in charge of working with the youth, under the orientation of Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski.

Dancing and shouting at the head of the congregation, the young priest led the religious ceremony into a frenetic disco session to the beat of loud rock music under flashing night-club lights in a delirious atmosphere.

The photos displayed on this page give some idea of the inappropriate ambience for adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, which can be confirmed by watching the video here.

It is another expressive example of the legacy John Paul II left Poland and the entire Catholic Church...

Photos from video taken from Novus Ordo Kronika, Poland

See also other conciliar 'adorations':

Blasphemous adoration in Brazil

Frenetic youth adoration in Brazil

Blasphemous monstrance at WYD-2019

[Stone]

From the OP:

Bp. Williamson:
“Facts are stubborn - as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research..”

Let us look at the 'facts' then! Briefly, there were three(!) Eucharistic 'miracles' in the exact same parish in Buenos Aires in 1992, 1994, and again in 1996. Apparently according to Bp. Williamson, only the last bears honoring ... ? 

The National Catholic Register reports:

On Aug. 15, 1996, the feast of the Assumption of Mary, a woman approached Father Alejandro Pezet after Mass to report she had found a desecrated Host on a candleholder at the back of the church. The priest followed canon law for proper disposal, putting it in a glass of water to dissolve. Instead, the Host appeared to turn into a bloody piece of meat. [...] Cardinal Antonio Quarracino and our current Pope Francis, then-Auxiliary Bishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio, had it photographed on Sept. 6, 1996. The photographs show a fragment of bloodied flesh that had become larger than a host. It was placed in a tabernacle; and after three years, with no signs of visible decay, Bishop Bergoglio opened an investigation. On Oct. 5, 1999 sent a sample of the blood to Forensic Analytical in San Francisco.[After years of testing it was concluded that] the sample was human heart tissue.

Here again, we begin yet another Novus Ordo 'miracle' that begins with a dropped Host, an event which is, objectively, a sacrilege. The 'miracles' of Buenos Aires in Argentina, Sokólka in Poland, and Legnica in Poland all begin with dropped hosts. The 'miracles' all were discovered (not witnessed by anyone) by lay 'Eucharistic ministers' or a nun.  At least two of these three 'miracles' were the result of Communion in the hand! Is this not an 'ape' of the Blessed Sacrament? That sacred things are profaned? 

As Archbishop Sheen pointed out regarding the AntiChrist:

... his religion will be brotherhood of Man without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .

For contrast, let us look at a genuine Eucharistic miracle which occurred in Lanciano, Italy in the 8th century, called,

 "... the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist. During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size. The Host has remained in this state for centuries up till the present time.

These circumstances are also very similar to another genuine Eucharistic Miracle that took place at Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy:

In 1263 a German priest, Peter of Prague, stopped at Bolsena while on a pilgrimage to Rome. He is described as being a pious priest, but one who found it difficult to believe that Christ was actually present in the consecrated Host. While celebrating Holy Mass above the tomb of St. Christina (located in the church named for this martyr), he had barely spoken the words of Consecration when blood started to seep from the consecrated Host and trickle over his hands onto the altar and the corporal.[...] It is said that Pope Urban IV was prompted by this miracle to commission St. Thomas Aquinas to compose the Proper for a Mass and an Office honoring the Holy Eucharist as the Body of Christ. One year after the miracle, in August of 1264, Pope Urban IV introduced the saint's composition, and by means of a papal bull instituted the feast of Corpus Christi.

As was aptly summarized in The Recusant #34, pages 33-34: 

We cannot overlook the almost identical stories of the supposed “miracles” of Legnica, Sokolka and Buenos Aires, something which is itself highly suspicious (when has that ever happened before in the history of the Church?). Not only that, but there were in fact three such supposed “miracles” in the same church in Buenos Aires alone, within only a couple of years of each other, and that the first miracle (not such a success) happened in the very same month that Mgr. Bergoglio become auxiliary bishop (May 1992 - the second and third took place in 1994 and 1996). What are the odds?!

The more one considers all these stories of “transformations” which nobody saw happening and which nobody may inspect, the similarities of so many stories of basically the same “miracle” happening, and happening more and more within the last 20 or so years, it reads like a successful PR campaign. They’ve found their ‘winning formula’ - that’s why it is so popular. As time goes on, and the story and tactics are refined, each new “miracle” will be slightly less obviously fraudulent than the last (to see an example of an earlier and more obviously bogus attempt at the same “Eucharistic miracle” story, look up “Bishop Gatti”, a priest who had more than one such Eucharistic “miracle” happen, before finally claiming that God had consecrated him bishop directly from heaven, right after he had run off with a woman who claimed to be a seer… You couldn’t make it up!)

Perhaps if a new, even more effective formula or story for “miracles” is invented by some enterprising fraudster in the future, there will be no more of the current host-turning-into-blood-while-nobody-was-looking type “miracles”, and the new version (whatever it is) will become the norm. But in the meantime, this is what appears to be the fashion. Whereas, in reality, of course, there have been comparatively few miracles especially when one considers the length of the last 2,000 years and the whole span of the Catholic world. And yet suddenly there is a rash of Eucharistic miracles happening everywhere, all within the last twenty or so years, and its always the same miracle! This is just not something which can be taken seriously, and it leaves our religion open to mockery. [Emphasis mine]

Dear friends, let us cling to our traditions and avoid all things Conciliar. Archbishop Sheen's words that the Antichrist will "will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content" has been quoted by many traditional priests in the years since Vatican II to describe what we see in the Conciliar Church.

This is very similar to the words spoken by Our Lord to Marie Julie Jahenny in 1904: "I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in My sight. ... These infamous spirits are those who crucified Me and are awaiting the kingdom of THE NEW MESSIAH."

The New Mass is the fruit of Vatican II. The 'miracles' arising out of this New Mass which is "odious" to Our Redeemer will not come from Him. It will come from the 'Enemy of souls!'

[Stone]

The following is a transcript of the communications read aloud by Fr. Hewko during this conference, queued for time:

✠ ✠ ✠

N. B. Notice that the conditions placed upon Fr. Hewko by Bp. Williamson to receive Holy Oils are that he (Fr. Hewko) publicly accept the Novus Ordo Eucharistic "miracles." As an aside, this begs the question, since there have been so many 'miracles' lately (see here, here, and here, for examples) one wonders if this acceptance applies to all the alleged miracles or just one or two? 

But more importantly, observe that it is demanded of Fr. Hewko that he believe in the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass and its subsequent 'miracles.' That is what is at stake. Public proclamation of the legitimacy of the New Mass. 

Notice there is essentially no difference between what Bp. Williamson demands and what Bp. Fellay signed in the Doctrinal Declaration, which states that the Novus Ordo Mass is "legitimately promulgated." Very hard to distinguish between these two sides of the same coin! 

Archbishop Lefebvre said this of the New Mass, in 1976(!): “And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976).

✠ ✠ ✠

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote to Bp. Williamson [emphasis mine, any mistakes in transcription are also mine.]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Easter Greetings to you and wishing you good health and many graces from the Risen Savior!

May I appeal, once again, for Holy Oils for this year? I have asked Bp. Zendejas but so far, no response. I'm not sure why this silent treatment continues, it is rather puzzling to me.

If it is, as you said before, a deserved response for "misrepresenting your position on the New Mass," with all due respect, how can I misrepresent you when I simply quote your own words? It was never Abp. Lefebvre who taught these things, nor have I taken you out of context, in fact, have bent over backwards to try to justify your words, hoping they were just oversights. But truthfully, after so many repetitions in conferences and letters and after receiving punishments for opposing these publicly voiced opinions, it is clear these are not mere oversights.

However, in truth, how often you repeated these were merely your "opinions" and that many confreres will not agree. Fair enough, but why be punished if some priests do not agree? Why be treated as outcasts when priests repeatedly quote our Founder who said the direct opposite so many times?

Your Excellency, all I'm requesting are the basic tools for saving souls! Baptisms and Extreme Unctions cannot be given without Holy Oils (aside from emergency baptisms). Why would a differing opinion be an obstacle to receiving Holy Oils? Would Jesuit or Dominican bishops of yesteryear refuse Holy Oils to Franciscan or Carmelite priests for holding different opinions on Grace or the reasons for the Incarnation? These were hotly debated theological opinions that caused much fighting between Orders but, in spite of all the bickering between them, I'm sure charity prevailed in most cases and priests received Holy Oils, dispensations, and any permissions needed for the good of souls.

In this case, all I quote is Abp. Lefebvre who never promoted New Mass miracles publicly, nor that it gives grace, nor that it can nourish your faith. In fact, as time passes from 1970 to 1980's his position becomes more adamantly opposed to this Masonic tool to destroy the Faith in souls. Facts show he was absolutely accurate. I have witnessed the confusion in many souls and quite honestly, scandal, from what has been publicly promoted from Broadstairs.

Nevertheless, if I have countered these opinions, I have always defended your name and praised your history of defending the Faith and the immeasurable treasures you gave us in the seminary and your guidance to innumerable souls throughout the '80's, '90 and on. But if these are differing opinions, fine, but why should these be grounds for refusing the basic tools for saving souls who just want to get to Heaven?

The fact is, there are hundreds of families and souls I take care of, who are waiting all these years for confirmation and have been scandalized by these novel opinions and prefer to wait for a bishop of Abp. Lefebvre (not Thuc!) who will simply hold his stand on the New Mass questions. Don't they have the right by Mother Church to be wary of novelties? Don't they have the right given by Our Lord to request for bread and be given bread? Why should they be treated as outcasts when they merely stand by the positions of Abp. Lefebvre?

Lastly, for all the insistence on "no structure and organization" it appears by the punishments incurred by priests holding different opinions, that there truly is a structure and organization in place. We all knew the doctrinal shift of Bp. Fellay was not merely words and opinions when it was backed by punishments for opposing his new direction. Punitive transfers, imposed silence, and expulsions backed his shift of direction towards Modernist Rome. I was silenced for giving a sermon at a First Mass in Winona in 2012, which merely quoted Abp. Lefebvre repeatedly. Punishments prove the program. My point is why should priests holding differing opinions be punished since they are not dogmas but opinions? Why should we be refused Holy Oils? Who else can we turn to? Thuc line? No. Sedevacantists? No. Novus Ordo? No.

Please, Your Excellency, for the good of souls battling to survive this horrible confusion and apostasy, do not turn a deaf ear to my appeal.

If I have been amiss or have not understood, please correct me.

With all filial respect, humility and affection, yours,

In Christo Rege,

Fr. David Hewko

✠ ✠ ✠

On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bishop Williamson replies:

Reverend,

When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.

Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.


With good wishes, in Christo,

Bp. Williamson

✠ ✠ ✠

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:17, Fr. Hewko wrote:

Your Excellency,

Then to whom do I turn? "For the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters."

In Christo Rege,

Fr. Hewko

✠ ✠ ✠

On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bp. Williamson wrote:

Make up your mind. Choose.

Either you write in public, to all those people that you normally write to, that you have been wrong to deny the possibility of Eucharistic miracles at Novus Ordo Masses, and you quote several cases of such miracles which you now admit to have taken place. And you will have to persuade me that you sincerely mean what you write, and that you are not writing it just to deceive me. Judging by your past behavior that will be very difficult for you to do. And I have to remain the judge as to whether you may or may not have done it. And if you try any form of weaseling out of it, I will never again read an email of yours. Choose.

Or you find yourself a bishop who agrees with you. How about Bishop Pfeiffer?

In Christ,

Bp. Williamson

✠ ✠ ✠

On Friday, April 21, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote [this was an excellent reply!]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Firstly, I thank you, since thirty-one years ago today, April 21, you ordained me in St. Mary's, Kansas. Thank you again, unworthy of such a grace as I truly am but please remember me in your prayers of the Breviary & Mass!

Secondly, in response to your request to publicly endorse the New Mass Eucharistic miracles as a condition to possibly receive Holy Oils, may I bring some things forward for consideration?

While St. Paul says "Charity believeth all things," St. John also warns to "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God." With regard to the New Mass Eucharistic miracles, I prefer to wait for the final approval of Mother Church, not the Conciliar propaganda. To give the appearance of authenticity, the Conciliarists have invented New Mass canonized "saints", New Mass "incorrupt" bodies, New Mass Marian "apparitions", New Mass Rosary mysteries and New Mass "Eucharistic miracles." One must ask what is the final cause is in all these? The bad tree produces bad fruit and the Conciliar New Religion and New Mass are certainly bad trees. It cannot be doubted that all of these phenomena lead souls directly to the New Conciliar Religion and New Mass. That's where lies the great danger!

It has been proven that some of the "miracles" for the new canonizations were not miracles at all; that Pope John XXIII's "incorrupt" body was heavily dosed with formaldehyde, as admitted by the morticians who treated his body. Some New Mass "miracles" have already been proven to be frauds. In the case of Sokolka, Poland, some Polish people have told me the bishop there was indicted for money laundering, left with a nun and, at least according to them and news reports, the new bishop has never declared this as a miracle but simply that "it confirms the faith." But they won't declare on it because the oncoming pilgrims bring financial stability.

Fr. Cordozo visited the Eucharistic "miracle" in Argentina and was refused admittance to view it, but remarked how the church had the Blessed Sacrament exposed in a flowery pastel monstrance with all the modern art surrounding it.

I guess if St. Thomas Aquinas were to treat this subject, he would admit that, in the case of a valid Mass where the Consecration truly took place, a miracle of this sort would be possible in the realm of God's omnipotence, but he would certainly have raised questions if it came from the New Mass. Belief in the New Mass "miracles," he couldn't deny, leads directly to the New Mass. The New Mass, although admittedly can be valid, nevertheless, leads to a loss of Faith, is often sacrilegious and represents a Rite that is "odious in God's sight" (as Our Lord told Marie-Julie Jahenny). True miracles confirm the Truth. True miracles confirm Catholic doctrine and the Faith. Will God permit miracles to confirm an odious Rite of Mass? Will God work miracles to reinforce errors, heresy and sacrilege that are nearly intrinsic to the New Mass? This is the question that poses the problem.

With all things considered, perhaps the more prudent ground to stand on, is to patiently withhold judgement and wait for Mother Church to come back to Tradition. Then the world will have the final reliable decision. All the while publicly promoting the pre-Vatican II Eucharistic miracles (of which there are plenty!) and saints, while at the same time, being extremely cautious with the post-Vatican II phenomena and so-called miracles. If the Conciliar Modernist episcopate can parade before the whole world (with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II's presence and approval) a fake Sister Lucia of Fatima, as has been forensically and scientifically proven, what other frauds are they not capable of flaunting?

Perhaps, the more prudent position is to take to heart the warnings of Our Lord: "For there will rise up false prophets, and wonders (e.g. false Eucharistic miracles), to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect" (St. Mark 13:22). Where do the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" lead but to the New Mass? What devotions do they foster but the prayers and ecumenism of the New Mass? What do these shrines promote but the errors of Vatican II and confirm people in the faith of the Conciliar Church, which Abp. Lefebvre didn't hesitate to call a Modernist Church, and a "schismatic church" which leads to apostasy and heresy?

In this light, your Excellency, I can never promote, privately or publicly, the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" for it would lead souls to the wrong Church and at the very least to confusion, and the devil works in confused waters! Please consider also possibly holding this position yourself, since we were warned that the devil can appear as an angel of light, and with what greater deceit can he mislead souls than the Conciliar Church, with its new priesthood, new sacraments, new Mass, new morality, new theology, new Code of Canon Law, new religion! How many "elect" have truly been seduced by the Conciliar Church and have lost the Faith? The statistics show millions! How many souls has it taken to Hell?

Now, with all this in consideration may I have the Holy Oils to continue being about my Father's business? [A side note, I do not presume to give Confirmations and I never will. On that, don't agree with Fr. Rafael, OSB].

Humbly asking your blessings, filially yours,

Fr. David Hewko


Post scriptum: The Thuc line is out of the question because it swims in doubt, scandals and craziness, as Archbishop Lefebvre advised, stay away! Therefore, Fr. Pfeiffer is out of the question.

[Stone]

The following is an excerpt from Fr. Joseph Fenton's Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism. It is an excellent commentary on Pope St. Pius X's Oath against Modernism, delving into the background and context of this important Motu Proprio.

The following is from Fr. Fenton's Introduction:

(5) St. Pius X describes the Modernists as men "who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us." It would be difficult indeed to appreciate the position of the Church in the twentieth century without realizing the objectivity and the shrewdness of this observation.

A man is to be feared by the Church, or by the members of the Church, in the measure that this man intends and is genuinely able to harm the Church, or to counteract and negate the salvific mission of Our Lord's Mystical Body in this world. And this happens especially when non-members of the Church are influenced not to accept its divine message and not to seek entrance into this society, and when members of the Church are pressured to reject Our Lord, or His love, or His divine teaching. It is most important to remember that the only real and serious damage to the cause of Christ is done when effective efforts are made to nullify and to counteract the work the Church does as the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ Our Lord.

With its insistence that the Modernists and their sympathizers were "enemies who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us," the introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum takes cognizance of the fact that, during our own times at least, non-members of the Church have, generally speaking, not been able to damage the Church to any very considerable extent. [...]

On the other hand, no one has ever been as well placed to harm the true Church and to counteract its essential work as a Catholic priest [or bishop] in good standing. If such a man, by his preaching, his teaching, or his writing, actually sets forth the kind of teaching condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis, or if he works to discredit the loyal defenders of Catholic dogma [such as those priests persecuted for standing up for Tradition] without receiving any repudiation or reproof from those to whom the apostolic deposit of divine revelation has been entrusted, the Catholic people are in grave danger of being deceived.

Diminishing the dangers of the New Mass and thus everything Vatican II embodies causes great, great harm to souls, especially coming from bishops and priest within the Fake Resistance who previously were once known as being strong in the Faith, e.g. Bishops Williamson and Zendejas. It is these types of once-good clergy who the saintly Pope warned do the most damage to souls by virtue of their working against the Faith all the while maintaining the appearance of virtue.