Bp. Williamson makes the N.O. Miracles a Condition of Holy Oils

[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 was sent to me.

It is a published email response from Bishop Williamson to one of his most avid public defenders.

In it Bishop Williamson plainly doubles down on his stance of trading 'acceptance of Novus Ordo miracles for Holy Oils.'

Unfortunately for the Bishop, and fortunately for those confused by his often talking out of both sides of his mouth about the Novus Ordo, his response took away any ability of his followers to opine that he didn't really mean what he wrote to Fr. Hewko.

Some tried very hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, that surely he didn't childishly, or perhaps the right word is insidiously, insist upon this 'pay to play' scheme to receive Holy Oils with which to aid souls, particularly for Baptism and Extreme Unction by indirectly accepting the New Mass.

But it was the Bishop himself who cleared the matter up very nicely, by repeating his insistence upon this point.

Here is the post on another forum where Bishop Williamson's position was clarified:

Let's not make it a battle of interpretations. [Referring to the firestorm of opinions being bandied about in trying to either defend the Bishop or take him plainly at his word. - The Catacombs]

I sent +Williamson the following email, and if he responds, I will post his reply:

Greetings Your Lordship-

Last week, Fr. Hewko published an email correspondence between him and yourself which contained the following passage:

“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.”

Some online commentators are construing Your Lordship’s words as requiring belief in Novus Ordo miracles as a prerequisite for the reception of holy oils, while others are saying this is simply Your Lordship’s way of telling Fr. Hewko to buzz off (not just because of disagreement on this issue, but 10 others over the years as well), by requiring a condition Your Lordship knows he won’t accept.

In this matter, the Hewkonians have found an ally in the sedevacantists, since both consider Novus Ordo miracles impossible (the sedes, because they allege the Mass is per se invalid; the Hewkonians because they think it would mean God is endorsing the new Mass).

A second issue of complaint stemming from Your Lordship’s words to Fr. Hewko is that Your Lordship is morally obligated to give oils to him (or any other renegade priest on the planet, regardless of his positions, for the good of their faithful), or it is tantamount to “weaponizing” the sacraments.

May I request an additional comment from Your Lordship to clarify your thoughts on:

-Whether belief in Novus Ordo miracles is required in order to receive holy oils;
-A response to those who say Your Lordship is required to give oils to anyone who requests them

Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson



+Williamson responds:

Dear Sean,

It is clear and repeated denial of true scientific evidence which renders anyone guilty of one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Ghost. Let anybody in doubt look them up.

Common sense says that precious gifts of God should hardly be handed out to people hardly able to appreciate reality.


God bless, BpW.

There were many disillusioned comments that followed. One of the more erudite was:

I like Bishop Williamson very much.

But I think he's going off the rails here, as others have said; he's even doubling down by holding the rejection of NO "Eucharistic miracles" to be tantamount (loosely speaking I hope) to a sin against the Holy Ghost.  Never has the Catholic Church required belief in private miracles and private revelations.  I could see some other reasons for Bishop Williamson not wanting to cooperate with Father Hewko, but this?

+Williamson's statement was actually even a bit more broad, stating that the rejection of scientific evidence might constitute such a sin against the Holy Spirit, so it could just be a matter of time before he says that rejecting the "scientific evidence" for a Globe Earth would be a sin also.

And that speaks to "scientific evidence", much of which is very subject to interpretation and often falsification.  Bishop Williamson's only window into the scientific evidence is from links on the internet (which we all know are all true).  Also, there's the very simple problem that the devil can easily simulate such "miracles".

Let us also recall, it was "true and scientific evidence" that the Covid vaccines work and would cause no harm.

It is our sensus catholicus that warns us against supposed Eucharistic miracles coming from the schismatic Conciliar Church. 

A reminder of one of the replies of Fr. Hewko to Bishop Williamson from the OP:

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.

[Stone]

In a recent interview with Catholic Family News, Archbishop Viganò noted the following, echoing the words of Archbishop Lefebvre. 

It doesn't sound as if  Viganò believes that any good (Eucharistic miracles or otherwise) comes from the New Mass or the Conciliar Church: 

The abolition of the Apostolic Mass by Paul VI in order to replace it with a counterfeit written by heretics was an abuse, and the nullification of Summorum Pontificum by Bergoglio was also an abuse. It is no coincidence that they are both part of a “conciliar church” broken off from the Catholic Church; a self-referential “church” that has separated from Sacred Tradition, with its own “saints,” its own rites, its own doctrine and morality, all in stark contrast to the Saints, Rites, Doctrine and Morality of the Church of Christ.

[Stone]

The following is but one of many quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre, the same Archbishop who consecrated Bishop Williamson. Bp. Williamson, who purports to follow in the founder of the SSPX's footsteps, but who rather frequently contradicts what the Archbishop kept in focus, the fight for Christ the King. 

The Archbishop was plain spoken about the inherent dangers of the New Mass. This is how traditional Catholics thought and fought for many decades. But time has a way to softening people and what they used to fight to preserve is becoming more and more an after-thought. But this still remains a fight for Christ the King! It is His honor we fight for. Not for a democratic, Protestant, modernist New Mass that pleases Modernists! 

Yet Bishop Williamson is only too willing to promote the new Conciliar religion, in a double-tongued manner, as is plainly noted in the OP.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

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.

For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonised by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.

This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time. of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion. It is no longer the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the assembly. Now this is an entire program-an entire program. Henceforth it is the assembly also that replaces authority in the Church. It is the assembly of bishops that replaces the power of (individual) bishops. It is the priests' council that replaces the power of the bishop in the diocese. It is numbers that command from now on in the Holy Church. And this is expressed in the Mass precisely because the assembly replaces the priest, to such a point that now many priests no longer want to celebrate Holy Mass when there is no assembly. Slowly but surely the Protestant notion of the Mass is being introduced into the Holy Church.

And this is consistent with the mentality of modern man- absolutely consistent. For it is the democratic ideal which is the fundamental idea of modern man, that is to say, that the power lies with the assembly, that authority is in the people, in the masses, and not in God. And this is most grave. Because we believe that God is all-powerful; we believe that God has all authority; we believe that all authority comes from God. "Omnis potestas a Deo." All authority comes from God. We do not believe that authority comes from below. Now that is the mentality of modern man.

And the New Mass is not less than the expression of this idea that authority is at the base, and no longer in God. This Mass is no longer a hierarchical Mass; it is a democratic Mass. And this is most grave. It is the expression of a whole new ideology. The ideology of modern man has been brought into our most sacred rites.

Compare that to what Bishop Williamson preaches - his own words (taken from here):

· The new religion can build your Faith. (1)

· Attending the New Mass can build your Faith. (2)

· Do whatever you think you need to do to keep the Faith, which can include attending the Novus Ordo Mass. (3)

· If you attend the Novus Ordo Mass you have to be careful, but you can find the grace of God there and sanctify your soul. (4)

· Not everyone needs to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass. (5)

· Attending the Novus Ordo may do more good than harm spiritually. (6)

· Not every priest needs to leave the Conciliar church or stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass. (7)

· The Novus Ordo Mass does not always undermine the Faith, though frequently it does. (8)

· The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is that it is ambiguous. It can be made to favour the new religion, but does not have to, it can also be done in line with the old religion. (9)

· The problem with Vatican II is that it is ambiguous. (10)

· By distancing yourself from the Conciliar church, you are putting yourself in danger and risk becoming a Pharisee who is disconnected from reality. (11)

· We must accept the supposed ‘Eucharistic miracles’ of the Novus Ordo Mass as genuine. (12)

· The Eucharistic miracles of the Novus Ordo Mass have lessons for Traditional Catholics, one of which is that the Novus Ordo Mass doesn’t always have to be avoided. (13)

· The Novus Ordo Mass is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but it is still better than nothing. (14)


Which of these two prelates is a true Shepherd? They contradict each other and cannot both be right... 


Archbishop Lefebvre: 

• “It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)
  
  
• “This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)
  
  
• “It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)
  
  
• “… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism”.
  
  
• and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)
  "This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)
  

[Stone]

Fr. Chazal, in a Miles Christi newsletter dated Summer 2023, states what we all have long known, that the New Mass is doubtful, that the New Rites of Ordination are doubtful. Yet for this same position, Fr. Hewko - and by extension, the faithful - are denied Holy Oils. 

The following is a rough computer translation of Fr. Chazal's words from the original French:

Archbishop Lefebvre, for good reason, questioned this third "power to sanctify" in the Novus Ordo Church.  In his historic homily of June 30, 1988, he declared that he will proceeded to this consecration of the four bishops precisely because one can not have a guarantee of the validity of ordinations (and sacraments) in the Novus Ordo due to overt alterations of the "liturgical reform" that followed Vatican II, by which the form ("Spiritus principalis") has been tampered with; and, much like for the reform of Cranmer (and his successors), almost all the annexes that him have it was modified as for not to express clearly the intention of the Church, but in an ambiguous way, Protestant.

Assuming the translation is loosely accurate, we have Fr. Chazal reinforcing what we all have understood: Archbishop Lefebvre performed the 1988 Consecrations precisely of the doubtfulness of the New Sacraments and of the New Rite of Ordination.

And yet, Bishop Williamson would have us subtly ignore this reality. Rather he demands that we, particularly the priests who needs his assistance in his role of bishop, accept that Our Lord would allow miracles and in the setting of doubtful priests and doubtful Sacraments!

Which begs the question, to what end? If Our Lord did indeed allow such miracles, the only real conclusion left to draw is that the Novus Ordo must be approved by Heaven for it to be 'blessed' with such miracles.

[Stone]

Trump, Fellay, Williamson: Eroding Catholic Resistance

COMBAT☩ERROR - THE☩TRUMPET [Emphasis - The Catacombs] | November 14, 2024


The Catholic traditionalist movement is at a critical juncture. A̶s̶ C̶a̶t̶h̶o̶l̶i̶c̶s̶ d̶e̶d̶i̶c̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ t̶o̶ p̶r̶e̶s̶e̶r̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶h̶e̶ f̶u̶l̶l̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ F̶a̶i̶t̶h̶ As Catholics devoted to upholding the one true Faith as handed down by Christ and his apostles, we find ourselves facing not only external pressures but internal conflicts that threaten our unity. Within forums like CathInfo, discussions on modernism’s errors have devolved into personal attacks and factional disputes. These distractions only serve to obscure essential issues—such as Bishop Williamson’s insistence on recognizing the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) “Eucharistic miracles” as a condition for receiving Holy Oils, as well as the infiltration of secular ideologies within the SSPX under Bishop Fellay. This article examines these issues with a view to highlighting the irreplaceable need for doctrinal clarity and a steadfast adherence to traditional Catholic principles.

In online forums like CathInfo, we often see Catholics debating each other rather than addressing profound issues undermining the Faith. One significant example is Bishop Williamson’s demand that acceptance of NOM “Eucharistic miracles” is necessary for Catholics. His stance has led to the denial of Holy Oils to priests like Father Hewko, who require these sacramentals to administer critical sacraments. Father Hewko’s plea illustrates the gravity of this decision:

“Your Excellency, all I’m requesting are the basic tools for saving souls! Baptisms and Extreme Unctions cannot be given without Holy Oils… Why would a differing opinion be an obstacle to receiving Holy Oils?”

This denial of Holy Oils raises serious concerns about Bishop Williamson’s priorities and responsibility. Even a heretical or excommunicated priest can validly administer Extreme Unction in an emergency. Here, however, Bishop Williamson’s own doctrinal stance appears to take precedence over the salvation of souls.

When a Cathinfo under the username Sean Johnson sought clarification on this matter, Bishop Williamson responded in a way that revealed much about his doctrinal stance. In an email to Johnson, he stated,

“It is clear and repeated denial of true scientific evidence which renders anyone guilty of one of the unforgivable sins against the Holy Ghost… Common sense says that precious gifts of God should hardly be handed out to people hardly able to appreciate reality.”

Bishop Williamson’s words imply that belief in NOM “Eucharistic miracles” is not only a condition for receiving sacramentals like Holy Oils but is essential to avoid sinning against the Holy Ghost itself.

For those committed to traditional Catholicism, this assertion is profoundly troubling. If Bishop Williamson believes NOM “miracles” are authentic, what purpose does the defense of the Tridentine Mass serve? Does this position not suggest a re-alignment with the very Church that promulgated the NOM and introduced confusion into Catholic worship? Bishop Williamson’s statements create an unprecedented “dogma” that requires adherence to an unorthodox belief, directly contradicting traditional Catholic teaching.


The Dialectic at Play

Amidst these controversies, a broader dialectical strategy appears to be influencing not only religious but secular circles. Just as there is a push to reconcile traditional Catholics with modernist practices, a similar tactic is being used in secular politics. Figures like Donald Trump are presented as conservative “saviors” despite positions that directly conflict with Catholic principles— pro-sodomy, pro-abortion. This controlled opposition distracts from the true Catholic mission: the reunification of Church and State under the Social Kingship of Christ.

A parallel trend has emerged within the SSPX under Bishop Fellay. Rather than openly addressing the Society’s compromises, there seems to be a push to integrate traditional, doctrinal Catholics with conservative Latin Mass attendees. This merging reflects Benedict XVI’s 2007 Motu Proprio, which blurred traditional distinctions by encouraging coexistence between the old and new rites. This strategy, often termed a “Hegelian dialectic,” serves to “gray the lines” between truth and error, creating a hybrid model that undermines true Catholic identity.


The Weight of Responsibility

Ultimately, Bishop Williamson’s insistence on belief in NOM “miracles” forces traditionalists to question the nature of the Novus Ordo Mass itself. His implication that the NOM can foster sanctification stands in direct contradiction to traditional Catholic teaching. In his Mahopac, NY talk, Williamson stated,

“Attending the New Mass can build your faith.”

“Not everyone needs to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass.”

“Attending the Novus Ordo may do more good than harm spiritually.”

He further asserted in a 2014 talk in St. Catharine’s, Ontario, “Not every priest needs to leave the Conciliar church or stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass.” Such statements would be unthinkable in light of traditional doctrine.

If Bishop Williamson sincerely believes these “miraculous fruits” stem from the NOM, he has a responsibility to clarify his position with the Church that promulgated it. The burden of proof lies on him, for he has declared that acceptance of NOM “miracles” is essential to be in “his Church” and to avoid sinning against the Holy Ghost. His statements demand not only personal accountability but a response from all traditional Catholics committed to preserving the Faith in its entirety.

In a world increasingly hostile to absolute truth, the traditionalist movement must remain vigilant against every form of compromise. We cannot afford to let personal opinions, political loyalties, or pragmatic alliances dilute our duty to Christ and His Church. The debate around NOM “miracles” is not a matter of private opinion; it concerns the preservation of authentic Catholic teachings that have endured through centuries of persecution. Compromising on this issue would betray the very mission that +Archbishop Lefebvre dedicated his life to defending. Faithful Catholics must remain united in rejecting any attempt to reinterpret or diminish the Catholic Faith. This is not merely about fidelity to tradition—it is about the salvation of souls.



...TheCatholicTrumpet therefore must ask the good Bishop: does denying belief in Novus Ordo “miracles” exclude one from the sacraments and the Catholic Church?



-The☩Trumpet