Monday, December 7, 2015

Bishop Williamson's "Novus Miracle"


 Just when you think Bp. Richard Williamson, the expelled prelate formerly of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), can't get any more confused in his thinking, he's right there to prove you wrong. His last couple of e-letters (entitled Eleison Comments) seek to prove the Vatican II sect is the True Church by citing alleged "Eucharistic Miracles" produced by the Novus Bogus "mass." He links to a video about a "miracle" that happened in 1996 at a Vatican II service in Argentina (home of false "Pope" Francis). The host is supposed to have changed to real human flesh.

 In summation, Bp. Williamson attempts to "prove:"
  • God works Eucharistic miracles to strengthen the Faith in so sublime a mystery as the Real Presence, and to remind people of the reverence due the Sacred Species. Due to the lack of belief in the Real Presence and the profanation of the "host" at the Novus Bogus, we should be wondering why God hasn't performed more of these miracles (!) To his credit, Bp. Williamson does say, at least in one of his missives, "if this (event) is true." However, he certainly seems to think it really took place.
  • Not all Vatican II "masses" are invalid
  • Not all Vatican II priestly "ordinations" and episcopal "consecrations" are invalid
  • Catholics became to worldly to keep the Mass, but loved it too much to lose it completely (whatever this invented idea is supposed to mean)
  • The Novus Bogus is "bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts" so a Eucharistic miracle can happen 
This unsubstantiated nonsense makes one wonder how the website "Traditio" can refer to Williamson as "intelligent."  I shall set forth the Church's teaching on miracles and how it applies in the instant case.

THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON MIRACLES
1. Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

Proof: From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

 "Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time."

From the Vatican Council (1870):

"If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema." 

2. While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

Proof: Many events thought to be miraculous were denied as such by the Magisterium of the Church prior to the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II. 

  • Many people claimed that they saw the statue of Our Lady of Assisi move and smile. (1948) The Church later declared there was no apparition of Our Lady in Assisi, and no miraculous events.
  • There are people hundreds of years into the canonization process as of  1958 (death of Pope Pius XII) whose alleged miracles were never confirmed despite large numbers of witnesses.
  • Theresa Neumann (d. 1962) was alleged to have survived only on the Eucharist for 30 years, and claimed the stigmata. The Church has never confirmed nor denied these miraculous claims which were investigated beginning in 1928.

 3. Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology,Desclee Company, 1959, 1:40-45)

In Exodus 7: 8-13, we read:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." (Emphasis mine).

APPLICATION OF CHURCH TEACHING TO WILLIAMSON'S THESIS

   Bp. Williamson wants us to believe that there is a partially defective hierarchy, with a partially defective "mass" and sacraments, replete with partially heretical teachings. God will then attest to this mishmash by performing Eucharistic miracles. 

Salient problems:
  • In the absence of a pope and hierarchy, we can't give credence to any alleged miracles. However, given Williamson's assertions, if they were miracles, to what would God be attesting? Is He showing that this particular priest can confect the Eucharist? This particular way of using the Novus Bogus is valid?  After all, if it is "partly good, partly bad, and bad as a whole" wouldn't God be attesting to something that is "bad as a whole?"
  • Who discerns which priests and bishops are the valid ones? Bp. Williamson? His episcopal buddy, Bp. Faure? Do we simply wait for confirmation by way of miracle?
  • If the Vatican II sect's "sacrament" of Holy Orders is only invalid sometimes, what makes it so? The form and intention have been rendered substantially defective. How does a valid priest or bishop "slip in through the cracks"? again, who decides which ones are valid? The SSPX claims Francis as "pope," yet they have been acting as an "Uber-Magisterium" for years by "reviewing" Vatican II sect annulments and deciding which ones they got correct. Perhaps Williamson could do the same for Vatican II "priests" and "bishops." 
  • The only valid episcopal consecration in the Vatican II sect since 1968 (of which I am aware) took place in 2002. The Society of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil defected to the Vatican II sect, betraying their holy founder, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. All the priests of the Society had been validly ordained to the priesthood in the traditional rite of the Church by Bishop de Castro Mayer (himself having been consecrated by order of Pope Pius XII in 1948). Fr. Licinio Rangel was chosen to replace Bp. de Castro Mayer when the bishop passed, and was consecrated in the traditional rite by Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX as principal consecrator (Bps. Alphonso de Galaretta and Richard Williamson as co-consecrators), on July 28, 1991. After they apostatized, Wotyla (John Paul II) allowed Bp. Rangel to choose a successor. He picked Fr. Fernando Rifan, of the Society. On August 18, 2002, the traditional rite of episcopal consecration was used. Despite the fact "Cardinal" Dario Castrillon Hoyos (principal consecrator) and "Archbishop" Alano Maria Pena (co-consecrator) were themselves invalidly consecrated, Bp. Rangel was a true bishop and second co-consecrator.  Hence, Rifan's consecration was valid through the episcopal lineage of Rangel. Notice how my conclusion is based on solid principles of theology applied to the facts. Bp. Williamson gets his theory from....well, any place BUT Catholic theology applied to the facts. 

The heresy of Modernism produces no miracles; it even eschews the very notion of such. The fact that Bp. Williamson can claim alleged "Eucharistic miracles" in defense of a partially evil "mass" means he is a heretic that believes that the Church can defect and give that which is evil.  As theologian Van Noort teaches:
"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115; Emphasis in original)

 The "church" of Richard Williamson has some valid "masses" and some invalid. Some valid priests and bishops, some invalid. And which is which, well, nobody knows! Maybe someday Bp. Williamson will come to his senses, and apply real Catholic theology and principles to the facts at hand to come to the correct conclusion of sedevacantism. Then again, I'm starting to believe that would take a real miracle

17 comments:

  1. In their defense,Traditio.com has stated Bishop Williamson has lost his courage and faith a few times recently.(Or something to that effect they have been very disappointed by him and the SSPX old guard lately.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct, and your point is well taken.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. you sir are an idiot...Private revelation or miracles adds nothing to the Deposit of Faith and nor add to any teaching of the Church , it is exactly that private and any Catholics or individual person for that matter gets some spiritual lift from these private revelation and miracles approve or not then that’s fine , why? Because this is not a new teaching and will never be required belief by Catholics unless your and idiot…that should be crystal…
    Same goes with the new mass…new mass in Latin is valid but illicit, orthodox mass is valid even though they’re schismatic but again illicit…that’s why Bishop Williamson keep on saying illicit , it’s bad etc because he knows…
    Same goes with Pope Francis although heretics still a valid Pope…objectively Pope Francis is heretic meaning it can be proven but subjectively only God knows…
    What does the bible say about judging people?
    Matthew 7: 1-5
    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Private revelations/miracles that confirm a lie (that the Vatican 2 sect is of God) cannot come from God.

      2. The Novus Bogus in Latin is just as invalid as in the vernacular because (a) lack of a valid priesthood since 1968 and (b) the Words of Consecration replaced with an "Institution Narrative" results in a defective intention presuming a valid priest.

      3. We can prove Francis is a heretic objectively but only God knows if he's really a heretic? Really? Church teaching is clear that once heresy is proven objectively, there is no subjective component.

      "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity (E)xcusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, 35.)

      5. As far as "judging others" it doesn't mean what you think it does.
      otice Jesus is not telling us not to judge--He's telling us how to judge. He commands us to take the speck out of our brother's eye (which requires a judgment), but also commands us to stop committing even bigger sins so we can better help him. In other words, do not judge hypocritically.Jesus Christ actually commands us to judge in St. John 7:24, " Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

      Be glad Our Lord doesn't mean what you think, because didn't you begin your comment by calling me an "idiot"? An wouldn't that make you both my judge and a hypocrite?

      With such muddled thinking and ignorance---you're not Bp Williamson, are you??
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Good job Introibo!

      Delete
    3. Many thanks. I've found that people who simply call names have little (if anything) to contribute in rational discourse.
      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. In the early days of the SSPX, what happened if a priest ordained in the Novus Ordo crossed over and learned to celebrate the Tridentine Rite. Was he re-ordained?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I've read yes they were re-ordained and that stopped by early 80's.Nowadays they hold the new rites are valid and there are a handful of novus ordo types in their group.

      Delete
    2. The policy of the SSPX was to conditionally re-ordain all Vatican II sect "priests" as Archbishop Lefebvre held the new rites to be dubious. When he began negotiations with Wotyla, he changed the policy to conditionally re-ordain those priests only if they consented. So, beginning circa 1980, he stopped calling the new rites dubious and would only repeat in the traditional rite with the priest's consent.
      He even ordained a "priest" at Econe in the new rite, because the priest specifically requested such.

      Things got very sticky in 1982 when Fr Jenkins and Fr Cekada (2 of the nine priests who founded the Society of St Pius V in 1983), demanded that Lefebvre re-ordain Fr Phillip Stark, a Jesuit who joined the Society having been ordained in the new rite in 1970. Stark staunchly refused, and Lefebvre made it clear he would not order him to undergo a conditional re-ordination. That was the last straw, so to speak, which lead to the founding of the SSPV.

      After Lefebvre passed, Bp. Fellay kept the same policy until new negotiations began with Ratzinger in 2005. Bps. Williamson and Tissier would request V2 priests to get re-ordained although it was no longer official policy. Since at least 2012 after the expulsion of Wiiliamson, the three remaining bishops do not re-ordain unless specifically asked by the "priest" to do so. As a result there are now several invalid priests in charge of their Chapels. Beware. This is what happens when you recognize a heretic as "pope."
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. I just learned last week the SSPX will not conditionally re-ordain novus ordo 'priest's'.
      A man in NY stopped going to the SSPX chapel because of this insanity.
      What's funny is the novus ordo 'priest' wanted to be conditionally re-ordained and Fellay won't allow it to happen.

      Delete
    4. Wow! A new low for the SSPX.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. What's even more bizarre is Fr.Cekada learned about the new rites being invalid from Archbishop Lefebvre circa 1976/1977.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can a sedevacantist go to a Valid SSPX Mass? So called Una cum Mass?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my opinion (and that's all it is) the answer is yes if no sedevacantist Mass is available. Please see my post "Can A Traditionalist Attend Mass At SSPX" of 11/14/13.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The great obfuscation here is the total side swerving rhetoric that completely evades the most important aspect : The of the lack of miracles in the sedevacantist camp . Now that is something worth considering for anyone who has become more confused about this . The devil would love nothing more than to frighten catholics away from the church and sacraments which is what sedevacantism is doing with great effect .

      Delete
    3. There are no sacraments in the Vatican II sect apart from some baptisms and marriages. If there are valid sacraments and a true pope, what you have is Schism and mere preference for the old rites on behalf of the SSPX. Miracles were necessary in the Early Church, but not so now as Her Divine Mission has been established. This is the standard line of Protestants who claim they are the true religion because they "speak in tongues."
      "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believed." St John 20:29

      ---Introibo

      Delete