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.