Quotes of Bp. Williamson supporting the new religion and conciliarism

  • Thread starter Deleted member 149
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Member 149 is Machabees

"Catholics have a strict right to know the doctrine of their priests and bishops."

(Archbishop Lefebvre)


Bishop Williamson can speak for himself!

This is an archived list of Bishop Williamson’s quotes word for word placed in their related categories.

This archived list, unfortunate as it is, will be updated and edited regularly when new quotes are found showing the evolved thoughts and actions of Bishop Williamson's position entrenched with independence and trad-ecumenism.

The reader can judge for themselves.

From the help of others, these quotes are taken from his many Conferences, his blog - Eleison Comments, Letters to faithful, showing a consistent pattern and pertinacity that is very troubling to say the least.

[Note: I will highlight in green a word [NEW] what is updated since original posting.]
_______________________________________________________


Promoting the new religion:
  • While the new religion is false, is dangerous, and it strangles grace, and it’s helping many people to lose the faith, at the same time there are cases where it can be used and is used to build the faith.(Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “Stay away from the Novus Ordo. But exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “The golden rule is this. The absolute rule of rules seems to me be this. Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "In principle the NOM is a key part of the new religion. Which is a major part of the worldwide apostasy of today." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "N.O. priests are nourishing and building the faith in their N.O. parish."
  • "The new religion, is false, it's dangerous and it strangles grace. And it's helping many people to lose the faith. At the same time there are still cases where it's been, it can be used and is used still to build the faith." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "Stay away from the Novus Ordo, but exceptionally, if you're watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “I do not say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!’” (Bp. Williamson, conference in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada, 5th November 2014)
  • “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.” (Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 5th December 2015)

Promoting the Rite of the NOM:

  • “Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “If they can trust their own judgement, that attending the New Mass will do them more good than harm spiritually.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “Ask a priest you trust and heed his advice — maybe.”; “Decide for yourself.”; “If you can trust your own judgment, use your own judgment.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “There are Eucharistic miracles [beyond transubstantiation] in the New Mass.” (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "I would say that in certain circumstances like those you mention (i.e. you go to the Latin mass and occasionally go to the NOM during the week because you think the priest is saying the NOM “reverently”), exceptionally if you're not going to scandalize anybody. Because they know that you are a Catholic. They know that you're sticking with the true faith. And then they see you at the new mass, the conclusion that many of them will draw is , the new mass is okay because she's going. We've gotta be careful of that. So you've gotta be careful." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "There's nothing in the text of the new mass which makes it inevitably invalid." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "Novus ordo priests celebrate Masses as decently as possible." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "The essential PRINCIPLE is do whatever you need to keep the faith." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "If a priest that you trust says stay absolutely away from the new mass, well if you trust him, that might be the advice to take. Or if he says stay absolutely away from the mass of this priest, because I know that he's misleading,- that 's the advice to follow." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "You make your own judgements." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "Therefore, there are cases when even the Nouv Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building ones faith, instead of losing it." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "That's almost heresy within tradition." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "But I hope it's clear that I don't therefore say the NOM is good or the N.O. religion is good, or all N.O. priests are good. It's not the case. Obviously, not the case." [But it still can build your faith?] (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "But it does harm in itself. There's no doubt about that. It's a rite designed to undermine Catholic's faith and to make them believe in man and to stop -- to turn their belief away from God towards man." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "The whole of the new religion and the NOM which is an essential part of the new religion, is designed to get you away from the Catholic faith and that's why the rule of thumb is and will remain, stay away from the NOM." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "If they can trust their own judgement, that attending this mass will do them more good than harm, spiritually." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • "Therefore, I will not say every single person must stay away from every single NOM." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “The Novus Ordo Mass, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church … Doctrinally, the 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 Novus Ordo Mass frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the Novus Ordo Mass does not absolutely exclude the old religion.” (Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’, #437, 30th November 2015)
  • “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?” Result: The Novus Ordo Mass is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but it is still better than nothing. (‘Eleison Comments’ #437, 30th November 2015)
  • “...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.” “The 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.” (‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 30th November 2015)
Promoting the Eucharistic “miracles” beyond transubstantiation in the new mass:
  • "There have been Eucharistic miracles with the NOM…and still according." (Bishop Williamson, conference in Mahopac NY (usa), June 2015)
  • “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... 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.” (‘Eleison Comments’ #437, 30th November 2015)
  • However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition … ” (‘Eleison Comments’ #437, 30th November 2015)
Promoting the Conciliar Church:
  • "There is still something Catholic in the conciliar church, so it’s wrong for us to reject it completely.” (Bp. Williamson, Eleison Comments #447)
  • "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.(Bp. Williamson, ‘Eleison Comments’ #438, 5th December 2015)
  • [NEW] Sermon for the first Pontifical mass of Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, saying, God and his Church can be, and is, corrupt.
"The Catholic Church has gone conciliar, it's still the church, even though it is rotten with conciliarism with Vatican II." (Bishop Williamson, sermon for Bishop Zendejas's first pontifical High Mass, @ minute 24:32, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr7hlngdFTo)​


Promoting "Ecumenism":

  • "Our Lord said seek and you shall find; knock and it will be open to you. If you look for the truth, and you look for the true worship of God, you may find some of it in an Anglican Church. But you start talking to the minister, probably his principles are most likely are not completely true.” (Bishop Richard Williamson: 'The Existence of God: The Pre-requisite for all Politics', July 2016, @1:19:09, www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQalQor5itQ

Promoting Universal Salvation and Indifferentism:

  • [NEW] "To be a catholic rather than a non-catholic because a catholic has a much greater chance to get to heaven." (Bishop Williamson, Banquet speech after consecrating Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hetZgRGZafA ).
  • [NEW] "God will lead towards us the souls that He chooses. And if there isn't a grace given by God to a soul to come anywhere near us, that soul is not going to understand what we are up to. It takes a special grace for a soul today to understand what is going on. And so I don't think we need to be too concerned to bring souls towards us because people just don't understand today. They don't have ears to hear." (Bishop Williamson, Banquet speech after consecrating Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hetZgRGZafA ).
  • [NEW] "...the Apostles only left three means to them: example, charity, and prayer...I don't think much more will fly. This dog won't hunt. (Bishop Williamson, Banquet speech after consecrating Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017).
  • [NEW] "May God bless Bishop Zendejas. May God bless all Catholics in whatever part of the church who are keeping the faith despite everything. Not only inside Tradition. Let us not believe that tradition has a monopoly on Catholicism. Catholicism is much much more than the dear movement of tradition of today. May our Lady look after all Catholics in whatever part of the church they are found." (Bishop Williamson, Sermon for the first Pontifical mass of Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, @ minute 34:31, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr7hlngdFTo )
  • [NEW] "Such are the disputes, divisions, confusion and chaos in Catholic hearts and minds being caused by the churchmen’s hollowing out of their authority by their abandoning of God’s Truth, that many a clear-sighted Catholic can already be preferring to keep silent rather than attempt to argue or to teach. A mass of modern minds are so incapable any longer of thinking or reasoning that any attempt to dispel their errors can seem to risk only increasing their confusion." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, #513)
  • [NEW] Bishop Williamson penned another disparaged delivery of passiveness on the Blood of Christ. Stating, that he, the other bishops, and the new bishop Zendejas "has no ambition either to save or to convert either the Newchurch or the Newsociety." (Eleison Comments, #514)
  • “Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is any-where near you…” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments #505)
Promoting the Catholic Church is OUTSIDE the Traditional movement:
  • [NEW] "Let us not believe that tradition has a monopoly on Catholicism. Catholicism is much much more than the dear movement of tradition of today. May our Lady look after all Catholics in whatever part of the church they are found." (Bishop Williamson, Sermon for the first Pontifical mass of Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr7hlngdFTo )
  • [NEW] Consistent with what he said on Jan. 7, 2017 (EC #495), Tradition is only a "part of the Catholic Church":
"In today’s crisis of the Church, of an unprecedented gravity in all Church history, it is most important that Catholics should give due importance both to the Traditional movement and to the Catholic Church outside the Traditional movement." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, #495)

Separating again the Church as one and the “traditional movement” as another.

“Tradition in its broadest sense, meaning everything which Our Lord entrusted to his Church to be handed down ( tradendum in Latin) to world’s end, is indispensable to the Church, and the Traditional movement has played an indispensable part in preserving Traditional doctrine and sacraments from their destruction by the Conciliar Revolution over the last half-century.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, #495)

http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bp-williamson-makes-war-against-tradition-again.4774/
  • “Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is any-where near you…” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments #505)
Promoting "Maria Valtora", a condemned book on the Church's INDEX:


[Here is another good source for quotes:]
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

immaculata

Well-Known Member
Wonderful job as usual Machabees! I guess we might as well add the fact, for the many souls who make excuses for the Bishop, to reference Bishop's recent conference in Oregon, around 46th minute, where He is asked if he would retract his statements. Bishop W pound his fist on the desk and said NO. He will not. So there is no question on what the Bishop said and believes. Its now a matter of simply defending the truth, refuting errors, or just following a personality! There is no charity in not correcting the Bishop.
 
M

Martius

Guest
He is asked if he would retract his statements. Bishop W pound his fist on the desk and said NO. He will not.
So its seems that Hugh Akins and Sean Johnson are wearing egg on their faces now because they all tried to ascribe these errors of the Bishop as "awkward moments" (H.Akins) and moments of "minor imprudence" (S. Johnson).

It seems they have all doubled-down on these errors of the Bishop, including the Bishop himself - and have chosen to believe in the infallibility of Bishop Williamson over the infallibility of the Church.
 

Admin

Administrator
(April 2017)

About a year ago, we produced an article entitled: “Which of the Following Statements is Acceptable to You?” Since then, that article has already been rendered obsolete and out-of-date by the several further statements by Bishop Williamson, each of which deepens and elaborates his stand against Tradition. Because we all have short memories, we thought it wise to at least try to collect them all in one place. It was no small endeavour. The wording is ours, the teaching his. We provide the original source, so that, as always, you can see for yourself. And as always, we invite the reader to check that we are not making this up or lifting quotes out of context. Judge for yourself…

On The Conciliar Church:

· The New Religion can be used to build your Faith. (1)

· The problem with Vatican II is that it is ambiguous. (2)

· It is dangerous to distance yourself from the conciliar church. By distancing yourself from it you risk becoming a Pharisee disconnected from reality. (3)

· There is still Faith in the conciliar church. (4, 20b)

· The conciliar church is the Mainstream Church. (3)

· There is still good in the conciliar church so we mustn’t reject it completely.(4, 5)

· Not all priests in the conciliar church should get out of it. (6)

· If you know someone trapped in the conciliar church, you don’t need try too hard to get them out of it. (7)

· Tradition is not necessary for salvation. (21c)

On the New Mass:

· There are Eucharistic miracles happening in the New Mass. These miracles are genuine and they have lessons for Traditional Catholics. (8)

· The New Mass can nourish your Faith. (1, 10)

· Though it is the principal destroyer of the Church, the New Mass can give grace and spiritual nourishment. (9)

· Attending the New Mass may do more good than harm spiritually. (1)

· The problem with the New Mass is that it is ambiguous. (2, 11, 15)

· Though not as good as the Traditional Mass, the New Mass is better than nothing. (12)

· Though dangerous, the New Mass is helping souls to keep the Faith. (10, 13)

· Not everyone should avoid the New Mass and not every New Mass should be avoided. (6, 14)

· The New Mass can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it decently, a layman can attend it devoutly. Those who say otherwise are flying in the face of reality. (15)

· How will your children/grandchildren keep the Faith? By going to the New Mass. (16)

· The Council of Trent says that there is grace in the New Mass, as long as it is valid. (17)

· People who say that you don’t get grace from the New Mass are just looking down their noses at Novus Ordo Catholics as though they’re trash. They almost don’t believe that Novus Ordo Catholics have souls. (18)

· Because the New Mass is a mixture of good parts and bad parts, good people can use it to keep the Faith whilst remaining within the Novus Ordo. (19)

· That some people find their way out of the New Mass and come to Tradition proves that the New Mass was giving them grace, which is what allowed them to do it. (10, 20)

· Novus Ordo Catholics who don’t understand about the problems with the New Mass can go to the New Mass and receive grace from it. (9, 21)

· Traditional Catholics who do understand about the problems with the New Mass can go to the New Mass and receive grace from it. (22)

· Almighty God and His Blessed Mother are using the New Mass to save the souls of Novus Ordo Catholics in the Novus Ordo and through the Novus Ordo. (21)

· Many New Masses are liberal and can’t be attended. Others aren’t and can be. (23)

On Sedevacantism:

· If someone wants to be a sedevacantist, we needn’t bother trying to show them that they are mistaken. (7)

· Not all sedevacantist Masses should be avoided. (24)

· Sedevacantism is dangerous and it can lead to losing the Faith, but you can be a sedevacantist if you want. (25)

On Where to Attend Mass:

· You can attend Mass at the SSPX. (26)

· You can attend Mass at a sedevacantist chapel. (24)

· You can attend Mass at a Feeneyite chapel. (27)

· You can attend the Indult/Motu Proprio Mass - just go to the least contaminated one. (28)

· You can attend some Novus Ordo Masses, though there are many which you can’t attend. (23)

· You can attend “Resistance” priests and bishops, (including me!) who compromise on Faith and Morals. (29)

· …but beware of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko! (29)

On the Condemnations of the Church before the Council:

· Lawful judgements or sentences pronounced by the Church before the Council may be belittled, disregarded or ignored at leisure if you personally disagree with them. (30)

· Banned books on the Index, books containing heresy, immorality/impurity and books condemned by the Church can be read as long as you personally get something out of reading them. (31)

· Banned books on the Index, containing heresy and immorality and condemned by the lawful sentence of the Church in 1949 can be promoted as being “...what God Himself has given to us.” (32)

On the Resistance, Authority and Structure:

· We needn’t bother imposing even a true viewpoint on anybody. (33)

· Priests and Bishops don’t have authority and so cannot advise people on what they should do or where they should go. People are on their own and have to work it out for themselves. (34)

· I don’t have any authority. I cannot have any authority. (34)

· Don’t look to me for leadership. I see my role as being a friend and adviser. (34a, 35)

· Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to pass on his authority. (36)

· Why am I consecrating Fr. Zendejas? To pass on my authority. (36)

· Priestly Congregations and Seminaries are out of date. (37)

· There cannot be any structure or organisation in the Resistance, it just isn’t possible. It’s too late. The time for structures is over, is yesterday. (38, 39, 40)

· There can’t be any authority or structure in the Resistance without the Pope approving it. (39)

· I’m not sure what the Resistance is, what it should be, or even if I believe in the Resistance at all. (40, 41)

· I can use the apparent lack of structure/authority as an excuse to refuse to ordain or tonsure seminarians, because, after all, there is no structure for them to be ordained into. (42)

· Yet in spite of everything I have said about not having structure or authority, I can instantly go back on that if I perceive that having a structure and authority might help to defeat my “rivals”. (43)

——————————————————————————————————

Concordance of Sources:

1 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik - 28th June 2015 - Mahopac, New York:
“While the new religion is false, it’s dangerous, it strangles grace and it’s helping many people to lose the Faith: at the same time, there are still cases where it can be used and is used still to build the Faith … The essential principle is: do whatever you need to do to keep the Faith. … There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s Faith instead of losing it. … Be very careful with the Novus Ordo … But, exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.”

2 - Eleison Comments #437:
“The Novus Ordo Mass, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church … Doctrinally, the 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 Novus Ordo Mass frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the Novus Ordo Mass does not absolutely exclude the old religion.”

3 - Eleison Comments #438:
“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.”

4 – Eleison Comments #447:
“But if one respects reality, one is bound to admit that there is still faith in the Newchurch.”

5 – Eleison Comments #447:
“Two weeks ago these “Comments” stepped back onto a minefield, and defended the position that there is still something Catholic in what has become of the Catholic Church since Vatican II. … on the one side the present leaders of the Society of St Pius X act as though the official Church in Rome is still so Catholic that the SSPX cannot do without its official recognition. On the other side many souls that really have the Catholic faith utterly repudiate the idea that there is still anything Catholic whatsoever left in the “Church” now being led by “Pope” Francis… ...to say that there is nothing at all of these [‘Catholic decency and devotion’] left in the Newchurch seems to me to be a gross exaggeration.”

6 – www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kTtOUdw9iw - 5th November 2014, St. Catherine’s, Ontario:
“I don’t say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!’ ”

7 - Eleison Comments #348:
“Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it. If Clare is persuaded that there is no grave problem within the Society of St. Pius X, I need not ram down her throat why there is. And if John can see no way to keep the Faith without believing that the See of Rome is vacant, I need urge upon him no more than that that belief is not obligatory.”

8 – Eleison Comments #438:
“However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition…”

9 – Eleison Comments #492:
“The NOM is the principal destroyer of the true Church, and the main engine of the Newchurch. …and so to innocent souls not yet aware of its intrinsic danger for the Faith, it can by its Consecration and good parts, still give grace and spiritual nourishment”

10 – Eleison Comments #445:
“…to this day there must be multitudes of Catholics who want and mean to be Catholics and yet assume that the right way to be Catholics is to attend the NOM every Sunday. And who will dare say that out of these multitudes there are none who are still nourishing their faith by obeying what seems to them (subjectively) to be their (objective) duty? God is their judge, but for how many years did easily most followers of Catholic Tradition have to attend the NOM before they understood that their faith obliged them not to do so? And if the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition?”

11 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4qrXglMmjY - 18th September, 2016 - Emmett, Kansas:
“The ambiguity is the slide between the good and the bad.”

12 – Eleison Comments #437:
“So does it not make sense that in punishment for their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward for their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass?”

13 – www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2bymrcN93M&t=3497s - 19th September, 2016, Veneta, Oregon:
“The Novus Ordo is false, but it’s not only false, it’s part true part false. The false part is very dangerous, but the true part enables souls to keep the Faith.”

14 – www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik - 28th June 2015 - Mahopac, New York:
“I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass.”

15 - Eleison Comments #447:
“As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the NOM can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it “decently,” a Catholic can attend it “devoutly.” The inverted commas are to placate the hard-liners who will insist that with the NOM there can be neither true decency nor true devotion, but when they say such things, I think that they are flying in the face of reality.”

16, 17 & 18 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGcr24n8fJo - 20th May 2016, St. Athanasius, Vienna, VA:
“I’m sure you ask yourselves ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase. And you and I have no right before God to look down our noses and to write off these Catholics as though they’re just trash.”

AND - youtu.be/X2bymrcN93M - 19th September 2016, Veneta, Oregon:
“I mean the problem - dare I say that the problem with many Traditional, with a number of Traditional Catholics: they almost don’t believe that Novus Ordo people have souls. The Novus Ordo is just a bunch of rejects who deserve to be abandoned. Well I don’t believe that that’s how God sees them.”

19 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4qrXglMmjY - 18th September, 2016 - Emmett, Kansas:
“I mean, in real life, have you ever met a good person who’s nothing but good? Uh-uh. [No.] Have you ever met a bad person who’s nothing but bad? Uh-uh. In real life, it’s always a mixture of good and bad. And those rites are a mixture of good and bad. … I’m not saying the Novus Ordo is OK. I’m saying it’s - there is still good along side all the bad. The bad is terrible, you’re quite right to have gone away from the bad, don’t go back to it. But don’t say that there’s no good in it at all and that there can be no grace passed attending the Novus Ordo Mass”

20 a - www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4qrXglMmjY - 18th September, 2016 - Emmett, Kansas:
“How do the many Novus Ordo souls that make their way to Tradition, how did they keep the Faith until they got to Tradition? Because they profited by what is still good in those bad rites.”

AND
b - www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2bymrcN93M&t=3497s - 19th September, 2016 - Veneta, Oregon:
“But most souls that make their way to Tradition came from the Novus Ordo. And they came - did the Novus Ordo stop them from coming to Tradition? No. They realised that the Novus Ordo is not right, but it wasn’t so bad that it had corrupted their faith to the point where they couldn’t break out of it. Many souls in the Novus Ordo still have the Faith.”

21 a -
- 19th September, 2016 - Veneta, Oregon:
“So you’ve got, if you want to keep the New Mass to be as like the old Mass as possible, you can do it to quite an extent. OK? So the New Mass is ambiguous. You’ve got the easy, soft alternatives which are going to lead to a complete change of the Catholics’ idea of the Mass, which is very bad, or you have got alternatives included which, if you want to stick to the old Mass, you can make the New Mass relatively like the old Mass. OK? So, you’re not obliged to apostatise. … OK, now those that want to stick to God: is God going to allow, to leave it easy for them to apostatise? Or is Almighty God and His Mother, are they still concerned with the salvation of all of these souls? The Novus Ordo people have souls. If they have souls, then the Mother of God wants to save them and Almighty God wants to save them, Our Lord Jesus Christ wants to save them.”

AND
b “So, this new framework is making it easier for the people and the priests to forget what the Mass is. Do all Novus Ordo Catholics deserve to be left in that condition? Or do some of them deserve to be given a reminder of what the Mass is, to help them to pull themselves together and not just slide down and go with the flow? It seems to me that Almighty God has a concern for these, for the Novus Ordo - for many souls in the Novus Ordo, who do not deserve to be misled.”

AND
c “You know, I mean Heaven has got all these souls to look after and try to get to heaven, not just those souls who make their way to Tradition.”

22 – www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4qrXglMmjY - 18th September 2016, Emmett, Kansas:
“Question: Then, does it mean that those knowing what they know, such as the souls here could go to that [Novus Ordo Mass] and expect to receive grace?
Bishop Williamson: If anybody here who knows what the Novus Ordo means went back to the Novus Ordo - pffff! - then [pause] - why would they want to go back? [laughter] Well, it’s, I would - they can receive grace. But they have to judge the priest…”

23 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1jtS1VUGU - 25th September, 2016, Houston, Texas:
“A Mass which clearly pushes towards liberalism, like many Novus Ordo Masses, those you can’t attend.”

24 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1jtS1VUGU - 25th September 2016, Houston, Texas
“You’ve got to do what you can. God doesn’t ask the impossible. He does ask the possible. The sedevacantist Mass is available. It’s close enough, and so - is it a devout priest? Is he a raving madman? Does he have the Faith? Sedevacantism is dangerous. But if there’s no other Mass available, I wouldn’t exclude attending it.”

25 - Eleison Comments #417:
“The opinion [sedevacantism] itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the Faith. … Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion in order not to lose his Catholic Faith, let him hold it.”

26 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4qrXglMmjY - 18th September, 2016 - Emmett, Kansas:
“My opinion of the Society is that it is sinking, but not yet sunk. Now you may disagree with that, you're entitled to disagree with it, it’s only an opinion. I don’t think it’s yet sunk.”

AND - Eleison Comments #311 - June 2013:
“In particular there is confusion over whether to jump ship, i.e. stop attending SSPX masses. But why should one opinion fit all cases? All kinds of different circumstances can bear on such a question. Granted, to stay with the SSPX on its present false course involves a real danger of gradually sliding, but souls need sacraments, and by no means all SSPX priests are yet traitors.”

27 - de facto - Bishop Williamson himself has offered Mass and given confirmations at ‘Our Lady of the Pilar,’ the Feeneyite chapel of Fr. Gavin Bitzer, in Louisville, Kentucky, at least twice. The most recent occasion was on 25th May, 2016. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlQ5BSgs9E or see Recusant 34 for a summary of his sermon.

28 – Eleison Comments #505:
“Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is anywhere near you…”

29 – de facto – that Bishop Williamson agrees with the liberal things which he himself has said, which Fr. Zendejas has said and which others amongst his supporters have said, is self-evident. His words against Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko tend always to be private and not public, but the very fact that he remains silent while at least two of the priests who support him and call him as “our bishop” (Fr. Chazal and Fr. Ortiz) have each separately told the faithful that they must not go to Fr. Pfeiffer or Hewko’s Masses, together with his refusal to tonsure any of their seminarians, give them holy oils or confirm their faithful, should tell the impartial observer all he needs to know.

30 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4JfHj8G6Qk - 26th May, 2016 - St. Mary’s Kansas:
“The Poem of the Man-God runs into tremendous opposition. I think it’s the devil, quite honestly. And I think the devil was in the Holy Office at that time. It says that the story is romanced, that’s one thing that the Holy Office says. I don’t find that the case. I find the Poem of the Man-God is full of sentiment, but it’s not sentimental, it’s very real. That’s my take.”

31 – Ibid.:
“… The Index has been abolished, yes. I read it and I don’t bother too much about - I don’t know all the background details. I get so much out of it myself that I’m not worried about it, you know.”

32 – Ibid.:
“What God Himself has given us in the modern age to act exactly as - He’s given us five big volumes- wait for it! - the Poem of the Man God! Maria Valtorta! It would make excellent family home reading.”

33 – Eleison Comments #420:
“At present I am more and more disinclined to impose even a true viewpoint on anybody”

34 a - www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNx-KwqxZow - June 2014 - Post Falls, Idaho:
“I don’t have authority. I cannot have authority. Friendship, advice, contact, support: no problem. Authority: problem. Can you imagine that commanding resistant priests is like herding cats, can you imagine? In which case, is it worth trying if it is bound to fail?”

AND
b - www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik - 28th June 2015 - Mahopac, New York:
“The essential principle is: do whatever you need to do to keep the Faith. ... You must work it out for yourselves. Any other question?”

35 - Eleison Comments #307:
“And that is why, right now, I envisage being little more than father, adviser and friend for any souls calling for a bishop’s leadership and support.”

36 – Eleison Comments #504:
“…the Rome-centred Newsociety, still souls cling to [it] because of ... Catholic authority bequeathed to the latter by the Archbishop. […]
Archbishop Lefebvre defied that crippling, not least of all but rather above all, by his consecrating of four bishops to maintain a Catholic authority. […]
In 1988 the Archbishop consecrated four [bishops] for the same reason, two for Europe, and one each for North and South America. As of now the “Resistance” has two in Europe and one in South America. There remains a gap in North America. God willing, this coming May 11 Fr. Gerardo Zendejas will be consecrated bishop in the Traditional parish of Fr Ronald Ringrose in Vienna, Virginia , USA.”

37 - Eleison Comments #278:
“It is not clear that the present need is to rebuild a classic Congregation or Seminary. Both may be somehow out-dated. … But God is God, and for the salvation of souls tomorrow it may be that he will no longer resort to the classical Congregation or seminary of yesterday.”

AND – Eleison Comments #311:
“In the early 21st century there seems to me to be just not enough Catholic straw left to make a Catholic brick like the SSPX of the late 20th century.”

38 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yJsouJVpmw - 29th May 2016, 2016, St. Paul, MN:
“Today the situation is so bad that I don’t think a structure or organisation, I, my opinion is that a structure or an organisation can’t be put together. It’s too late.”

AND – www.youtube.com/watch?v=WncI57m_-aA - 19th March 2016, Brazil:
“The time for structures is past. What, what's he saying? The time for structures is yesterday!”

AND - www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kTtOUdw9iw - 5th November 2014, St. Catherine’s, Ontario:
“Don’t be under any illusion: it’s not going to be me who puts together a new SSPX. No way! The time for that is over. Put away your toys everybody and get with it. Grow up! ”

39 – www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNx-KwqxZow - June 2014 - Post Falls, Idaho:
“But authority comes from the Pope. Which is why if the Pope is not in his right mind, you can’t get Catholic authority from above. You just can’t get it. … In which case the Church is crippled, the Church is paralysed.”

AND - www.youtube.com/watch?v=WncI57m_-aA - 19th March 2016, Brazil:
“Without the Pope you can't be Catholic in any way. ... In our time, authority is dissolved. So, to structure a resistance with authority and obedience and superiors, don’t hope for it.”

AND - Eleison Comments #278:
“As for an alternative to the SSPX, we must learn the lessons to be drawn from its present severe crisis. The Catholic Church runs on authority, from the Pope downwards… Thus as God alone could establish Moses’ authority by a sensational chastisement of rebels (cf. Numbers XVI), so in our day surely God alone will be able to restore the Pope’s authority. ... Similar arguments apply to the re-starting of a classical Catholic seminary.”

40 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4qrXglMmjY - 18th September 2016, Emmett, Kansas:
“I’m afraid it’s darkness all around. The world is in chaos, the Church is in chaos, the Society is sliding […] And don’t be sure that we of the quote unquote “Resistance” are going to do any better. …there’s just not enough unity of purpose in hearts and minds for anything much Catholic still to be pulled together. That’s the truth. As I see it.”

AND – Eleison Comments #277:
“I think – I may be wrong – that [God] wants a loose network of independent pockets of Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience [i.e. no structure] such as served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s, and is now sinking the Society of St Pius X.”

41 – Eleison Comments #386:
“…any number of us in the quote unquote “Resistance”…”

AND - www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yJsouJVpmw - St. Paul MN, USA, 29th May 2016:
“If you and I are now part of the quote-unquote “Resistance” - Why quote-unquote? Because it’s a movement, it’s, it’s an unorganised movement, it’s not really organised. It’s some here, it’s some there, it’s pockets of resistance, many of them entirely independent of one another.”

AND - www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNx-KwqxZow - June 2014 - Post Falls, Idaho:
“The resistant groups, the resistants - a - n - t - s - and I very much prefer the expression resistants to the expression resistance … I very much believe in the resistants, I’m not sure I believe in the Resistance.”

42 – www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/TheRecusant33.pdf - p.26, Letter to Fr. John Bosco, 27th January 2016:
“Alas, the Church is in chaos, because the Supreme Shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered, as they may never have been scattered before. I do sympathise with your desire to have Boniface ordained, but into what structure would he be incorporated? … In Latin they say nobody is bound to do the impossible – nemo ad impossibile tenetur. In today’s situation it may be impossible for you or for him to do more than you are already doing. … For myself I am already very busy, probably too busy, distracted by the chaos.”

43 – radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/pregunta-que-flota-en-el-aire and christusvincit.clicforum.com/t900-r-ponse-de-Mgr-Williamson-au-sujet-de-la-S-A-J-M.htm – 12th Sept. 2016 :
Question: “…Something is bothering me. In [the website] ‘Non Possumus,’ it was announced that Mons. Faure, has founded a congregation. You, however, had said at the episcopal consecration of Dom Thomas, that that was not the intention. For no one in the resistance has ordinary jurisdiction which diocesan bishops have.”
Answer: “For myself I have until now thought that a new Congregation was neither necessary, nor probably possible. But [Bishop Faure and his seminary]…needed, sooner or later, a structure to belong to. It is in fact sooner, i.e. now, rather than later, because a rival structure was coming on the scene...”


"Viva Cristo Rey!"
http://www.cor/mariae.comB.Williamson(Catholic%20Candle).rtf
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Catholic Candle revisited

Recently, Bishop Williamson broadened his permissive liberalism by approving attendance at the Masses of sedevacantists. Before quoting his words on this, let’s step back a little and get the Big Picture on his position:

We start our analysis back when he taught a Truth that he now contradicts. On December 13, 2014, Bishop Williamson wrote that no one should ever attend the new mass. Here are his words:

Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. ... t is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. ... f I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth ....

Eleison Comments #387 (emphasis added).

Further, in a conference on the new mass, Bishop Williamson correctly stated that even if the new mass were valid, no Catholic should ever attend it. Here are his words:

The new mass is in any case illicit. … If it [the new mass] is valid, illicit, may I attend? No. I may no more attend a valid, illicit [new] mass than I may attend a satanic mass.1

But then on June 28, 2015, Bishop Williamson contradicted himself and publicly stated the opposite:

Do whatever you need to nourish your Faith. … I would not say that every single person must stay away from every single novus ordo mass.2

Later, Bishop Williamson further explained his position that if a Catholic has no traditional Mass to attend, he should attend the new mass. Here are his words:

I’m sure you ask yourselves: “What kind of world are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?” Very good question. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus—I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true—there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid.3 And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato”, is the strict phrase.4

Thus, because the new mass is the principle liturgical expression of the new religion of the conciliar church,5 Bishop Williamson is advocating the participation in the services of a new, false religion. This is ecumenism!

Archbishop Lefebvre called the new mass an example of ecumenical, interreligious worship (i.e., “communicatio in sacris”). Here are his words:

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.6

Because Bishop Williamson is so ecumenical as to recommend attendance at the conciliar religion’s new mass, it should not surprise anyone that Bishop Williamson is also ecumenical enough to offer Mass and confirmation in a chapel of the feeneyite sect7 (which denies the consistent teaching of the Church that there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood).

Bishop Williamson has now continued further down the same ecumenical path. Having encouraged his followers to attend new masses and after he offers Mass in the chapel of the feeneyite sect, it should not surprise us that Bishop Williamson is ecumenical enough to have recently told Catholics to attend the Masses of the sedevacantists (who are inherently in schism, as discussed below). Here are his words, responding to a question at his September 25, 2016 conference in Texas:

Question: “I’ve heard some people ask one another, for example, “If there were no other priest available, would you go to a Mass offered by a sedevacantist [priest]?” Well, sedevacantists not believing there is a pope, I should think, would be pulling out the prayers for the Pope—out of the Missal—and just really not saying them.

Well, doesn’t it say in the Quo Primum that, basically, any omission from the official Missal of the Church is to be considered, I would say, an illicit Mass, so to say?”

Bishop Williamson: “Oh well, the Mass will be valid or not valid according to the Consecration. It’s not pulling out this word of that, that’s going to invalidate the Consecration.”

Question: “What I mean, though, is by changing the actual formula, would it affect whether or not you could say you fulfilled your Sunday obligation?”

Bishop Williamson: “Oh, no, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. You’ve got to do what you can. God doesn’t ask the impossible. He does ask the possible. The sedevacantist Mass is available. It’s close enough, and so— is it a devout priest? Is he a raving madman? Does he have the Faith? Sedevacantism is dangerous, but if there’s no other Mass available, I wouldn’t exclude attending it.

Maybe some people would take a harder line than that. If he’s a dogmatic sedevacantist and slants everything towards sedevacantism and insists that souls attend only the Masses of sedevacantists—beware! He’s beginning [sic!] to go too far. But not all sedevacantists go that far. So, you’ve got reasonable [sic!] sedevacantists and then you’ve got fanatical sedevacantists. You might think twice before attending the Mass of a fanatical sedevacantist; but a reasonable sedevacantist, if necessary, I’d say one could attend. It’s not this prayer missing or that prayer missing, it’s the whole push towards error which—towards clear error. So, no. A Mass which clearly pushes towards liberalism, like many novus ordo Masses, those you can’t attend.8

Sedevacantism is Schism

By encouraging his followers to attend the Masses of sedevacantists, Bishop Williamson promotes attendance at the Masses of schismatics.

Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to be in communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, respondeo. That is exactly what sedevacantists do, viz., they refuse to submit to the current pope, asserting that he has no authority over them because he is not “really” the pope.9

In contrast to the sedevacantists’ position, traditional Catholics have a duty to recognize that the current pope has authority over us. Even though we frequently cannot do what the pope commands us, we must acknowledge his supremacy, as St. Thomas teaches we must. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, Respondeo. We do what the pope commands us to do, whenever we can do so in good conscience.

Thus, sedevacantism is always schism and sedevacantists are always schismatics. Moreover, schism severs a man from the Church. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, ad 3 (quoting St. Jerome). A particular sedevacantist’s schism is “material schism”, if he is not interiorly culpable for his false and (objectively) sinful position that we have no pope. By contrast, a sedevacantist is a “formal schismatic”, if he is interiorly culpable (because he “knows better”).10

Because we must not be ecumenical (as Bishop Williamson encourages us to be), this is why Archbishop Lefebvre stated we cannot have any relations with the sedevacantists. Opposing what Bishop Williamson now encourages, here are Archbishop Lefebvre’s words:

So what is our attitude? It is clear that all those who are leaving us or who have left us for sedevacantism or because they want to be submitted to the present hierarchy of the Church all the while hoping to keep Tradition, we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible. …

[W]e really cannot make another choice if we want to keep Tradition. We must be free from compromise as much with regard to sedevacantists as with regard to those who absolutely want to be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority.”


Archbishop Lefebvre’s conference in Flavigny, December 1988—quoted from Fideliter March/April 1989 (emphasis added).

_______________________________

The bad fruits from the false “miracles” which Bishop Williamson promotes

Bishop Williamson rashly promotes supposed “miracles” at Sokolka and Legnica, Poland. A prudent Traditional Catholic would never accept such claims from the conciliar church, which is a new church opposed to the true Church.

A prudent Traditional Catholic would withhold judgment on any alleged miracles until after the Catholic Church thoroughly investigated—which could not happen presently without the hierarchy first returning to Catholic Tradition.

There are many levels on which Bishop Williamson acts rashly concerning these false “miracles”. First, it is obvious that the devil greatly gains when people promote “miracles” which lend credence to the conciliar revolution, which is his work. It would be very easy for the devil to work these false “miracles”, through both natural and preternatural means.

Further, besides the devil’s interest in promoting these “miracles”, it is natural for conciliar Catholics to want to believe that God is working in their revolutionary church. These conciliar Catholics should know by the natural law that they have a duty to be God-centered and might even naturally yearn for this. Yet they plainly belong to a man-centered (false) conciliar religion. It is only natural for conciliar Catholics to want to quiet the “little voice” inside themselves by latching onto these conciliar “miracles” which purport to “show” that God approves of their man-centered conciliar religion.

Also, there are other conciliar Catholics who try to “canonize” the conciliar revolution by promoting conciliar “miracles” and “visions” (such as Medjugorje). A prudent Traditional Catholic would no more accept the conciliar church promoting “miracles” at the new mass than he would accept “miracles” attributed to so-called “saint” John Paul II.

Bishop Williamson not only promotes a (supposed) “eucharistic miracle” at Legnica, Poland (Eleison Comments #492) and another one at Sokolka, Poland, but he gullibly says that the “Eucharistic miracles taking place within the Novus Ordo Mass ... may even be happening frequently” (Eleison Comments #437). Because he knows that readers might see many reasons to doubt any particular conciliar “miracle” which they investigate, Bishop Williamson says that, when doubts arise about one (supposed) miracle, “a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic” (Eleison Comments #492). This shows Bishop Williamson is trying to promote a “faith” not so much in any particular “miracle” (concerning each of which individually, there are so many reasons to doubt), but the bishop blindly trusts that surely, some of them—somewhere—must not be bogus.

While promoting new mass “miracles”, Bishop Williamson says “facts are stubborn”, (Eleison Comments, November 28, 2015) as if he is compelled to believe in these (false) “miracles” because of the evidence. Yet, his primary “faith” is that, whatever reasons there are to doubt the “miracles” we know about, “Internet research would surely discover ... at least some ... authentic [supposed miracles]” (Eleison Comments #492 (emphasis added)).

Regarding the (false) “miracles” in Poland, Bishop Williamson gullibly accepts the conciliar storyline from those persons who have a personal stake in promoting themselves, their region, and/or their revolution.

For example, Bishop Williamson gullibly reports as truth, the two inconsistent conciliar claims that the red glob was both “like a blood clot” and “looked like a piece of living flesh” (Eleison Comments, December 2, 2016). Of course, a thinking man knows that flesh (tissue) does not look like the little red glob shown in the promotional pictures. Also, a thinking man would know that it is propaganda to say the glob looks “living”, implying that it exhibits signs of life.

Bishop Williamson claims to follow the “evidence” but repeats—like a schoolboy memorizing his lessons—unverifiable promotional propaganda such as the conciliar assertion that, on the day of discovering the (false) Sokolka miracle, “All observers were amazed. ... All of them were deeply moved.” Id. Plainly, Bishop Williamson is easily duped by such amateurish “evidence”.

Bishop Williamson does not see the contradiction when he claims both that “to this day [the Sokolka red glob] retains the form of a blood clot” and claims that it “‘most resembles human myocardial tissue’ from the left ventricle of the heart, typical for a living person in a state of agony.” Id. And Bishop Williamson says that the supposed expert on whom he relies (Professor Maria Sobaniec-Lotowaska) can somehow tell that there is no possibility of human fabrication. Id. Convenient!

In fact, there are other researchers who are skeptical about the alleged “miracle”. But Bishop Williamson does not tell his readers about them. For example, Professor Lech Chyczewski, one of Sobaniec-Lotowaska’s own colleagues at the same medical university in Bialystok, Poland, disagrees with her. He criticized the way his colleague (Sobaniec-Lotowaska) carried out her test on which Bishop Williamson relies. Id. Chyczewski added that Sobaniec-Lotowaska “saw what she wanted to see” and that she has “an emotional approach to faith”. Id.

Another inconvenient point for those supporting the supposed Sokolka “miracle” is that Dr. Pawel Grzesiowskia (a biologist from Poland’s National Medical Institute) proposes a natural (bacterial) explanation for the “red discoloration” in the host. Id.

We do not vouch for the truth of these contrary views of different medical researchers. We do not have enough information. But we see that, without telling his readers, Bishop Williamson cherry-picks only the “evidence” that fits the conclusion about which he tries to convince his readers. Or, if Bishop Williamson did not know about the other researchers’ contrary opinions, then he knows too little about the dispute and was rash to jump into the controversy at all.

A prudent person’s default position should be great skepticism of “miracles” in the conciliar church. Bishop Williamson’s default position is to believe whatever conciliar “miracle” he hears about. For he says such supposed miracles “may even be happening frequently” (Eleison Comments #437) and “a little more Internet research would surely discover ... some of them being authentic” (Eleison Comments #492 (emphasis added)).

To prove the “miracles” in which he believes, Bishop Williamson declares we should look at the fruits of these “miracles”. In his words: “decisive will be the spiritual fruits among Catholics” (Eleison Comments December 2, 2016). But he says this as part of his effort to persuade his readers of the (false) “miracles” which he uncritically accepts, adding what the (false) “miracle’s” promoters assert:

Already there has been a significant rise in the piety and religious practice of local Catholics, and from abroad there have been hundreds of pilgrimages, with numerous miracles of healing and conversion also taking place.

Id.

Obviously, these “conversions” which Bishop Williamson asserts, are conversions to the new conciliar religion. That is a bad thing! Regarding a “rise in piety” and pious “pilgrimages”, Bishop Williamson asserts them as fact without the slightest proof. Below are proofs to the contrary, all showing that the (false) “miracles” are simply part of the continuation of the evils of the conciliar church:



    • If you want to see an example of “pilgrims” at the Legnica church of the “miracle”, who look like any pagan tourists anywhere, coming to see any worldly curiosity, look at the August 2, 2016 You Tube video showing women in skin-tight pants, men in shorts, “pilgrims” in T-shirts, backpacks, etc.
    • If you think there is a “rise in piety” in Legnica, look at the people receiving “communion” standing (none are kneeling); Id.
    • If there had been a “rise in piety” in Legnica, it should change how people are dressed when they receive “communion”. But look at how people receiving “communion” are dressed in Legnica, viz., similar to any conciliar people anywhere: men in shorts, women in skin-tight trousers, people in T-shirts, all women violating apostolic law (no head coverings, etc.), all occurring in front of a table (“altar”), with no communion rail. Id.
    • If you think there is a “rise in piety” in Legnica, look at the conciliar (supposed) “bishop” concelebrating the new mass with eight conciliar (supposed) “priests”, at a table (“altar”), facing the people (July 2, 2016 video).
    • If you think there is a “rise in piety” at the Sokolka church of the “miracle”, look at the new mass said facing the people, on a table “altar”, no communion rail, three very fat candles on one side of the table; none on the other side (2012 video);
    • If you think there is a “rise in piety” in Sokolka, then look at the link below, showing another new mass said in the same place three years earlier, by three (supposed) “priests” concelebrating (2009 video);
    • If you think there is a “rise in piety” in Sokolka, look at the people standing for “communion” (none are kneeling) (2009 video);
    • If you think there is a “rise in piety” in Sokolka, look at the very large, prominent picture of the conciliar “King of Mercy” hung in the church (2012 video). As informed Catholics should know, there are many scandalous, un-Catholic aspects of this false “King of Mercy” devotion promoted by the conciliar church but condemned by the Church before Vatican II.
Conclusion
Pray for Bishop Williamson! He seems always eager to embrace a new (supposed) “miracle”. But don’t be fooled by his promotion of conciliar “miracles” and the new mass.

___________________________________


Bishop Williamson used to say that no one should ever attend the new mass. He further declared that no one should attend the new mass any more than a person should attend a satanic mass.

Then Bishop Williamson began to contradict himself and to say the exact opposite. He began to say that a person should attend the new mass if it helps him.

This “new” Bishop Williamson now continues to “unpack” the logical consequences of his new, liberal, subjectivist1 principle, which he formulates this way (emphasis added):

Do whatever you need to nourish your Faith.

Bishop Williamson now declares that a person can attend not only a new mass but also a feeneyite mass or a sedevacantist mass, provided the person feels it helps “nourish” his faith, in his personal situation.

Further, this “new” Bishop Williamson falsely and scandalously promotes the Anglican sect as a place where a person can find truth and the true worship of God.

In case anyone (wrongly) assumes that Bishop Williamson’s promotion of attending the new mass applied only to poor, invincibly-ignorant, conciliar Catholics, he recently showed that this assumption is false and that even all well-informed Traditional Catholics can receive grace at the new mass. Here are his words (emphasis added):

Question: Then, does it mean that those knowing what they know, such as the souls here, could go to that [Novus Ordo Mass] and expect to receive grace?

Bishop Williamson: If anybody here who knows what the Novus Ordo means went back to the Novus Ordo—pffffff!—then [pause]—why would they want to go back? [laughter] Well, it’s—I would—they can receive grace. But they have to judge the priest ...

Bishop Williamson is wrong that the new mass ever gives grace, as shown by the principles laid out by the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other Doctors and Fathers of the Church. In asserting that the new mass gives grace, Bishop Williamson also contradicts the truth that Archbishop Lefebvre handed down to him.

Bishop Williamson approves of Traditional Catholics attending some new masses, though not other ones, because—he insists—“many” —but not all —Novus Ordo Masses “push toward liberalism”. Here are his recent words to Traditional Catholics in Texas (emphasis added):

A Mass which clearly pushes towards liberalism, like many Novus Ordo Masses, those you can’t attend.

So, according to this “new” Bishop Williamson, Traditional Catholics can attend only those new masses which do not “clearly push towards liberalism”. Of course, the truth is that all new masses are inherently protestantized. They don’t go “toward” liberalism, because they are already there. They are inherently liberal.

Let us pray for poor Bishop Williamson! He had done much good in the past and could yet return to Catholic Tradition and do much good in the future!

Let us also pray for Bishop Aquinas, Bishop Faure, and the Dominican priests in Avrillé, France, who work with Bishop Williamson and who keep their heads down, pretending that Bishop Williamson is not repeating and broadening his liberal errors which attack the core principles of Traditional Catholicism. By the silence of those bishops and priests, they are “enablers” of Bishop Williamson’s betrayal of Catholic Tradition.

As St. Pius X declared concerning such cowardice:

In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men. ... All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics.2

Addendum: Bishop Williamson’s Money and Power

There are many reasons why Bishop Williamson’s followers stay loyal to him no matter how much liberalism he spews. Some, like Fr. Zendejas, agree with his liberalism. Other priests fear losing access to holy oils and the Sacrament of Confirmation for their flocks.

Many disagree with Bishop Williamson’s liberalism but they are “scared-loyal” because of his power.


BRN Associates, Inc.—Bishop Williamson’s Fundraising Juggernaut
One of Bishop Williamson’s largest sources of income is a corporation called “BRN3 Associates, Inc.”, a Virginia corporation, with a “branch” corporation in Connecticut. He promotes this fundraising corporation on his website.4

BRN Associates rakes in over $600,000 per year.5

Bishop Williamson uses much of the money to bankroll the work of supposed members of the Resistance who “toe the Williamson line”. One such person is liberal-leaning Fr. Zendejas.6

Bishop Williamson’s unconditional followers

Bishop Williamson knows that he has followers all over the world who will believe whatever he teaches, regardless of whether his current teaching is the opposite of what he used to teach. Some of those followers will attack anyone who continues to hold what they themselves held recently (before they followed Bishop Williamson in completely reversing their position).

One example of such followers is those who follow Bishop Williamson in his complete reversal about the new mass and who now condemn the position they themselves had held just a year or two ago, before Bishop Williamson reversed course. They now attack persons who hold what they themselves recently held, before their reversal.

How can any person in Bishop Williamson’s position resist the intoxicating temptation of seeing his followers treat whatever he says as wise and true, even when he now contradicts what he recently said?

How (nearly) impossible is it for a person to keep his bearings when he has “gobs” of money, he is treated like a king and a celebrity all around the world and he has unconditional followers who follow wherever he leads!

This slippery slope is (humanly speaking) irresistible! St. Ignatius of Loyola warns us that money and worldly honor are the usual way that the devil snares souls:

He has first to tempt with a longing for riches—as he is accustomed to do in most cases—that men may more easily come to vain honor of the world, and then to vast pride. So that the first step shall be that of riches; the second, that of honor; the third, that of pride.7

We pity Bishop Williamson, facing this satanic attack about which St. Ignatius warns! Bishop Williamson is in such great danger! Let us re-double our prayers for him!

Home





    • Bishop Williamson promotes the heretical doctrine of Situation Ethics by promoting bad things (like the new mass) as “good” for whoever decides it is “right” for his own situation. See Bishop Williamson’s own words, with citations and our analysis here: ./williamson-teaches-situation-ethics.html
    • Quoted from Pope St. Pius X’s December 13, 1908 discourse, at the Beatification of Joan of Arc.
    • Perhaps unable to think of the name of any saint, after which to name this corporation, Bishop Williamson named it after himself: “BRN” stands for “Bishop Richard Nelson [Williamson]”. (“Nelson” is his middle name.)
    • The website also declares, “St. Marcel Initiative [is] a tradename of BRN Associates, Inc.” ↑
    • Bishop Williamson’s corporation has filed these two full-year disclosures to date: 2013 & 2014
    • An example of Bishop Williamson bankrolling Fr. Zendejas.
    • Fourth Day; Meditation on the Two Standards
_________________________________________

Bishop Williamson promotes a large and increasing number of liberal errors.1
How much better he and his followers would be if he read and taught the doctrine of the Doctors of the Catholic Church, during the time he instead wastes reading false and heretical visions condemned by the Catholic Church before Vatican II, through the Holy Office of the great Cardinal Ottaviani!2

How much better Bishop Williamson and his followers would be if he did not waste his time surfing conciliar websites and gullibly believing and promoting false conciliar miracles.3

Bishop Williamson has now again added to the number of heresies he teaches. We quote him below, but first we summarize the true teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Faith Infallibly Teaches that only Catholics go to heaven, because there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The Council of Florence and Pope Eugene IV infallibly declare:
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her”.

Session 11.

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declares:
With Faith urging us, we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is neither salvation, nor remission of sin”.

Unam Sanctam, 1302, Denz. 468.

Pope Pius IX declares:
There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.

Singulari Quidem, §4.

Pope Pius XI declares:
The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enters not here, or if any man goes forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.

Mortalium Animos, §11.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a Father of the Church declares in writing against heretics of his time who denied the “faith and truth of the Catholic Church”, wrote that “there is no salvation out of the Church”. 3rd Century, Letter LXXII, to Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, ¶¶ 20 & 21.


Pope Sylvester II infallibly declares:
I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved.

Pope Sylvester II’s Profession of Faith, 991 AD.

Pope Innocent III infallibly declares:
By the heart, we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.

Fitts exemplo, 1208, Denz. 423.


St. Thomas Aquinas, Greatest Doctor of the Church, declares:
[T]here is but one Church in which men find salvation, just as outside the Ark of Noah it was not possible for anyone to be saved.

Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, at the article “The Holy Catholic Church”.

Saint Augustine, Doctor of the Church declares:
He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ.

St. Augustine’s Epistle 141.

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church declares:
The Holy Catholic Church teaches that... all those who are separated from Her will not be saved.”

De Moralis, bk.14, §5.


Bishop Williamson Contradicts Catholic Dogma and Declares that Non-Catholics Can go to Heaven
Bishop Williamson Contradicts Catholic dogma by teaching that it is more likely for a Catholic to get to heaven than a non-Catholic. Here are his words:

[It is better] to be a Catholic rather than a non-Catholic because a Catholic has a much greater chance to get to heaven.4

To say that a Catholic has a greater chance of getting to heaven than a non-Catholic, falsely indicates that non-Catholics have some chance of getting to heaven. This is like saying that a living person has a greater chance of running a marathon than a corpse does. Such a statement falsely indicates it is even possible for a corpse to run a marathon.

Thus, because Bishop Williamson indicates that non-Catholics have some chance to get to heaven, he denies the dogma that outside the Catholic Church “no one is saved.” Fitts exemplo, 1208, Denz. 423 (emphasis added). Thus, Bishop Williamson teaches heresy.

We should not be surprised that Bishop Williamson promotes this heresy. Many times, he has approved attending the “worship” of non-Catholics. He promotes attending:



    • the evil, conciliar, new mass, which is the liturgy of the false conciliar religion (if a person feels it helps him)5 ;
    • the sedevacantists’ masses;6 and
    • the feeneyites’ masses7 .
Bishop Williamson even publicly declared that there is “true worship of God” among the Anglican heretics.8

It is striking how Bishop Williamson phrases his heresy in almost identical language to what the Catholic Church condemns. For example:



    • In Mortalium Animos (quoted above), Pope Pius XI declares: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. ” (Emphasis added.)
    • Bishop Williamson heretically contradicts Pope Pius XI by declaring: “If... you look for the true worship of God, you may find some of it in an Anglican Church. ”9
With Bishop Williamson promoting “worship” with non-Catholics, how could anyone be surprised that he says non-Catholics can get to heaven?

In this heresy, Bishop Williamson follows Vatican II. Here, for example is one way that Vatican II phrases the heresy Bishop Williamson has now embraced:

The brethren divided from us [ viz., heretics and schismatics] also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation....

Unitatis Redintegratio, §3 (emphasis added; bracketed words added for clarity).

Let us pray for Bishop Williamson and all other blind souls who are diabolically disoriented by Vatican II and the Great Apostasy in which we live!

Home



_______________________________

The Great Doctor of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, gave frightening warnings how hard it is for a bishop to save his soul. Here is one of his warnings:
I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved; there are many more that perish.

St. John Chrysostom, Sermon III on The Acts of the Apostles.

St. John Chrysostom gives these grave warnings to move us—especially bishops—to a sober fear of hell. Hell is no joking matter! Here are his words:

What can be more grievous than hell? Yet nothing is more profitable than the fear of it; for the fear of hell will bring us the crown of the Kingdom.

St. John Chrysostom, Sermon XV, On Statues.

At a banquet following Bishop Zendejas’s consecration, Bishop Williamson made the following joke, scoffing at St. John Chrysostom’s warning:

So the first thing I said this morning, after the ceremony, the first thing I said [sic] to Bishop Zendejas, was, St. John Chrysostom says: “Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. ”1

The joke met with general laughter in the banquet room. Id. Listen for yourself. He and Bishops Zendejas and Faure all cracked big smiles. Id. See for yourself.

St. John Chrysostom’s warning is no laughing matter! He gravely warns us —especially bishops—so we would be moved to a sober fear!

Sacred Scripture shows us repeatedly that it is the wicked who laugh at sober warnings of judgment and hell! For example, in a messianic psalm about the wicked men who persecute Our Lord, the psalmist (speaking in the Person of Our Lord) laments:

They that sat in the gate spoke against me: and they that drank wine made me their song.

Psalm 68:13.

The prophet Jeremias, who was persecuted for calling Israel to repentance (and who symbolizes Our Lord being persecuted by the ungodly), laments how the wicked scoffed at his warnings:

I am made a derision to all my people, their song all the day long.

Lamentations of Jeremias, 3:14.

Let us pray for those poor, blind Fake Resistance bishops!

We also pray for their followers, and we ask them:

Do you consider St. John Chrysostom’s frightening and sober warning as a punchline? If not, then don’t associate with those who do!

Home




    • (emphasis added; bracketed word added to show repetition was in the original).
_______________________________

A Refutation of the Liberal-Masonic Heresy that the Authority of Rulers Comes from the Consent of the Governed

A Refutation of Bishop Williamson’s Heresy that God Becomes our King when We Choose to Accept His Grace

Bishop Williamson falsely asserts that God is only King over souls in the state of grace. Since God forces no one to live in the state of grace, Bishop Williamson thus promotes the heresy that God only governs those who consent to His rule. Here are Bishop Williamson’s words:

Wherever souls are in the state of grace, there God is King, not only in Heaven but also already here below on earth.1

Bishop Williamson asserts: where there is grace, God is King. That is, grace is a condition for God’s Kingship. If Bishop Williamson held God is King of all men, he would not need to mention that God is King where a man has grace. Bishop Williamson would have simply said God is King of all men.

Let’s examine a grammatically-analogous conditional statement: Where there is life, there’s hope. This proverb means that that if someone is not alive, there is no hope (e.g., for the cure of his cancer). If there were hope of a cure after he was already dead, then this proverb would be changed to “there is always hope”.

Similarly, when Bishop Williamson teaches where there is grace, God is King, he is teaching that grace makes God the King where He otherwise would not be King. Bishop Williamson contradicts the truth that God is King of all men whether they have grace or not.

If what Bishop Williamson taught were true, then men could correctly deny their duty to obey Christ’s (i.e., God’s) laws. Because a person owes obedience only to his own superiors, if God is not also King of atheists, an atheist could rightly refuse obedience to God’s law.

The truth is that God is King over all men, now and forever, whether they choose to accept God’s grace or not, “ and whether they choose God as their King, or not. Pope Pius XI teaches the Catholic truth that Christ is “King of all mankind.”2 Bishop Williamson’s denial of God’s universal Kingship is a pernicious heresy!3

A faithful and informed Catholic might see many reasons Bishop Williamson is wrong (and why God is truly King of all men, including all non-Catholics and other men without grace4). Here are eight reasons why Bishop Williamson is wrong:



    • Bishop Williamson agrees with the liberal-Masonic American revolutionaries concerning the source of a ruler’s authority;
    • By analogy to earthly kings, whose kingship also extends over unwilling subjects;
    • By the example of saintly kings who enforced God’s law over unwilling subjects who are not in the state of grace.
    • Because otherwise the Last Judgment would be unjust and unfair.
    • Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men as God (i.e., in His Divine Nature).
    • Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men as Man, because of the Hypostatic Union5;
    • Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men as Redeemer, by His glorious conquest in His Passion and Death; and
    • Because Our Lord Jesus Christ is King of all men since the perfection of His Humanity gives Him a natural and necessary right to rule as King over all men.
Below, we examine each of these eight reasons why God is King of all men (both the willing and unwilling), and why Bishop Williamson is wrong to teach otherwise.

1. The first sign Bishop Williamson is gravely wrong, is that he agrees with the liberal-Masonic American revolutionaries, about the source of a ruler’s authority.

Any Catholic should be greatly alarmed if he agrees with the liberal-Masonic founders of the United States, concerning where authority comes from.

Bishop Williamson claims that, when a man accepts grace, God becomes his King. This is the heretical claim of the (so-called) “Enlightenment” concerning the source of a ruler’s authority.

The Catholic Faith has always taught that God is the source of all power and authority.6 He is supremely the King (Ruler) of all men and is the King of kings.

The liberal-Masonic founders of the United States oppose Catholic teaching by proclaiming that authority comes from those governed. These Masonic founders declared:

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (emphasis added).

Bishop Williamson teaches this same liberal-Masonic doctrine, in the context of God’s Kingship. Compare their position to his:



    • The Masons declare that authority comes from the consent of the governed.
    • Bishop Williamson declares that God’s Kingly authority comes from man’s consent to accept His grace (and, thereby, God’s Kingship).
Summary of reason one
Bp. Williamson wrongly agrees with the Masonic U. S. founders that authority comes from the consent of those governed. God’s Kingly authority over us does not come from our consent.

2. By analogy to earthly kings (whose kingship extends over unwilling subjects), we see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent.

No citizen (subject) may choose, even once in a lifetime, whether to submit to or to opt out of the just laws of his country’s ruler (king).

But Bishop Williamson’s error is much more radical. His error would allow a man to enthrone and then remove God as his King simply by consenting to and later rejecting God’s grace.

According to Bishop Williamson’s position, a man could (hypothetically) make God his King (through confession) on the even days of the week, and remove Him as his King on the odd days, by relapsing into sin. A man could tell God: “tomorrow I might choose to make You my King”.

Plainly, Bishop Williamson teaches heresy! God is always King over all men, not merely if (and when) a man consents to accept grace and so consents to accept God as King!

Earthly rulers govern not only obedient subjects but also the stubborn criminals in their realm. A thief has no right to steal simply because he never agreed to obey the law. Likewise, God is King of all men, not merely Catholics who accept God’s grace.

Thus, by analogy to earthly rulers, we see that Bishop Williamson is wrong that God’s Kingship over us depends on our choice to accept His grace. Those men who do not voluntarily submit to God’s Kingship, are like criminals who are unwilling to submit to the laws of their earthly king (ruler). God is King of the unwilling, just as an earthly king is ruler over criminals.7

Summary of reason two
By analogy to earthly rulers, we see that a man is not free to “opt out” of God’s Kingship by rejecting God’s grace. Rather, God is King over all men, at all times.

3. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, by the example set by saintly kings who enforced God’s law over unwilling subjects not in the state of grace.

Saintly and Just Catholic Kings have given us many examples of enforcing God’s law over unwilling subjects. Because these kings themselves obeyed God as their King, they enforced God’s law against unwilling subjects, who must obey God’s law even as kings must. We take just two examples:

King St. Louis IX of France, gave this order to enforce God’s law:

[N]o man, unless he is a skilled theologian, should debate with Jews. Instead, when a layman hears the Christian law [i.e., God’s law] slandered, he should defend it only with his sword, which he should thrust into the offender’s guts as far as it will go.8

In about 1000 AD, King St. Olaf II of Iceland, enforced the laws of God the King, by forbidding the practice of all false religions in Iceland.9

Summary of reason three
Those saintly kings were not unjust. But it would have been unjust to enforce God’s law against those who are not subject to it. Thus, the example of these saintly kings shows us that all men “ even unwilling men who do not have grace “ are subject to God as King. Thus, Bishop Williamson’s position is heresy.

4. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because otherwise the Last Judgment would be unjust and unfair.

It is unjust to judge a man based on laws to which he was not subject when he acted. For example, it would be unjust to arrest a man who is driving a car, for violating a speed limit which applies only to trucks.

Our Lord will judge all men at their death, even men without grace who rebelled against His laws during life. However, Our Lord would have no right to judge and punish men for disobeying His laws, if He were not their King now, during their lives.10 Thus, because there is a just Judgment after death, Our Lord must be King over all men, even those refusing His grace and denying His Kingship.11

Summary of reason four
Because it is just for Our Lord to judge all men after their deaths, He must be their King during their lifetimes. This shows Bishop Williamson teaches heresy when he asserts that grace makes God a man’s King.

5. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because God’s Nature makes Him King over all men.

God made us and He owns us. We are His property. God does not need our agreement to submit to His laws and Kingship. God has full right to rule all men and to be their King, even if they refuse to submit to Him.12

This shows the heresy of the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S. who declare that authority to govern comes from the consent of the governed. This also shows Bishop Williamson’s heresy, when he teaches that men’s choice to accept grace makes God their King.

6. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because Christ is King over all men by His Hypostatic Union.

Because of His Hypostatic Union,13 Our Lord Jesus Christ, as Man, received from God the Kingship over all men, even unwilling men. This right to universal Kingship is in addition to Christ’s right of Kingship as God.14

Christ’s right of Kingship over all men, because of His Hypostatic Union, shows the heresy of the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S., who assert that a ruler’s authority comes from consent of the governed. This further reason for Christ’s Kingship also shows Bishop Williamson’s heresy that Christ (God) is only King of those who consent to receive His grace and Kingship.

7. We also see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because Christ is King over all men by His glorious conquest in His Passion and Death.

Besides Christ’s Kingship as God and also His Kingship as Man through the Hypostatic Union, another reason Christ is King of all men, is by conquest. He purchased all men through His glorious Passion and Death, so He owns all men (even unwilling men).15

Christ’s right of Kingship over all men, because of His conquest, shows the heresy of the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S., who assert that a ruler’s authority comes from consent of the governed. This additional reason for Christ’s Kingship also proves Bishop Williamson promotes heresy by asserting that grace makes Christ (God) the King of a man.

8. We see that God’s Kingship does not require our consent, because Christ is also King over all men because His Humanity’s perfection gives Him a natural and necessary right to rule as King over all men.

All men have a duty to support (and they sin when they oppose) the Catholic Faith, the salvation of souls, and whatever else promotes society’s goodness, virtue, and true happiness.16

Christ as Man rules much more wisely than anyone else. Christ promotes goodness, virtue and true happiness much better than anyone else.

Thus, all men must obey Christ as their King. Any man sins by opposing Christ as King, because he would be opposing what brings society much greater goodness, virtue and true happiness.

Summary of reason eight
Besides:



    • Christ’s right to rule all men because He is God;
    • Christ’s right as Man, to rule all men, because of His Hypostatic Union;
    • Christ’s right to rule all men because of His glorious conquest in His Passion and Death.
Christ also has an absolute right to rule all men because His rule brings much greater goodness, virtue and true happiness than the rule of any other man. Anyone opposing Christ’s rule sins gravely and opposes the good. For this reason also, Christ is King, with a right to rule all men.

Conclusion of the entire article
All authority comes from God. Authority does not come from the consent of the governed, as the liberal-Masonic founders of the U.S. heretically declare. God’s Kingship over all men does not depend on whether they accept grace or accept His Kingship, as Bishop Williamson heretically teaches.

Let us pray for poor, blind Bishop Williamson and for the world’s blind liberal-Masonic nations.

Let us also pray for Bishop Williamson’s cowardly followers who condone his heresy by their silence. Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent gives consent).

Home




    • Eleison Comments, #527 (emphasis added).
    • Quas Primas, §27 (bold added).↑
    • Heresy is an error about the Catholic Faith. Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this truth:
      We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.
      Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

      Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo (emphasis added).
    • Non-Catholics do not have grace. For if they had grace, they would be Catholic since grace always causes the Catholic Faith in a man’s soul. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4, a.4, ad 3. Further, if any non-Catholic had grace, then non-Catholics could go to heaven. Yet, no one can go to heaven without being Catholic, since it is a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. See an explanation of this dogma here: Bishop Williamson Promotes Vatican II’s Heresy That People Can be Saved Outside the Catholic Church
    • The Hypostatic Union is the union of Christ’s two natures, Divine and human, in one Person who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.↑
    • St. Paul teaches:
      [T]here is no power but from God: and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. ... For [the ruler] is God's minister. ... Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake.

      Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5 (emphasis added).
      Faithfully echoing St. Paul, Pope Pius IX taught:
      [A]ll authority comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation. Disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.

      Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22 (emphasis added).
    • Invoking St. Paul, here is how Pope Pius XI taught this truth:
      for He must reign until, at the end of the world, He hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father. Cf. 1 Cor. Xv:25.

      Quas Primas §11.↑
    • These words of King St. Louis IX are quoted in Life of St. Louis, by John of Joinville, a courtier and fellow-crusader, Part I, Ch. 53, page 155 of the 2008 Penguin Classics edition which is called Chronicles of the Crusades, translated by Caroline Smith.
    • Church History, by Fr. John Laux, TAN Books and Publishers, page 279.↑
    • Here is how St. Thomas explains this principle that we are obliged to obey (and can
      be justly judged) only by those superiors who are our superiors at the time we are acting:
      Judgment ought to be congruous as far as concerns the person of the one judging. ... It is not prohibited to superiors but to subjects; hence they [viz., the superiors] ought to judge only their own subjects.” Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.7, §1.

      St. Thomas elaborates on this truth:
      [J]ust as a law cannot be made save by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community [i.e., subject to that particular public authority]. Wherefore, even as it would be unjust for one man to force another to observe a law that was not approved by public authority [to which he is subject], so too it is unjust, if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by anyone other than the public authority [to which he is subject].

      Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.6, respondeo (bracketed words added for clarity).
    • Here is how Pope Pius XI teaches this same truth:
      Not only do the gospels tell us that He [Our Lord] made laws, but they present Him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love. He claimed judicial power as received from his Father, when the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath by the miraculous cure of a sick man. “For neither doth the Father judge any man; but hath given all judgment to the Son.” In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed.

      Quas Primas §14 (emphasis added; footnotes removed).↑
    • Here is how Pope Pius XI teaches this truth:
      We were created by God, the Creator of the universe, in order that we might know Him and serve Him; our Author therefore has a perfect right to our service.


      Mortalium Animos, §6.
      Concerning God the Son, St. Paul teaches: “in Him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth .... All things have been created through and unto Him...” Colossians, 1:15-16.
      While explaining the Gospel parable of a king taking an account of his servants and finding a servant who owed him 10,000 talents, here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explained that God in His Divine Nature is King of all men:
      Concerning the parable’s words: “A king”, St. Thomas explains:
      This king is God, and may be understood to be either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost.

      Concerning the parable’s phrase: “Who would take an account of his servants”, St. Thomas explains:
      By the servants of the Lord are understood the prelates of the Church, to whom was committed the care of souls. “The faithful and wise steward, whom his lord setteth over his family” (Lk. 12, 42). Therefore, what else does it indicate to take an account of things committed, except that they are obliged to render an account? “They watch as being obliged to render an account of your souls” (Heb. 13, 17).
      Also, because God commits to each man his own soul, anyone whosoever can be called a servant; hence “Hast thou considered my servant, Job” etc. (Job 1, 8). Hence every single person is appointed to render an account of all the things committed to him: for it is necessary to render an account even for the least idle word, as it was said above.

      Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.18 (emphasis added).
    • As explained above, the Hypostatic Union is the union of Christ’s two natures, Divine and human, in one Person who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.↑
    • Here is how Pope Pius XI explains that Christ as Man, is King, with a universal empire:
      It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to Him by the Father, all things are in his power. Quas Primas, §17.

      Pope Pius XI quotes the Book of Daniel:
      Lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of days . . . And He gave Him power and glory, and a kingdom.” Daniel, 7:13-14, quoted in Quas Primas, §9.

      Then Pope Pius XI explains why this passage shows that Christ is King as Man, because of the Hypostatic Union:
      If we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom”, since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created. Quas Primas, §7.

      Quoting Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Pius XI adds a further explanation that Christ’s Hypostatic Union results in His Kingship as Man:
      The foundation of this power and dignity of Our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. “Christ”, he says, “has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature.” His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to Him as man angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union, Christ has power over all creatures. Quas Primas, §13 (emphasis added).
    • Here is how Pope Pius XI explains this truth:
      But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled”. We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us “with a great price”; our very bodies are the “members of Christ”. Quas Primas, §13 (footnote citations omitted). ...
      Thus, the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.” Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. Quas Primas, §18 (footnote citations omitted).

    • The great philosopher Aristotle explained this truth as follows:
      If, there be some one person, or more than one, although not enough to make up the full complement of a state, whose virtue is so pre-eminent that the virtues or the political capacity of all the rest admit of no comparison with his or theirs ... the only alternative is that all should joyfully obey such a ruler, according to what seems to be the order of nature, and that men like him should be kings in their state for life.

      The Politics of Aristotle, Bk 3, ch13
      St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the teaching of Aristotle in these words:
      If a man is found who exceeds all others in virtue, he should rule. ... He who is best should never be repelled. Nor aught he be taken as the ruler just as others are, who rule at some times but at other times not. For this would be like wishing to sometimes be ruled by God and sometimes not “ this idea is worthy of ridicule! And therefore we are left with the truth that when there is a man who is best, who is worthy and just, he is owed joyful obedience by all, as king; ... not sometimes but not at other times, but rather always.

      Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bk. 3, ch.13, lecture 12.
______________________________________


In his September 3, 2016 Eleison Comments (#477), Bishop Williamson gives a long quote which he asserts to be Our Lord’s words, but he did not identify where he got the quote. Here is an excerpt from this long quote (with emphasis added to show the four parts which we discuss below):

The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself. ...

And then she is for ever [sic] your Mother. And she has all forms of the Mother’s kindness, making excuses and interceding for you and patiently leading you on. Great is Mary’s joy when she can say to a soul that loves her, “Love my Son.” Great is my own joy when I can say to a soul that loves me, “Love my Mother.” And greatest of all is our double joy when we see either a soul at my feet leaving me to go to my Mother, or one of you held in my Mother’s arms leaving her to come to me. Because the Mother is jubilant when she can give to her Son more souls enamored of her, and the Son is jubilant when he sees more souls loving his Mother. For when it comes to our glory neither of us seeks to overcome the other, the glory of each of us being complete in the glory of the other.

Bishop Williamson does not tell the reader that the quote is from Maria Valtorta, the false visionary whose “visions” were condemned before Vatican II by the Holy Office under the great anti-liberal Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who is best known for his opposition to the new mass. (Further analysis of Maria Valtorta’s sensual, heretical and smutty work.)

By hiding the fact that this is a Valtorta quote, Bishop Williamson tries to deceive you in the same manner in which someone might try to deceive unwary Catholics with a Martin Luther quote by not revealing that it comes from him.

The Valtorta quote (above) has four errors:



    • It has the supposed “Lord” saying “He” is glad when people leave “Him” to go to “His” mother. That is not Catholic Marian devotion!
    • It treats Christ’s glory as comparable to His Mother’s glory, whereas His Glory is infinite and entirely incommensurable to the glory of any creature, including His Mother;
    • The reference to Our Lady causing a “mist” is an assertion that Our Lady makes it difficult to understand Our Lord; and
    • It treats devotion to Our Lady as relatively new (only “centuries” old, as the Protestants also assert) and therefore implying that this devotion is not 20 centuries old and going back to the beginning of the Church. This also implies that devotion to Our Lady is not a genuine teaching of the Catholic Church (as explained below).
1. It is false that Our Lord would ever want anyone to leave Him for any reason.

The (false) Valtorta vision has the supposed “Lord” saying:

[G]reatest of all is our double joy when we see either a soul at my feet leaving me to go to my Mother ...

(Emphasis added.)


This statement is wrong for two reasons:


    • Any Catholic with even the most basic understanding of the spiritual life knows that the truth is the opposite. Our (real) Lord seeks to draw us to Himself. As He told us: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” St. John, 12:32.
      So Our (real) Lord would never have joy because someone left Him to go anywhere, for any reason.
    • Going to Our Lady is not leaving Our Lord! Valtorta’s false “Lord” is not describing true Catholic Marian devotion but rather the common Protestants’ caricature of devotion to Mary.
      1. Protestants agree with Valtorta’s principle that devotion to Mary causes a person to leave Christ.1 But from this false principle, the Protestants and Valtorta draw opposite conclusions.2 The Protestants conclude we should not have devotion to Mary. Valtorta draws the opposite conclusion: her (false) “Lord” says it is a good to be devoted to Our Lady because the (supposed) “Lord” has joy when people leave “Him” to go to her.
      2. True Catholic Marian devotion never, ever causes us to leave Christ, as Valtorta wrongly asserts. Rather, Marian devotion is the surest and shortest path to get to Christ. True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis Marie, part I, ¶55.
        Pope St. Pius X teaches the same true Marian devotion by declaring that Our Lady is the Neck of the Mystical Body of Christ because she is the way for Catholics (who are members of this Mystical Body) to go to the Head of the Mystical Body, Who is Christ.3 Thus, we must never leave Christ but must take the surest and shortest path to Christ: viz., Our Lady.
2. Valtorta falsely portrays Christ’s infinite glory as finite and completed by a creature.

Valtorta’s false vision has the supposed “Lord” saying (about “His” glory and “His” mother’s):

[W]hen it comes to our glory neither of us seeks to overcome the other, the glory of each of us being complete in the glory of the other ....

This is false! Our Lord Jesus Christ is God. His glory is and has always been infinite and complete. St. John 1:14. Creatures do not add anything to Him or to His glory. If we take Our Lady’s glory as greater than all other creatures combined, her glory is nonetheless finite and cannot be compared to her Divine Son’s glory because the infinite cannot be measured by the finite and is not commensurate with it or completed by it.

3. Valtorta falsely portrays Our Lady as making a “mist” which makes it difficult to understand Our Lord.

Valtorta says that Our Lady creates a “spiritual mist” through which we see Our Lord. Leaving aside the literal definitions of “mist” (which refer to water droplets), the first metaphorical definition is “something that makes understanding difficult”. So Valtorta has the false “Lord” saying that Our Lady makes it difficult to understand the “Lord”.

This is false and is the opposite of the truth! True Catholic Marian devotion teaches that Our Lady is the surest and shortest path to understanding and imitating her Son. True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis Marie, part IV, ¶165.4

4. Valtorta falsely portrays devotion to Our Lady as relatively new (only “centuries” old) and therefore (impliedly) not from the beginning of the Church 20 centuries ago.

Valtorta’s supposed “Lord” says that “He” gave us “His Mother” as a model “for centuries”. The truth is that the real Lord gave His real Mother to us as a model for the last two thousand years. In this way, Valtorta supports the Protestant error that devotion to Our Lady was a “new” teaching not present in the early Church.

Our (real) Lord gave us Mary as our model and as our Mother, beginning while He was on earth. For example:


  • He gave us His Mother to be our Mother, when He was dying on the Cross. St. John, 19:27.
  • He told us her true perfection and value as a model was because, better than anyone else, she was a model of how to “hear the Word of God and keep it”. St. Luke, 11:28.
The apostles and early Fathers of the Church showed us and instructed us how to be devoted to Our Lady. St. Luke painted her portrait. St. John tenderly cared for her. The Fathers all fostered great devotion to Our Lady beginning at the earliest times of the Church. See, e.g., St. Germanus’ sermon for the Feast of the Assumption, concerning the devotion of the apostles for Our Lady; see also, all of the praise and devotion of the early Fathers quoted in The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, London, 1852 edition, p.232 et seq.

Beginning with Our Lord’s own words and example, continuing with his apostles and their successors, the Church has been giving us the example of great devotion to Our Lady for almost 20 centuries. Valtorta’s (false) “Lord” minimizes the truth that the real Lord has been instilling in us devotion to His Mother for almost 20 centuries (since His Life on earth).

In fact, any teaching would not be genuine and Catholic if it did not come from Christ and His apostles, handed down through their successors. See this article showing that doctrines not handed down and taught during the whole history of the Church (but which have merely been taught “for centuries”) are heresies and are not Catholic teaching (such as is genuine devotion to Our Lady).

Plainly, this Valtorta quote (given above) shows once again why the Church condemned this false visionary’s writings.

Bishop Williamson Cavalierly Disregards the Church’s Condemnation of Valtorta.

The Catholic Church wisely maintained an Index of Forbidden Books, listing evil books which Catholics were not permitted to read.

The Church must prohibit bad books because our fallen human nature overconfidently presumes we can read any poisonous book, see the errors, and not be harmed by them.

Bishop Williamson’s folly is a perfect example of why the Catholic Church forbade the reading of bad books such as this one. In May 2016, Bishop Williamson excused his own reading of Valtorta’s (condemned) so-called Poem of the Man-God, as follows:

The Poem of the Man-God runs into tremendous opposition. I think it’s the devil, quite honestly. And I think the devil was in the Holy Office at that point in time. It says that the story is romanced, that’s one thing that the Holy Office says. I don’t find that the case.

(emphasis added)

The great anti-liberal Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office condemned Valtorta’s false “visions”. Bishop Williamson places his personal judgment above the Church’s judgment and simply disagrees (i.e., “I don’t find that the case.”).

Bishop Williamson’s infatuation with Valtorta shows us the wisdom of the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books, because it is so easy to be led astray, as Bishop Williamson has been led astray.

Such folly shows the wisdom of St. Pius X, who tried to warn rashly self-confident souls by condemning the following liberal proposition:

They are free from blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

Condemned proposition No. 8, Lamentabili Sane, Pope St. Pius X, 1907.

Bishop Williamson drinks Valtorta’s poison, oblivious to his peril. Let us pray for him. He has done much good in the past and could still do much good in the future.

Let us also pray for Bishop Williamson’s followers, who are deserters from the army of Christ the King by their silence and approval of Bishop Williamson’s liberal words and writings. They don’t realize how much they harm souls.


Home

    • Here is a typical Protestant (heretical) source of the error that going to Mary causes us to leave Our Lord.
    • Just as Valtorta and the Protestants share the same false principle but draw opposite false conclusions, similarly the sedevacantists and conciliars share the same false principle that we must obey whatever a pope says. From this false principle, the sedevacantists conclude that Pope Francis cannot be the pope (otherwise we would have to do whatever he tells us) and the conciliars conclude the opposite, viz., that we must follow Pope Francis in whatever he tells us.
    • Pope Pius X’s Encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, Ad diem illum laetissimum
    • The dictionary gives one other metaphorical definition: “something that obscures understanding”. For this definition, Websters gives the example of the “mists of antiquity”. Using this definition also shows that Valtorta falsifies Marian devotion in a similar way.
___________________________________________


In his September 3, 2016 Eleison Comments (#477), Bishop Williamson gives a long quote which he asserts to be Our Lord’s words, but he did not identify where he got the quote. Here is an excerpt from this long quote (with emphasis added to show the four parts which we discuss below):

The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself. ...

And then she is for ever [sic] your Mother. And she has all forms of the Mother’s kindness, making excuses and interceding for you and patiently leading you on. Great is Mary’s joy when she can say to a soul that loves her, “Love my Son.” Great is my own joy when I can say to a soul that loves me, “Love my Mother.” And greatest of all is our double joy when we see either a soul at my feet leaving me to go to my Mother, or one of you held in my Mother’s arms leaving her to come to me. Because the Mother is jubilant when she can give to her Son more souls enamored of her, and the Son is jubilant when he sees more souls loving his Mother. For when it comes to our glory neither of us seeks to overcome the other, the glory of each of us being complete in the glory of the other.

Bishop Williamson does not tell the reader that the quote is from Maria Valtorta, the false visionary whose “visions” were condemned before Vatican II by the Holy Office under the great anti-liberal Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who is best known for his opposition to the new mass. (Further analysis of Maria Valtorta’s sensual, heretical and smutty work.)

By hiding the fact that this is a Valtorta quote, Bishop Williamson tries to deceive you in the same manner in which someone might try to deceive unwary Catholics with a Martin Luther quote by not revealing that it comes from him.

The Valtorta quote (above) has four errors:


    • It has the supposed “Lord” saying “He” is glad when people leave “Him” to go to “His” mother. That is not Catholic Marian devotion!
    • It treats Christ’s glory as comparable to His Mother’s glory, whereas His Glory is infinite and entirely incommensurable to the glory of any creature, including His Mother;
    • The reference to Our Lady causing a “mist” is an assertion that Our Lady makes it difficult to understand Our Lord; and
    • It treats devotion to Our Lady as relatively new (only “centuries” old, as the Protestants also assert) and therefore implying that this devotion is not 20 centuries old and going back to the beginning of the Church. This also implies that devotion to Our Lady is not a genuine teaching of the Catholic Church (as explained below).
1. It is false that Our Lord would ever want anyone to leave Him for any reason.

The (false) Valtorta vision has the supposed “Lord” saying:

[G]reatest of all is our double joy when we see either a soul at my feet leaving me to go to my Mother ...

(Emphasis added.)


This statement is wrong for two reasons:

    • Any Catholic with even the most basic understanding of the spiritual life knows that the truth is the opposite. Our (real) Lord seeks to draw us to Himself. As He told us: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” St. John, 12:32.
      So Our (real) Lord would never have joy because someone left Him to go anywhere, for any reason.
    • Going to Our Lady is not leaving Our Lord! Valtorta’s false “Lord” is not describing true Catholic Marian devotion but rather the common Protestants’ caricature of devotion to Mary.
      1. Protestants agree with Valtorta’s principle that devotion to Mary causes a person to leave Christ.1 But from this false principle, the Protestants and Valtorta draw opposite conclusions.2 The Protestants conclude we should not have devotion to Mary. Valtorta draws the opposite conclusion: her (false) “Lord” says it is a good to be devoted to Our Lady because the (supposed) “Lord” has joy when people leave “Him” to go to her.
      2. True Catholic Marian devotion never, ever causes us to leave Christ, as Valtorta wrongly asserts. Rather, Marian devotion is the surest and shortest path to get to Christ. True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis Marie, part I, ¶55.
        Pope St. Pius X teaches the same true Marian devotion by declaring that Our Lady is the Neck of the Mystical Body of Christ because she is the way for Catholics (who are members of this Mystical Body) to go to the Head of the Mystical Body, Who is Christ.3 Thus, we must never leave Christ but must take the surest and shortest path to Christ: viz., Our Lady.
  1. Valtorta falsely portrays Christ’s infinite glory as finite and completed by a creature.
Valtorta’s false vision has the supposed “Lord” saying (about “His” glory and “His” mother’s):

[W]hen it comes to our glory neither of us seeks to overcome the other, the glory of each of us being complete in the glory of the other ....

This is false! Our Lord Jesus Christ is God. His glory is and has always been infinite and complete. St. John 1:14. Creatures do not add anything to Him or to His glory. If we take Our Lady’s glory as greater than all other creatures combined, her glory is nonetheless finite and cannot be compared to her Divine Son’s glory because the infinite cannot be measured by the finite and is not commensurate with it or completed by it.

3. Valtorta falsely portrays Our Lady as making a “mist” which makes it difficult to understand Our Lord.

Valtorta says that Our Lady creates a “spiritual mist” through which we see Our Lord. Leaving aside the literal definitions of “mist” (which refer to water droplets), the first metaphorical definition is “something that makes understanding difficult”. So Valtorta has the false “Lord” saying that Our Lady makes it difficult to understand the “Lord”.

This is false and is the opposite of the truth! True Catholic Marian devotion teaches that Our Lady is the surest and shortest path to understanding and imitating her Son. True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis Marie, part IV, ¶165.4

4. Valtorta falsely portrays devotion to Our Lady as relatively new (only “centuries” old) and therefore (impliedly) not from the beginning of the Church 20 centuries ago.

Valtorta’s supposed “Lord” says that “He” gave us “His Mother” as a model “for centuries”. The truth is that the real Lord gave His real Mother to us as a model for the last two thousand years. In this way, Valtorta supports the Protestant error that devotion to Our Lady was a “new” teaching not present in the early Church.

Our (real) Lord gave us Mary as our model and as our Mother, beginning while He was on earth. For example:


  • He gave us His Mother to be our Mother, when He was dying on the Cross. St. John, 19:27.
  • He told us her true perfection and value as a model was because, better than anyone else, she was a model of how to “hear the Word of God and keep it”. St. Luke, 11:28.
The apostles and early Fathers of the Church showed us and instructed us how to be devoted to Our Lady. St. Luke painted her portrait. St. John tenderly cared for her. The Fathers all fostered great devotion to Our Lady beginning at the earliest times of the Church. See, e.g., St. Germanus’ sermon for the Feast of the Assumption, concerning the devotion of the apostles for Our Lady; see also, all of the praise and devotion of the early Fathers quoted in The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, London, 1852 edition, p.232 et seq.

Beginning with Our Lord’s own words and example, continuing with his apostles and their successors, the Church has been giving us the example of great devotion to Our Lady for almost 20 centuries. Valtorta’s (false) “Lord” minimizes the truth that the real Lord has been instilling in us devotion to His Mother for almost 20 centuries (since His Life on earth).

In fact, any teaching would not be genuine and Catholic if it did not come from Christ and His apostles, handed down through their successors. See this article showing that doctrines not handed down and taught during the whole history of the Church (but which have merely been taught “for centuries”) are heresies and are not Catholic teaching (such as is genuine devotion to Our Lady).

Plainly, this Valtorta quote (given above) shows once again why the Church condemned this false visionary’s writings.

Bishop Williamson Cavalierly Disregards the Church’s Condemnation of Valtorta.

The Catholic Church wisely maintained an Index of Forbidden Books, listing evil books which Catholics were not permitted to read.

The Church must prohibit bad books because our fallen human nature overconfidently presumes we can read any poisonous book, see the errors, and not be harmed by them.

Bishop Williamson’s folly is a perfect example of why the Catholic Church forbade the reading of bad books such as this one. In May 2016, Bishop Williamson excused his own reading of Valtorta’s (condemned) so-called Poem of the Man-God, as follows:

The Poem of the Man-God runs into tremendous opposition. I think it’s the devil, quite honestly. And I think the devil was in the Holy Office at that point in time. It says that the story is romanced, that’s one thing that the Holy Office says. I don’t find that the case.
(emphasis added)

The great anti-liberal Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office condemned Valtorta’s false “visions”. Bishop Williamson places his personal judgment above the Church’s judgment and simply disagrees (i.e., “I don’t find that the case.”).

Bishop Williamson’s infatuation with Valtorta shows us the wisdom of the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books, because it is so easy to be led astray, as Bishop Williamson has been led astray.

Such folly shows the wisdom of St. Pius X, who tried to warn rashly self-confident souls by condemning the following liberal proposition:

They are free from blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

Condemned proposition No. 8, Lamentabili Sane, Pope St. Pius X, 1907.

Bishop Williamson drinks Valtorta’s poison, oblivious to his peril. Let us pray for him. He has done much good in the past and could still do much good in the future.

Let us also pray for Bishop Williamson’s followers, who are deserters from the army of Christ the King by their silence and approval of Bishop Williamson’s liberal words and writings. They don’t realize how much they harm souls.


Home

    • Here is a typical Protestant (heretical) source of the error that going to Mary causes us to leave Our Lord.
    • Just as Valtorta and the Protestants share the same false principle but draw opposite false conclusions, similarly the sedevacantists and conciliars share the same false principle that we must obey whatever a pope says. From this false principle, the sedevacantists conclude that Pope Francis cannot be the pope (otherwise we would have to do whatever he tells us) and the conciliars conclude the opposite, viz., that we must follow Pope Francis in whatever he tells us.
    • Pope Pius X’s Encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, Ad diem illum laetissimum
    • The dictionary gives one other metaphorical definition: “something that obscures understanding”. For this definition, Websters gives the example of the “mists of antiquity”. Using this definition also shows that Valtorta falsifies Marian devotion in a similar way.
More to be found on Catholic Candle

..
 
Last edited:
Top