Dom Thomas Aquinas vs. Bishop Williamson

By attempting to spread his "speculations" among Dom Thomas Aquina's flock back in 2013 or 2014(?), Bishop Williamson had forced Dom Thomas to interrupt and publicly rebuke him in order to protect the faithful who were presented with the bishop's dangerous ideas.

Transcription in English available at the end.




That was back when Dom Thomas was still seeing things clearly. 

With all due respect, it is a mystery to have Dom Thomas perceiving this speculation of "Benedict having a good will" as a danger deserving of a public interruption and reproach, WHILE, at the same time, overlooking  (and defending!) the more recent and dangerous statements of Bishop Williamson: 

- "Archbishop Lefebvre would publicly say 'stay away' from
the New Mass”; (…) "but I am going to stick my neck out in a long way (…)”

- "I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass"... 

- "The New Mass can be attended with the effect of building your Faith"... 

- "You make your own judgements..."

- "If the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition? "

- "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith...”

- "There have been eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass. They are still occurring..."

--------

Since some are prone to believe Bishop Williamson just spews silly words and then "repents" of them, let us look at some recent events to debunk this myth. 

If Bishop Williamson had repented of his words he should have made amendments instead of asking Dom Thomas to remove the video from his 'official' youtube channel... Unfortunately his wish was swiftly granted. Would that be the beginning of Dom Thomas' fall?

In any event, we would like to mention this is not the first time Bishop Williamson is believed to have repented of doing/saying something without apologizing or amending; let us present some other similar episodes:

1. Bishop Williamson has said "he was not proud of having his signature" on those grateful words directed towards Benedict XVI upon the releasing of his Motu Proprio, YET he has not done any amendments which would lead us to believe his repentance was true. As a matter of fact, we have a concrete reason to believe he is not repented at all; otherwise he would not have said --together with his own personal visionary-- the first "Rosary Crusade" were a success. 

*The first "rosary crusade" was a request to free the Traditional Mass, they estimate the endeavor as a success and they credit (blamed, really) Our Lady, along with Benedict XVI as the one who has granted us the Motu Proprio(!).


2. Bishop Williamson has administered Confirmations in the heretical Chapel of the Feeneyites (allegedly without knowing they were Feeneies); upon being informed of this fact he said he was ashamed of it, but no reparation or apology were issued. Someone should let Bishop Williamson know shame is not synonym of repentance. True repentance requires reparation and willingness of not committing it ever again. Shame, by itself, is a sign of pride, as if one were ashamed for being caught, not necessarily for their mistake.

3. Dom Thomas was informed Bishop Williamson was ashamed of the infamous conference.  But instead of apologizing and repairing the mess to some extent, he chose to ask this person to remove the video of circulation and to stop talking about it. Dom Thomas KNOWS about this fact!

Basically, all this mess could have been avoided with a simple acknowlegdement and an apology, but Bishop Williamson is no man of apologies... Well, unless if the ones affected were Benedict XVI and the Jews, that is. 


Anyhow, here we have a reproduction posted on another youtube channel of the episode where Bishop Williamson "charitably speculates" about Benedict XVI's "good will", which prompted a just and necessary rebuke from Dom Thomas.

It is also hard not to notice at the end the very disturbing mockery the Bishop produces in such a serious matter... It reminds me of the "Bloopers" video produced by Fr. Rostand, and that is obviously very unfortunate. People, specially at that time, were suffering immensely, some were losing their faith, others were compromising, some have had break downs, others were hating each other's guts, etc., and that's how Bishop Williamson and Father Rostand were treating the matter... Very telling!

_________

English transcription of the video:

Bishop Williamson: "(...) The heroism is difficult. The heroism is tiresome. And, perhaps, among Traditionalists there is this tiresomeness. They are tired of resisting. I don't know... I don't know. The temptation exists nonetheless. And there hasn't been a clearly resistance regarding this temptation in the past few years. Therefore, how will this all end? I think there's a danger of an agreement before the end of this year. I'm not saying that will be one. I'm not saying that will be one. But I do say there is a danger there will be one. In other words: the Pope wants to make sure, before dying, the religion of his childhood is compatible, that it does not contradict the religion it has been promoted from his seminary. He wants the assurance they are reconcilable. That they do not contradict each other, so he can die with a clean conscience.
I think this might be how pope is reasoning: he's looking to have a clean conscience before dying. And if the SSPX reaches an agreement with the council, the Pope will personally have some peace of mind. It is just my speculation. It is not relevant. But it is possible this is the reason why the Pope wants a deal quickly."

Dom Thomas: But the Pope is smart...

Bishop Williamson: Yes...

Dom Thomas: He knows that if the SSPX comes to them they (SSPX) will accept the Council

Bishop Williamson: Yes!

Dom Thomas: And they (SSPX) will cease to be the Tradition...

Bishop Williamson: Yes!

Dom Thomas: So, It's confusing. There won't be Tradition anymore...

Bishop Williamson: Yes! Yes! Sure. The good will of the Pope towards Tradition could be a calculation...

Dom Thomas: I do not know if would be a calculation. But he's smart enough to know Bishop Fellay will change...

Bishop Williamson: Yes...

Dom Thomas: That the Society (SSPX) will change...

Bishop Williamson: Yes...

Dom Thomas: It is not a contradiction with the religion of his childhood. It is not a reunion with the religion of his childhood, It is an adapted religion.

Bishop Williamson: Who knows? It is my speculation.

It is true that the Pope may have a nobler motivation, to break down the resistance of Tradition, that is. It is perhaps a little more cynical to think that way, but for the modernists this is normal for sure.

Normally, the modernists want to absolutely dissolve the resistance of Tradition. And this may be the main motivation of the Pope. Yes, it can be. God knows. We don't know.

I was speculating in a charitable manner towards the Pope, saying he wants...

For I am gentle... I am emotional... I'm loving... I'm not hard... I'm not terrible as people say... Ah Ah Ah.

No one understands me... Nobody loves me... Ahhhhh...

I don't give a [cucumber] damn!

Attendance at the New Mass? (Dominicans of Avrillé)

Is it permitted to take part in the New Mass?


Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God in so far as it is ecumenical and protestant. Besides that, it represents a danger for the faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It must therefore be rejected. Whoever understands the problem of the New Mass must no longer assist at it, because he puts voluntarily his faith in danger, and, at the same time, encourages others to do the same in appearing to give his assent to the reforms.

How can a valid Mass displease God?


Even a sacrilegious Mass celebrated by an apostate priest to mock Christ can be valid. It is however evident that it offends God, and it would not be permitted to take part in it. In the same way, the Mass of a Greek Schismatic (valid and celebrated according a venerable rite) displeases God insofar as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and to the unique Church of Christ.

Can one attend the New Mass however when it is celebrated in a worthy and pious manner by a Catholic priest with a faith that is absolutely certain?


It is not the celebrant who is called into question, but the rite that he is using. It is unfortunately a fact that the new rite has given very many Catholics a false notion of the Mass, which is closer to that of the protestant last supper than that of the Holy Sacrifice. The new Mass is one of the principal sources of the current crises of the faith. It is therefore imperative that we distance ourselves from it.

Can one assist at the new Mass in certain circumstances?


We must apply to the new Mass the same rules we use for the attendance at a non-Catholic ceremony. One can be present for family or professional reasons, but one behaves passively, and especially does not receive Holy Communion.

What can one do when it is not possible to assist every Sunday a traditional Mass?


Whoever does not have the possibility to assist at a traditional Mass is excused from the Sunday obligation. The precept of the Sunday obligation only obliges in the case of a true Catholic Mass. One must however, in this case strive to assist at a traditional Mass at least regular intervals. What’s more, even if one is thus dispensed from assistance at Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not thus so for the commandment of God (“Thou shalt sanctify the Day of the Lord”). One must replace, by one manner or another this Mass which one cannot have, with for example the reading of the text in one’s missal, and uniting the intention, during the time of the Mass to a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and in practicing a spiritual communion.

(Directly translated from “Catéchisme catholique de la crise dans l’Église” [“Catholic Catechism of the crisis in the Church” by Fr Matthias Gaudron SSPX; French translation, subdivisions and revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé.]

=========================
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/attendance-at-the-new-mass/

Defending the Indefensible by Fr. Fernando Altamira

Recently, Bishop Williamson said that one could attend the new Mass. He was replying to a lady in a “Questions and Answers” session, after a public conference. When we gave news of this, it provoked a defence of Bishop Williamson’s words by the priest who runs the website Non Possumus.

To do this is to defend the indefensible. Once such a thing happens, and the more so when what has been said is very serious, one has a duty to warn people, regardless of who might have said it. The priest in question is doing with Bishop Williamson what he would not accept doing with Bishop Fellay (and this is a risk which concerns us all).

With Bishop Fellay, warn about all the bad things he says. With Bishop Williamson, make excuses for him and give a false interpretation of what he really meant to say, despite the literal meaning of his words. Thus one falls into the trap of the supporters of Bishop Fellay: he is always the object of misinterpretation.

Let us return to Bishop Williamson. The news of this which we gave did not include everything which he affirmed publicly. We strongly urge all those who understand English to watch this video, in which one finds all the incriminating words. But let us look briefly at the short text which we put out:

“Bishop Williamson and the New Mass

This piece of film represents the words of Bishop Williamson saying that one can assist at the New Mass. This seems to us to be something very serious on his part. One can watch this video at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzI4WKwDlPk. We do not approve the somewhat mocking tone of the video (from about half-way through, more or less), but the content is quite correct. Bishop Williamson’s words last for 12 minutes and the video is in total 30 minutes long.
–At Minute 0.55: “There’s the principles and then there’s the practice” -At Minute 6.46: “There have been Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass.” –At Minute 8.56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.” –At Minute 9.53: “Be very careful, be very careful with the Novus, 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.”
-At Minute 10.37: “Therefore I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”.

It is sad to say, and I do not say it maliciously (I know I am not lying), this shows the sad state of the spirit of this priest, the things which he is ready to do: defending Bishop Williamson blow for blow. I insist: before, he would not have tolerated this kind of attitude from Bishop Fellay, whereas now...

In the defence which he makes, this priest forgets the heart of the problem and seems to use (we suppose that he does so unconsciously) a sophism to defend the indefensible. If my memory serves, this sophism is called “ignorantio elenchi” (which means answering a question with something which is beside the point).

Let us say things clearly:

The New Mass is bad (I hope that this priest will not change his view of that). That being the case, there is a universally valid moral principle of capital importance: nobody (not even a priest or a bishop) can positively advise someone to do something bad. But that is exactly what Bishop Williamson did several times over with this lady: he advised her to assist at the New Mass.

This principle is absolutely certain. And if this priest wrote that knowingly and not in ignorance (which should have been the case, since he is a priest and it relates to his duty of state), he must assume responsibility for his words. And if he is writing out of ignorance, well that’s not very glorious either.

If it is really necessary, when a priest speaks with one of the faithful who is of good will (a simple soul) who goes to the New Mass, he could keep quiet, out of prudence, if that faithful is still not ready to hear the whole truth. But keeping quiet is one thing, positively advising him to go to the New Mass, as Bishop Williamson did, is something else.

The priest who tries to defend Bishop Williamson even goes so far as to use as an argument the fact that Bishop Williamson was replying to a woman who was sobbing. Well, firstly one does not hear any sobbing in the video. Secondly, even if there were, what kind of an argument is that? Otherwise, we would be reduced to the absurdity of having to declare the following moral principle: “To someone asking if they are allowed to do an evil act (e.g. assisting at the New Mass, abortion, etc.) one may answer in the affirmative, on condition that the person is sobbing.” Comment would be superfluous.

What is more, Bishop Williamson returns insistently to the question of the validity of the New Mass (they “can” be valid). But hold on: first of all we don’t know and we are justified in saying with as much likelihood (if not more so!), that Novus Ordo Masses can be invalid. Secondly, to even suppose that Novus Ordo Masses are valid, all or some of them, that’s not where the problem is at. It is well known: even in such a case it is still not permissible to assist at a Novus Ordo Mass since, whether or not it is valid, this rite is bad in se and is displeasing to God. Thirdly, the Masses of the heretical Russian Orthodox are certainly valid and yet it is obvious that we’re not allowed to assist at them. So: what should we say concerning the New Mass?

At the end you can read the quotes from Bishop Williamson.

I think that we priests who reacted against what Bishop Fellay is doing are wrong to hide the problems which also exist on our side. [Editor’s note – the same surely goes for “we laymen who reacted…”] And there are so many that the only positive attitude one can have is neither to hide them nor to seek to excuse them but to confront them calmly, proving our realism, and trying to remedy them. That is the only constructive thing we can do. Otherwise God will not bless us, nor will He bless what we are doing, and it will all end badly.

And so I cordially greet this priest at Non Possumus, without any hypocrisy, in the hope that this writing will help contribute to improving the current situation. May the Most Holy Virgin Mary come to our aid.

Fr. Fernando Altamira
28th July, 2015

-Minutes 10:45 and 22:05: “If they can trust their own judgment that this…attending this mass [the New Mass] will do more good than harm spiritually… but it does harm in itself, there´s no doubt about that. It´s a rite designed to undermine Catholics´ faith… […]”.

And at that point, the authors of the video add: “Remember: The new mass is poison! But if poison is good for you, then go ahead”.

-Minute 11:27: “But exceptionally… The wise thing would be probably to say in private this to that person, but here I am saying it in public, that may be foolish.”

Note – no one has the right to advise someone to do something wrong (such as assisting at the New Mass) either in public or in private. That’s an absurdity, it’s evil and it’s an error (cf. main text)

-Minute 6:36: “I don´t know if any of you know, again, I´m going to get hanged! But that´s in the contract…”

-Minute 8:56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one´s faith instead of losing it. That´s heresy, almost heresy within Tradition.”

-Minute 1:10: “Therefore, the Archbishop (Lefebvre) would say, in public he would say stay away, keep away from the New Mass.”

Note – these words about Archbishop Lefebvre (“in public he would say…”) seem to be insinuating that in private he would say something different: such an insinuation is disgraceful!

http://www.therecusant.com/altamira-contra-williamson

Ninguém faz verdadeiros milagres contra a fé, já que Deus não é testemunha de falsidades

Julgo muito interessante o texto a seguir a fim de esclarecer sobre os falsos milagres. É o comentário de ninguém menos que Santo Tomás de Aquino sobre a Segunda Epístola de São Paulo aos Tessalonicenses, mais especificamente sobre o Anticristo. O texto completo pode ser lido no blog Doctoris Angelici. Abaixo, transcrevo a parte que mais interessa no momento para que não nos deixemos enganar pelos falsos milagres da “igreja” conciliar: 

E [o Anticristo] enganará desta maneira: primeiro valendo-se do poder secular; segundo, da força dos milagres. Quanto ao primeiro diz: “com toda sorte de milagres”, a saber, do mundo. “Se fará dono dos tesouros de ouro e de prata e de todas as preciosidades de Egito” (Dan. 11,43). Ou com virtude fingida. Quanto ao segundo diz: “de sinais”. Os sinais são uma espécie de “milagretes”.* Os prodígios, entretanto são grandes, que demonstram que uma pessoa é um ser prodigioso, como quem diz à distância: distante, em dígitos: do dedo (Ap 13). E diz: “falsos prodígios”. Chama-se falso um milagre, ou porque lhe falta a verdadeira razão do fato, ou a verdadeira razão do milagre, ou o devido fim do milagre. O primeiro é o que fazem os ilusionistas, melhor dito, o que se faz por arte de magia e bruxaria, quando o diabo se encarrega de dar “gato por lebre” para que pareça outra coisa do que é; como fez Simão Mago com um carneiro que mandou degolar, que logo se deixou ver vivo; ou com um homem, que todos criam degolado e, por haver-lhe visto logo vivo, creram-lhe ressuscitado. E isto fazem os homens fazendo fantasmas na imaginação para enganar. 

A segunda espécie de milagres, impropriamente chamados assim, são os que despertam grande admiração, por ver-se o efeito, sem conhecer-se sua causa. Assim pois “os milagres”, que tem não simplesmente sua causa oculta, senão para algum oculta, dizem-se não simplesmente milagres, senão maravilhas. Mas os que tem simplesmente sua causa oculta são propriamente milagres, cujo autor é o mesmo glorioso Deus, porque estão acima de toda a ordem da natureza criada. Mas algumas vezes se fazem algumas maravilhas, cujas causas estão ocultas, mas não fora da ordem da natureza; e isto com mais razão o fazem os demônios, que conhecem as virtudes da natureza e tem determinada eficácia para especiais efeitos; e estas fará o Anticristo, mas não as que tem verdadeira razão de milagre, porque não tem poder naquilo que está sobre a natureza. 

Dizem-se milagres em terceiro lugar os que estão ordenados a servir de testemunho à verdade da fé, ou a subtrair os fiéis a Deus, como se diz em São Marcos. Mas se algum tivesse a graça de fazer milagres, e não se valesse deles para este fim, os milagres seriam verdadeiros quanto à razão do fato e à razão do milagre; mas seriam falsos quanto ao devido fim e à intenção divina. 

Mas isto não sucederá com o Anticristo, porque ninguém faz verdadeiros milagres contra a fé, já que Deus não é testemunha de falsidades. Donde um que ensine uma falsa doutrina não pode fazer milagres, embora um homem de má vida bem o poderia.

Logo sinala aos que se deixaram enganar, ao dizer: “àqueles que se perderam”, isto é, aos destinados à perdição. “Nenhum deles tem perecido senão o filho da perdição”. E isto precisamente porque “minhas ovelhas ouvem minha voz” (Jo 10).

As palavras são tão claras, e com o peso da autoridade do Doutor Angélico, que não temos mais nada a acrescentar.

 Fonte: https://intribulationepatientes.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/ninguem-faz-verdadeiros-milagres-contra-a-fe-ja-que-deus-nao-e-testemunha-de-falsidades/#more-1920 

" CerebrumVacantism "

The confusion seems to never end and Bishop Williamson sure seems to enjoy it way too much.

In his new series, yes, a new series of torture(!) known as Eleison Comments #445, His Excellency is adding more and more confusion to Catholic tradition/resistance.

Bishop Williamson at his new Eleison Comments 445:

"And if the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition? "

Surreal! The Novus Ordo people who have come to the Faith (Catholicism-Tradition) have done so despite their false beliefs, not because of them. Bishop Williamson unfortunately implies this is because of the "good left in the Newreligion".

"Depending on how a celebrant uses the options in the NOM, not all the elements that can nourish faith are necessarily eliminated from it, especially if the Consecration is valid, a possibility which nobody who knows his sacramental theology can deny. "

The elements that might nourish the faith (e.g Rosary, Novena, Grace, Good Will, etc.) are NOT derived from the cancer (Conciliar Church) but from the healthy body (Catholic Church) through her channel of graces!!! 

Should we credit the Greek Orthodox church if one of them decides to convert to Catholicism? Should we credit the Protestant church if one of them decides to convert to Catholicism?

God can grant the necessary grace for conversion to a Novus Ordo, Schismatic, Protestant, Buddhist, Atheist... But that does not mean their "elements" were the ones "nourishing" their good will, quite the contrary. The Novus Ordo converts find Catholicism/Tradition through their genuine catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Rosary; so to credit the "elements" of the Novus Ordo instead of the Holy and Merciful Mother of God bear an insult, to say the least. Other converts receive their grace of conversion due to their good will not the mistakes of their heretical/schismatical/pagan beliefs.

 His Excellency has gone as far as inventing a new word to describe his thesis: "Ecclesiavacantism"(?!).  According to him, those who affirm the Novus Ordo has absolutely nothing Catholic left "in" it, should be called "ecclesiavacantists": 

"However, given the weakness of human nature and so the risk of encouraging Catholics to go with the new and easy religion by the least word said in favour of its central rite of worship, why say a word in favour of any feature of the Newchurch? For at least two reasons. Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement, and firstly to ward off what is coming to be called “ecclesiavacantism,”(?!?!) namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever."

Why the disproportioned concern to "ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement"?? Is it not Tradition just a name we were forced to 'add' because of the Conciliarists but that in reality it is nothing less than Catholicism itself? And if that is so, is it pharisaical to say outside Tradition (Catholicism) there are no believers and no salvation?? Now, am I denying that some people or groups may go overboard towards some Novus Ordo individuals? Far from it, but as Cicero says: "Abusus non tollit usum", "The abuse does not eliminate the usage" . We should still univocally use the condemnations of their beliefs despite some abuses from the pharisaical ones, whoever they might be.

Or should we stop condemning Protestantism because some go as far as saying they couldn't even have a valid Baptism? Should we stop condemning Paganism because some go as far as saying they don't have a soul, etc.? Again, "abusus non tollit usum".

The "Newchurch" has absolutely nothing Catholic “in” it, despite what Bishop Williamson implies; whatever is Catholic (individuals, devotions, teachings, sacraments...) belong to the Catholic Church! Not the "Newchurch”!  A parasite or a cancer (e.g., Conciliar church, Newchurch) cannot be credited for being somewhat good because they are attached [infiltrated] to something good (Catholic Church), they are strange bodies, not part of it. To say otherwise would be to succumb to Vatican II ecclesiology.

So, instead of inventing insipid words such as “Ecclesiavacantism”, we should be more worried with something plaguing Tradition which could be called: “CerebrumVacantism”.

Eucharistic Miracle at the Novus Ordo Mass?

It is beyond belief that Traditional Catholics around the globe find themselves arguing on a subject one could never have imagined in a million years: "Miracles at the Novus Ordo mass."  (God help us!)

But since this unfortunate and sad event has become a public reality and caused way too many strives, I think it is worthwhile trying to bring some plain common sense to the table, including the one [partially] used by Bishop Williamson when he warns about people thinking the Novus Ordo is good just because this lady is attending it. But first things first.

Let's pay close attention to some statements Bishop Williamson has given at this video conference... Starting with: 




"Archbishop Lefebvre would publicly say 'stay away' from
 the New Mass”; (…) "but I am going to stick my neck out in a long way (…)” 

 Bishop Williamson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik

So, here we notice His Excellency will consciously oppose Archbishop Lefebvre.

Followed by “I would say that under certain circumstances, like those you [the lady who inquired] mentioned, exceptionally, if you are not going to scandalize(…)”.  The “golden rule” is: “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith, and if to nourish your faith(…) you need to attend a decent Society Mass, [or] just like she [the lady who inquired] spoke about a decent Novus Ordo mass(…) it’s case by case, it’s my opinion”. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik

“If you are not to scandalize anybody [by going to the new mass], because they [the people] see you’re catholic, you stick to the true faith; and then they see you at the new mass, the conclusion that many will draw is that the new Mass is 'ok'' because you're going to [the new mass], you gotta be careful with that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzI4WKwDlPk 

(1:54 to 2:20)

"There are cases where even the Novus Ordo mass can be attended with the affect of building one's faith instead of losing it, that's almost heresy in tradition...but that's what I think."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzI4WKwDlPk 
(20:26 to 20:45)

Now, allow me to draw two points:

1) It is tragic enough to have Bishop Williamson giving his approval for this lady to attend a "decent Novus Ordo mass" if she thinks she can "nourish her faith in it "; particularly but not limited to, because she lives around a Resistance territory and has stated she goes to a traditional Mass on Sundays. I make this point just to prevent those naysayers who are desperately trying to portray a very "hard situation" where "an old and pious lady in tears could have been isolated on this remote location where all she had was this old Novus Ordo priest coming around every ten years, etc...", or by implying she could be in "invincible ignorance" as some websites have tried to do. Well, that is most definitely not the case since she has mentioned she goes to traditional Mass on Sundays, so it is not really worth dwelling on this illusionary conjecture. But even if this was case, the bishop knows he should have done it privately, not publicly, as he also acknowledged in the video conference:  

"The wise thing would probably be to say it in private to this or that person but here I am saying in public, that may be foolish." Bishop Williamson (minute 22:52)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzI4WKwDlPk
.

2) Now, to add insult to injury: If a poor lady, a "nobody", has to be careful not to scandalize people by her attendance at the Novus Ordo mass, how in the world could God not scandalize every human being on this planet by His own attendance in flash(!) (Eucharistic Miracle) at this very same New Mass?!?!?!?! Again, if people are going to think the new mass is good because this poor lady is attending it, how PERFECT and BEAUTIFUL wouldn't they think the New Mass is if God Himself is attending it in a extraordinary, wonderful, miraculous manner?!?!?!

The other thing the naysayers have desperately tried to do was to justify this nonsense by shifting the problem to one regarding valid consecrations within the Novus Ordo, this has absolutely nothing to do with it. A valid consecration may occur in the Novus Ordo mass, or for that matter even at orthodox schismatic masses,  but the reason is just because it might happen they fulfill the requirements laid down by the Church: Proper Form, Matter and Intention to do what the Church does! That doesn't mean God, who is Order Himself, would put his stamp of approval upon a disordered (not God centered) and intrinsically evil rite of mass; a bastard mass.

   St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church, pardon my pleonasm, have said God may use “wicked men to perform miracles" [Summa II, II, q.178, art.2], but  NEVER to confirm their false doctrine (ibid).

Now, how can a tremendous miracle, such as the “Eucharist Miracle”, be performed at the Novus Ordo Parish, with a Novus Ordo Priest, during a Novus Ordo Mass, and not be perceived as a "confirmation of their false doctrine"???  It is mind boggling. 
[Read first paragraph of point #2 again]

God can only take good from evil if such evil ends it up as a foolish mean [or converted], not when the foolish is [not converted] and perceived at the end as "approved, promoted, confirmed, gifted, special, extraordinary..", otherwise God would be encouraging souls of embracing errors which would most definitely harm them. If the Parish, after the alleged “miracle”, would have started to be persecuted by the Diocesan Bishop for rejecting Communion in the hand, the new mass, new sacraments, Vatican II, etc., we could at least be sympathetic to it until the Catholic Church (not the Conciliar) were to give her permission / approval to believe in it. God cannot contradict Himself and work in a disorderly manner, my dear readers! "C'est impossible", would say the Archbishop. But since the Church and her legitimate authorities have been taken by the modernists, we are stuck! Simple as that! However, let’s not despair since miracles of this nature are not necessarily for our salvation. Keep the true Faith, the miracles of Our Lord and the legitimate miracles of Our lady and the true Saints.

If some traditionalists are willing to argue, however, whether or not the New Mass teaches a false doctrine, or if a Eucharistic Miracle wouldn't necessary imply at least a great danger to be perceived by many as an approval... Then their mind are like a cart off the railroad, there is not much one can do other than pray, to paraphrase Bishop Williamson.

Also, whoever has mentioned "Caiphas prophesing" as if this would prove God may also use the Novus Ordo Mass (as portrayed by Bishop Williamson), has to be very disingenuous for bringing that up. It is true Caiphas prophesied  but "he confirmed a TRUE DOCTRINE": The doctrine of the death of Our Lord. This is in perfect harmony with what St. Thomas said it is a possibility; "a wicked high priest" (Not a pagan, a heretic or schismatic mind you) who God has forced him to "confirm a true doctrine"! The "happy death!" He most definitely didn't look special nor has he made an impression for such a miracle of prophecy, instead he looked like a fool who was forced to announce the salvation of mankind.  I heard people bringing it up the "argument" of the cloak of St. Juan of Guadalupe as well... Excuse me?! What does that have to do with "eucharistic miracle" of the Novus Ordo Church in Buenos Aires??? The cloak of St. Juan of Guadalupe was (is) a Catholic Miracle performed way before the modernists  have taken our buildings, and having it as hostage at the modernist's hands, it will not validate the Novus Ordo.  The same would apply to any other CATHOLIC miracle in which the modernists have their hands on. Or are we supposed to think St. Januarius, and his liquified blood, is very pleased with Francis?! Or are we bound to believe such specific event is legit?!?! Oh please!

I'll give the readers another fittingly analogy: God can use a prostitute (wicked) to bring about a true doctrine (e.g doctrine of Hell, conversion by Charity..), but God most definitely could NOT have used an illicit and immoral mean (brothel) to even remotely be perceived as approved by God.
Does that mean God could not work miracle in brothels then? Well, if the poor women would have given a testimony of  the true doctrine (conversion, etc..), if the doors of the business had been closed, if their neon lights had ceased to blink at night, etc.; again, we could at least be sympathetic to such a "miracle", although we could still not publish as such, since this is strictly the job of the Catholic Church and her legitimate authorities, not of any bishop running on a supplied jurisdiction.

My emphasis on the necessity of the approval of the Church from her lawful authorities seems to be necessary because people are completely disregarding it. And just to show how strict and serious this "business" is, here's a perfect example: In 1904, 50th anniversary of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Saint Pius X, of blessed and glorious memory, received in Rome around 200 hundred doctors from St. Luke Society. Pius X was initially thinking about invoking some cures which have taken place in Lourdes but  he "hesitated and aborted the idea of declaring some of these miracles from Lourdes (!)". The reason why was because although "the team of doctors had already given their recognition, they had not been canonically approved". He also stated to Dr. Boissarie in a private audience that "The word miracle should not be imprudently uttered because we live in times which more than ever may evoke a suggestion..."
(O milagre de Lourdes, Yves Chiron - O local do Milagre pg. 109)

"A saintly Pope waiting for the 'proper canonical approval' of the Church from which he is the head...". Maybe we should learn a finger or two of his humility and prudence.


I rest my case.

According to Catholic theology, not only God, but also Satan, can bring about unexplainable phenomena. The Vatican’s theologians therefore scrutinise all testimonies to eliminate the possibility that Satan has been involved in the mysterious circumstances. Only then can the Church regard a healing as a miracle. (Artist: Michael Pacher, ‘Saint Augustine and the Devil, painted between 1471 and 1475)

Private Revelation - St. John of the Cross

Here are some excerpts of chapter XI:

 2. "And it must be known that, although all these things may happen to the bodily senses in the way of God, "we must never” rely upon them or accept them, but must always fly from them, without trying to ascertain whether they be good or evil;(...)" 

 3. "So he that esteems such things errs greatly and exposes himself to great peril of being deceived; in any case he will have within himself a complete impediment to the attainment of spirituality. For, as we have said, between spiritual things and all these bodily things there exists no kind of proportion whatever. And thus it may “always" be supposed that such things as these are more likely to be of the devil than of God; (…)" 

 4. “(…) they very easily become the means whereby error and presumption and vanity grow in the soul; since, as they are so palpable and material, they stir the senses greatly, and it appears to the judgment of the soul that they are of greater importance because they are more readily felt. Thus the soul goes after them, abandoning faith and thinking that the light which it receives from them is the guide and means to its desired goal, which is union with God. But the more attention it pays to such things, the farther it strays from the true way and means, which are faith." 

 5. "And, besides all this, when the soul sees that such extraordinary things happen to it, it is often visited, insidiously and secretly by a certain complacency, so that it thinks itself to be of some importance in the eyes of God; which is contrary to humility. The devil, too, knows how to insinuate into the soul a secret satisfaction with itself, which at times becomes very evident; wherefore he frequently represents these objects to the senses, setting before the eyes figures of saints and most beauteous lights; and before the ears words very much dissembled; and representing also sweetest perfumes, delicious tastes (281) and things delectable to the touch; to the end that, by producing desires for such things, he may "lead the soul into much evil". These representations and feelings, therefore, “must always be rejected”; for, even though some of them be of God, He is not offended by their rejection, nor is the effect and fruit which He desires to produce in the soul by means of them any the less surely received because the soul rejects them and desires them not." 

 7. The soul, then, must never presume to desire to receive them, even though, as I say, they be of God; for, if it desire to receive them, there follow six inconveniences. 
 1. The first is that faith grows gradually less (…) 
 2. Secondly, if they be not rejected, they are a hindrance to the spirit (…) 
 3. Thirdly, the soul becomes attached to these things and advances not to true resignation and detachment of spirit. 
4. Fourthly, it begins to lose the effect of them and the inward spirituality which they cause it (…) 
 5. Fifthly, the soul begins to lose the favours of God, because it accepts them as though they belonged to it and profits not by them as it should. 
 6. Sixthly, a readiness to accept them opens the door to the devil that he may deceive the soul by other things like to them (…) 

 8. It is always well, then, that the soul should reject these things, and close its eyes to them, whencesoever they come. For, unless it does so, it will prepare the way for those things that come from the devil, and will give him such influence that, not only will his visions come in place of God’s, but his visions will begin to increase, and those of God to cease, in such manner that the devil will have all the power and God will have none. So it has happened to many incautious and ignorant souls, who rely on these things to such an extent that many of them have found it hard to return to God in purity of faith; and many have been unable to return, so securely has the devil rooted himself in them; for which reason it is well to resist and reject them all. For, by the rejection of evil visions, the errors of the devil are avoided, and by the rejection of good visions no hindrance is offered to faith and the spirit harvests the fruit of them. 

 12. It is clear, then, that these sensual apprehensions and visions cannot be a means to union, since they bear no proportion to God; and this was one of the reasons why Christ desired that the Magdalene and Saint Thomas should not touch Him. And so the devil rejoices greatly when a soul desires to receive revelations, and when he sees it inclined to them, for he has then a great occasion and opportunity to insinuate errors and, in so far as he is able, to derogate from faith; for, as I have said, he renders the soul that desires them very gross, and at times even leads it into many temptations and unseemly ways.

----- 

 Consequently: (22) All this shows clearly the error of imprudent directors who, impelled by curiosity, are concerned with souls favored by visions and revelations.(23) This curiosity is a deformation of the spirit which casts the soul into illusion and trouble, and turns it away from humility through vain complacency in extraordinary ways. The Ascent, 22. Ibid., Bk. III, chaps. 9, 12 / Bk II, chap. 22
 St. John of the Cross and excepts from The Ascent of Mount Carmel

______________________ 


And to top it off, just in case one feels inclined to believe something of this nature or someone with these powers, remember:

 Private revelations may not be published without the approbation of ecclesiastical authority. 
6. Cf. the decree of Urban VIII, March 13, 1625, which was confirmed by Clement IX, May 23, 1668.