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

[Stone]

The following is a transcript of the communications read aloud by Fr. Hewko during this conference, queued for time:

✠ ✠ ✠

N. B. Notice that the conditions placed upon Fr. Hewko by Bp. Williamson to receive Holy Oils are that he (Fr. Hewko) publicly accept the Novus Ordo Eucharistic "miracles." As an aside, this begs the question, since there have been so many 'miracles' lately (see here, here, and here, for examples) one wonders if this acceptance applies to all the alleged miracles or just one or two? 

But more importantly, observe that it is demanded of Fr. Hewko that he believe in the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass and its subsequent 'miracles.' That is what is at stake. Public proclamation of the legitimacy of the New Mass. 

Notice there is essentially no difference between what Bp. Williamson demands and what Bp. Fellay signed in the Doctrinal Declaration, which states that the Novus Ordo Mass is "legitimately promulgated." Very hard to distinguish between these two sides of the same coin! 

Archbishop Lefebvre said this of the New Mass, in 1976(!): “And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976).

✠ ✠ ✠

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote to Bp. Williamson [emphasis mine, any mistakes in transcription are also mine.]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Easter Greetings to you and wishing you good health and many graces from the Risen Savior!

May I appeal, once again, for Holy Oils for this year? I have asked Bp. Zendejas but so far, no response. I'm not sure why this silent treatment continues, it is rather puzzling to me.

If it is, as you said before, a deserved response for "misrepresenting your position on the New Mass," with all due respect, how can I misrepresent you when I simply quote your own words? It was never Abp. Lefebvre who taught these things, nor have I taken you out of context, in fact, have bent over backwards to try to justify your words, hoping they were just oversights. But truthfully, after so many repetitions in conferences and letters and after receiving punishments for opposing these publicly voiced opinions, it is clear these are not mere oversights.

However, in truth, how often you repeated these were merely your "opinions" and that many confreres will not agree. Fair enough, but why be punished if some priests do not agree? Why be treated as outcasts when priests repeatedly quote our Founder who said the direct opposite so many times?

Your Excellency, all I'm requesting are the basic tools for saving souls! Baptisms and Extreme Unctions cannot be given without Holy Oils (aside from emergency baptisms). Why would a differing opinion be an obstacle to receiving Holy Oils? Would Jesuit or Dominican bishops of yesteryear refuse Holy Oils to Franciscan or Carmelite priests for holding different opinions on Grace or the reasons for the Incarnation? These were hotly debated theological opinions that caused much fighting between Orders but, in spite of all the bickering between them, I'm sure charity prevailed in most cases and priests received Holy Oils, dispensations, and any permissions needed for the good of souls.

In this case, all I quote is Abp. Lefebvre who never promoted New Mass miracles publicly, nor that it gives grace, nor that it can nourish your faith. In fact, as time passes from 1970 to 1980's his position becomes more adamantly opposed to this Masonic tool to destroy the Faith in souls. Facts show he was absolutely accurate. I have witnessed the confusion in many souls and quite honestly, scandal, from what has been publicly promoted from Broadstairs.

Nevertheless, if I have countered these opinions, I have always defended your name and praised your history of defending the Faith and the immeasurable treasures you gave us in the seminary and your guidance to innumerable souls throughout the '80's, '90 and on. But if these are differing opinions, fine, but why should these be grounds for refusing the basic tools for saving souls who just want to get to Heaven?

The fact is, there are hundreds of families and souls I take care of, who are waiting all these years for confirmation and have been scandalized by these novel opinions and prefer to wait for a bishop of Abp. Lefebvre (not Thuc!) who will simply hold his stand on the New Mass questions. Don't they have the right by Mother Church to be wary of novelties? Don't they have the right given by Our Lord to request for bread and be given bread? Why should they be treated as outcasts when they merely stand by the positions of Abp. Lefebvre?

Lastly, for all the insistence on "no structure and organization" it appears by the punishments incurred by priests holding different opinions, that there truly is a structure and organization in place. We all knew the doctrinal shift of Bp. Fellay was not merely words and opinions when it was backed by punishments for opposing his new direction. Punitive transfers, imposed silence, and expulsions backed his shift of direction towards Modernist Rome. I was silenced for giving a sermon at a First Mass in Winona in 2012, which merely quoted Abp. Lefebvre repeatedly. Punishments prove the program. My point is why should priests holding differing opinions be punished since they are not dogmas but opinions? Why should we be refused Holy Oils? Who else can we turn to? Thuc line? No. Sedevacantists? No. Novus Ordo? No.

Please, Your Excellency, for the good of souls battling to survive this horrible confusion and apostasy, do not turn a deaf ear to my appeal.

If I have been amiss or have not understood, please correct me.

With all filial respect, humility and affection, yours,

In Christo Rege,

Fr. David Hewko

✠ ✠ ✠

On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bishop Williamson replies:

Reverend,

When you deny the genuinely scientific evidence in favor of miracles taking place at Novus Ordo Masses said by Novus Ordo priests consecrated by Novus Ordo bishops, such as happened in Sokolka, Poland, in 2008, you are not living in the same world or Church as I am.

Please resort to any bishop who shares your own attitude towards reality. Please do not ask me again for Oils for as long as you are defying reality.


With good wishes, in Christo,

Bp. Williamson

✠ ✠ ✠

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:17, Fr. Hewko wrote:

Your Excellency,

Then to whom do I turn? "For the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters."

In Christo Rege,

Fr. Hewko

✠ ✠ ✠

On Thursday, April 20, 2023, Bp. Williamson wrote:

Make up your mind. Choose.

Either you write in public, to all those people that you normally write to, that you have been wrong to deny the possibility of Eucharistic miracles at Novus Ordo Masses, and you quote several cases of such miracles which you now admit to have taken place. And you will have to persuade me that you sincerely mean what you write, and that you are not writing it just to deceive me. Judging by your past behavior that will be very difficult for you to do. And I have to remain the judge as to whether you may or may not have done it. And if you try any form of weaseling out of it, I will never again read an email of yours. Choose.

Or you find yourself a bishop who agrees with you. How about Bishop Pfeiffer?

In Christ,

Bp. Williamson

✠ ✠ ✠

On Friday, April 21, 2023 Fr. Hewko wrote [this was an excellent reply!]:


Your Excellency, Bp. Williamson,

Firstly, I thank you, since thirty-one years ago today, April 21, you ordained me in St. Mary's, Kansas. Thank you again, unworthy of such a grace as I truly am but please remember me in your prayers of the Breviary & Mass!

Secondly, in response to your request to publicly endorse the New Mass Eucharistic miracles as a condition to possibly receive Holy Oils, may I bring some things forward for consideration?

While St. Paul says "Charity believeth all things," St. John also warns to "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God." With regard to the New Mass Eucharistic miracles, I prefer to wait for the final approval of Mother Church, not the Conciliar propaganda. To give the appearance of authenticity, the Conciliarists have invented New Mass canonized "saints", New Mass "incorrupt" bodies, New Mass Marian "apparitions", New Mass Rosary mysteries and New Mass "Eucharistic miracles." One must ask what is the final cause is in all these? The bad tree produces bad fruit and the Conciliar New Religion and New Mass are certainly bad trees. It cannot be doubted that all of these phenomena lead souls directly to the New Conciliar Religion and New Mass. That's where lies the great danger!

It has been proven that some of the "miracles" for the new canonizations were not miracles at all; that Pope John XXIII's "incorrupt" body was heavily dosed with formaldehyde, as admitted by the morticians who treated his body. Some New Mass "miracles" have already been proven to be frauds. In the case of Sokolka, Poland, some Polish people have told me the bishop there was indicted for money laundering, left with a nun and, at least according to them and news reports, the new bishop has never declared this as a miracle but simply that "it confirms the faith." But they won't declare on it because the oncoming pilgrims bring financial stability.

Fr. Cordozo visited the Eucharistic "miracle" in Argentina and was refused admittance to view it, but remarked how the church had the Blessed Sacrament exposed in a flowery pastel monstrance with all the modern art surrounding it.

I guess if St. Thomas Aquinas were to treat this subject, he would admit that, in the case of a valid Mass where the Consecration truly took place, a miracle of this sort would be possible in the realm of God's omnipotence, but he would certainly have raised questions if it came from the New Mass. Belief in the New Mass "miracles," he couldn't deny, leads directly to the New Mass. The New Mass, although admittedly can be valid, nevertheless, leads to a loss of Faith, is often sacrilegious and represents a Rite that is "odious in God's sight" (as Our Lord told Marie-Julie Jahenny). True miracles confirm the Truth. True miracles confirm Catholic doctrine and the Faith. Will God permit miracles to confirm an odious Rite of Mass? Will God work miracles to reinforce errors, heresy and sacrilege that are nearly intrinsic to the New Mass? This is the question that poses the problem.

With all things considered, perhaps the more prudent ground to stand on, is to patiently withhold judgement and wait for Mother Church to come back to Tradition. Then the world will have the final reliable decision. All the while publicly promoting the pre-Vatican II Eucharistic miracles (of which there are plenty!) and saints, while at the same time, being extremely cautious with the post-Vatican II phenomena and so-called miracles. If the Conciliar Modernist episcopate can parade before the whole world (with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II's presence and approval) a fake Sister Lucia of Fatima, as has been forensically and scientifically proven, what other frauds are they not capable of flaunting?

Perhaps, the more prudent position is to take to heart the warnings of Our Lord: "For there will rise up false prophets, and wonders (e.g. false Eucharistic miracles), to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect" (St. Mark 13:22). Where do the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" lead but to the New Mass? What devotions do they foster but the prayers and ecumenism of the New Mass? What do these shrines promote but the errors of Vatican II and confirm people in the faith of the Conciliar Church, which Abp. Lefebvre didn't hesitate to call a Modernist Church, and a "schismatic church" which leads to apostasy and heresy?

In this light, your Excellency, I can never promote, privately or publicly, the New Mass Eucharistic "miracles" for it would lead souls to the wrong Church and at the very least to confusion, and the devil works in confused waters! Please consider also possibly holding this position yourself, since we were warned that the devil can appear as an angel of light, and with what greater deceit can he mislead souls than the Conciliar Church, with its new priesthood, new sacraments, new Mass, new morality, new theology, new Code of Canon Law, new religion! How many "elect" have truly been seduced by the Conciliar Church and have lost the Faith? The statistics show millions! How many souls has it taken to Hell?

Now, with all this in consideration may I have the Holy Oils to continue being about my Father's business? [A side note, I do not presume to give Confirmations and I never will. On that, don't agree with Fr. Rafael, OSB].

Humbly asking your blessings, filially yours,

Fr. David Hewko


Post scriptum: The Thuc line is out of the question because it swims in doubt, scandals and craziness, as Archbishop Lefebvre advised, stay away! Therefore, Fr. Pfeiffer is out of the question.