Source: https://cor-mariae.com/threads/quotes-of-bp-williamson-supporting-the-new-religion-and-conciliarism.4457/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:24:23+00:00

Document:
"Catholics have a strict right to know the doctrine of their priests and bishops."
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.
"N.O. priests are nourishing and building the faith in their N.O. parish."
[NEW] Sermon for the first Pontifical mass of Bishop Zendejas, May 12, 2017, saying, God and his Church can be, and is, corrupt.
[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).
Separating again the Church as one and the “traditional movement” as another.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
Eleison Comments #387 (emphasis added).
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!
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).
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.
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.
By encouraging his followers to attend the Masses of sedevacantists, Bishop Williamson promotes attendance at the Masses of schismatics.
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.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s conference in Flavigny, December 1988—quoted from Fideliter March/April 1989 (emphasis added).
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)).
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.
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” 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Quoted from Pope St. Pius X’s December 13, 1908 discourse, at the Beatification of Joan of Arc.
An example of Bishop Williamson bankrolling Fr. Zendejas.
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 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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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”.
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.
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.
With Bishop Williamson promoting “worship” with non-Catholics, how could anyone be surprised that he says non-Catholics can get to heaven?
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.
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!
Read his own words, cited back to his own sources, which prove his many heresies.
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.
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.
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!
They that sat in the gate spoke against me: and they that drank wine made me their song.
I am made a derision to all my people, their song all the day long.
Let us pray for those poor, blind Fake Resistance bishops!
Do you consider St. John Chrysostom’s frightening and sober warning as a punchline? If not, then don’t associate with those who do!
(emphasis added; bracketed word added to show repetition was in the original).
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.
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 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.
Quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (emphasis added).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Eleison Comments, #527 (emphasis added).
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).
[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).
[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).
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.
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.
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.
[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).
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.
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.
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.
This king is God, and may be understood to be either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Valtorta falsely portrays Christ’s infinite glory as finite and completed by a creature.

References: §3
 §22
 §1
 §17
 §9
 §7
 §13
 §18