Catholic Candle Note: For the article below, we gratefully acknowledge the help we received from the journalistic investigation of one of our readers, who is bilingual (Polish/English).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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.