Originally printed in The Recusant 34, May 2016
Novus Ordo "Miracles"
A Case Study
A friend recently alerted me, via a French website (christusvincit.clicforum.com) to the existence of the most recent Novus Ordo “Eucharistic miracle”. This latest “miracle” was officially announced within the last week or two by the bishop of Legnica, Poland. The story, in summary, is this: a host which had been dropped on the floor in 2013 was placed into water, began to turn red and in 2014 a sample was declared by a laboratory to be heart tissue. If this sounds a little familiar, I promise I am not making this up - see for yourself. A translation of the announcement from the diocese is produced below, taken from their own website (www.diecezja.legnica.pl)
​
COMMUNICATION
​
Events regarding the Eucharist in the parish of St. James, Legnica
Brothers and Sisters in Christ!
As Bishop of Legnica I give this message about an incident that happened in the parish of St. Jacka in Legnica and which has the hallmarks of the Eucharistic miracle. A Host, which on December 25, 2013 was given at Holy Communion, fell to the floor and was picked up and put into a container with water, after some time appeared discoloured red. The then Bishop of Legnica Bishop Stefan Cichy appointed a Commission whose task was to observe the phenomenon. In February 2014, he took a fragment of the red coloured matter and deposited it on the corporal. In order to explain this kind of matter, the Commission ordered the taking of samples and conduct appropriate tests by different competent authorities.
Finally, in the judgment of the Department of Forensic Medicine states: “The histopathological tissue fragments were found containing fragmented part of the skeletal muscle. (...) The whole image (...) is the most similar to the heart muscle “ (...), as amended, which “often accompanied by agony.” Genetic studies indicate the human origin of the tissue.
In January this year, I presented the whole matter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Today, according to the Holy See, I recommend the parish priest Andrzej Ziombrze prepare a suitable place for displaying the Relic so that the faithful can honour it. I also ask for access to those with relevant information and to conduct a systematic catechesis that could help properly shape the consciousness of the faithful in Eucharistic worship. Moreover, I recommend the establishing of a book, in which will be recorded any graces received and other events having the character of the supernatural.
I hope that all this will serve to deepen the cult of the Eucharist and will have an unmistakable impact on the lives of people approaching the relic. We read this marvellous sign, as a particular expression of kindness and love of God, who so descends to man.
I ask for your prayer and I bless you
+ Zbigniew Kiernikowski (Bishop of Legnica)
​
ORDINANCE
​
The message of the Bishop of Legnica be read on the fourth Sunday of Easter, 17 April 2016 in all churches and oratories in the Diocese of Legnica.
+ Marek Mendyk (Vicar General )
​
1.
2.
4.
3.
The parish priest unveils a fancy publicity board for the Novus Ordo "miracle" in the presence of the bishop...
What to think? Well, remember that in the days before the conciliar revolution, even genuine miracles needed to pass through a pretty thorough and rigorous process of testing before being approved for public consumption. And even if they passed, plenty of genuine miracles were never approved rather than risk one bogus one slipping through. Here are some of the more obvious objections to this latest Novus Ordo “miracle”, which apply equally to the others too:
1. Lack of Witnesses. The whole point of a miracle is that people need to witness it. Like prophecy, miracles are a motive of credibility, they are there to help us believe: a miracle without witnesses is rather like a prophecy coming true which nobody had ever heard of. The miracle of the sun at Fatima was witnessed by a crowd of 70,000. The girl who regained her sight despite not having pupils became a phenomenon to which anyone who met her could testify. When the blood of St. Januarius liquefies on his feast day every year, it is held up and the glass bottle containing it is turned over and over so that as many people as possible can see it. Think of the crossing of the Red Sea or the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Remember too that the well known miracle of Lanciano, where the host turned into flesh and the wine into blood, did actually take place during Mass and was witnessed by those present, not least the priest himself. The same is true of the Eucharistic miracle of the host which, when stabbed with knives, started to bleed. There must be witnesses. This latest “miracle” bears a passing superficial resemblance to Lanciano, but it is different in this important point. By their own admission, and according to their own version of events, not one of the Novus Ordo personages involved in this “miracle” actually witnessed the transformation taking place. “I put the host in water and when I came back I found that it had transformed!” sounds plausible, but it means that you admit that you did not actually see the thing itself happening. There are doubtless plenty of people in Poland and Argentina who have seen the “miraculous” host and who think that they have witnessed something. But what have they actually witnessed? If they see what looks like a piece of bloody tissue, they have no way of knowing how it came to be there or whether it was in fact a host once. If they see what looks like a host with a red patch, there is no way of knowing what that red patch is, how it came to be there, or for that matter whether that is even a normal host in normal water. They witness what they think is the result of a miracle. Not one of them, not even by his own admission the priest who discovered it, has actually witnessed the miracle.
​
2. Modernist Unbelief. The men who gave us this miracle, principally Pope Francis, the Vatican under him, and the Polish Novus Ordo hierarchy (embodied in the bishop of Legnica, Zbigniew Kiernikowski) are modernist unbelievers, as are virtually all the bishops of the world today. Not only is that in itself grounds for suspicion, since it means that the modernists who have lied and deceived are now supposedly trustworthy, it is also a huge contradiction, since these are men who usually don’t believe in miracles. Even the miracles recorded in Sacred Scripture are often explained away by them (E.g. The parting of the Red Sea? Well, you know, it wasn’t really a “sea”, more a sort of marsh, and probably the wind somehow blew the water away on one patch… etc.) They would pour scorn on the many miracles worked by the Brown Scapular, for example, or the miracles worked by the Saints in bygone ages, and would have us believe that people back then were simple and credulous (not being as educated and scientific as we are today!). And yet it is these same unbelieving men who now propose this “miracle” to us. Usually such men as these do not even believe in the Real Presence, and yet here they propose a Eucharistic “miracle” to us, even though they do not believe in the invisible miracle which takes place at every valid Mass. Is there not something of a contradiction in all of this which ought to make us at least a little bit suspicious? Is not something amiss?
The importance of realising that one can be saved “outside Tradition” is a favourite theme of Bishop Williamson, one recently taken up by Fr. Zendejas, and arguably there may well be faithful of good will still in the conciliar church who are Catholic in spite of it. But for these bishops who hold high office and who embody the conciliar church, the situation is very different. These are men who perform and propagate evil, who see it being accomplished daily, who witness souls going to hell as a direct result of what they do and say, and who still persist in it. These are men who teach and promote the most foul heresies and who do nothing to prevent gross immorality from running rampant (when they are not actively promoting it themselves!), who studiously avoid doing anything which might end up promoting the Faith but who will not flinch in ruthlessly stamping out the last vestiges of the Faith amongst the very least of the sheep entrusted to them if the alarm is raised that someone somewhere in their diocese is guilty of being “intolerant,” “reactionary” or “pre-Vatican II”. They will bend over backwards to accommodate leftish sodomoite politicians but will crush a pious old lady who still has too much devotion and too strong a sensus Catholicus. Some of them belong to the Freemasons or other secret societies, many others are “only” allowing themselves to be controlled by those same secret societies, and are well aware of that fact. These are men who consciously deny Our Lord and persecute His Church, in the worst way imaginable: “from the inside”! How then are we meant to receive “miracles” which they tell us are worthy of belief? The Francis Bergoglio who, as Pope, tells us that the “Catholic God” does not exist and that “proselytism [i.e. wanting to convert people] is solemn nonsense” is the same Mgr. Bergoglio who as bishop of Buenos Aires tells us that we can believe in the Novus Ordo “miracle” of that town. Mgr. Zbigniew Kiernikowski who tells us that we can believe in the Novus Ordo “miracle” of Legnica was appointed as bishop of that diocese in 2014 by… Francis Bergoglio! And he himself has no less an impressive modernist resumé. Ordained a priest in 1971, he was involved in the “neo-catechumenal way” and taught at more than one Pontifical institution before becoming a bishop.
​
3. Proof and Testing. Given that nobody actually saw the miracle take place, the issue of the laboratory tests (since, in the end, that is all the “miracle” consists of) becomes all the more important. But who tests the people who make the tests? It is not enough simply to say “we sent it off to a laboratory who told us…”. Apart from the fact that laboratories can be bribed (that is not an accusation, it is just a fact), more easily still, fake “samples” can be sent off to the laboratory and the laboratory themselves would be none the wiser; after all, where the sample originally came from is no concern of theirs - they just take what they’re given and test it. Nobody is a witness to exactly what was done, in what order or how, and it is virtually impossible for anyone short of an international organisation with the size and budget of the CIA to find out exactly what was done and gather evidence of it. The windows of opportunity for fraud contained in the official version of events are many and gaping. For example, the flesh from the “miraculous” host approved by Mgr. Bergoglio in Argentina was sent for testing to a laboratory in the USA! Why did they not send it to one in Buenos Aires, or elsewhere in Argentina, or even elsewhere in South America? Could it be that sending it to a laboratory thousands of miles away on another continent makes it a thousand times more difficult for nosy or sceptical Argentinians to investigate on their own, than if it were sent to a local institution which residents of Buenos Aires could pop in with less difficulty and possibly even talk to the people who ran the tests? Who knows. Perhaps there is a genuine reason why only a laboratory in the USA would do. But on the face of it, it does not make much sense and looks highly suspicious. In the case of Legnica, it was at least sent to a Polish institution. But the same criticism applies: how are we supposed to know exactly what was sent to them, or where it came from? Finally all we have to go on is the word of men such as Zbigniew Kiernikowski.
As noted above, it is right that the criteria for the Church to accept a miracle should be more than rigorous, not least due to the seriousness of the responsibility and the incalculable damage which can be done by a hoax even being given the appearance of approval (think of the incalculable harm done by the bogus “apparitions” of Medjugorje, despite never having been officially approved, and due in large part to “mere” dithering and cowardliness). Why have the same rigorous criteria not been applied here? There have been thousands upon thousands of miracles at Lourdes, with only a handful of them ever officially approved, yet here one (highly dubious!) “miracle” takes place and it is instantly waved through! Why is it that the process usually takes years and years, and yet in this case it took little more than two years from start to finish? (The Mass at which the host was consecrated was Christmas Day 2013, the official announcement from the diocese and the public promotion of this miracle began in April 2016 - a total of less than 28 months!) If such a miracle were genuine - and that is a gigantic “if,” given all of the above and what follows - then the correct thing to do would have been to invite the laboratory men down to the church to take the sample themselves in person and in front of the media and witnesses. The most hostile, anti-Catholic newspapers and TV stations should be invited, men who would love to prove a hoax. It should also ideally be a hostile laboratory, one, for example, located at some University or institution which is known to be militantly secular. And if more than one institution were invited to take their own sample for testing, that would make matters even more transparent, since it would dispel any fears of bribery, pressure being put on the institution, or other form of foul play. But none of this was done. Why not? If the evidence, the testing, the whole process from start to finish is not transparent, if it is not fool proof, then arguably it serves no useful purpose and has the opposite effect: it serves as grounds for suspicion. Perhaps that is why the medical panel at Lourdes is made up of leading doctors in various fields of medicine, the majority of whom are non-Catholics. Or to take another example, the Shroud of Turin has been submitted to all sorts of tests by all sorts of people, including those trying to prove it false (at one point they thought they had succeeded). If the same were true of the Buenos Aires or Legnica “miracles,” there would be more grounds for confidence. As it is, the whole thing looks suspiciously “in house” especially given what we know about the main scientists who approved it (read on!).
2000
2004
2012
4. Fruits. Our Lord tells us to judge the tree by its fruit. For this reason, genuine miracles are accompanied by good fruits from heaven. Lourdes and Fatima are witness to many, many conversions. The history of Mexico, a land inhabited by various different pagan tribes which instantly became a single, united country populated by Catholics is further proof of the undoubtedly genuine Heaven-sent messenger, Our Lady of Guadalupe, just as the gloriously Catholic history of Ireland is a fruit which testifies to the miracles worked by St. Patrick in converting that land. Padre Pio worked miracles. But he also was surrounded by conversions and good fruits. The same is true of St. John Vianney, the ‘Curé of Ars.’ The good fruits, conversion, prayer, repentance, deepening of spiritual life, renewal of vigour, all help to propose the miracle. To go back to Lanciano - the important context of the miracle is that the priest was beginning to doubt the Real Presence. After the miracle, he believed. Well, anybody who has had contact with the conciliar church will know that belief in Transubstantiation is a comparative rarity, and becomes rarer the higher up the hierarchy one goes. Hardly any of these high ranking modernist bishops and priests really believe.
And yet here we have a “miracle”. Where are the conversions? Where are the fruits? Do they now believe as a result, in a way which they did not beforehand? Are we now going to hear of Bishop Zbigniew Kiemikoski forbidding communion in the hand in the diocese of Legnica? What about in Buenos Aires, did communion in the hand cease following the Eucharistic “miracle” there? And if not, why might that be?
If there are no good fruits, no conversions accompanying this latest “miracle” - what does that suggest about its authenticity? This brings us to...
5. Purpose. This is related to the question of fruits. Ever since Bishop Williamson foolishly recommended the “miracle” of Buenos Aires (and that of Sokolka too!) to his audience, his loyal devotees have sought to defend him with the following argument. “The miracle does not confirm the Novus-Ordo-ness of the Novus Ordo. It only confirms that the Novus Ordo can be valid. It confirms that Christ is present in the host at a valid Mass.” Let us look a little closer at this argument. The purpose of a miracle is important. What is the purpose of these miracles? What would be God’s purpose in working such a miracle, if, indeed, it were worked by God? What would be the purpose of the wicked deceitful men who faked a “miracle”, if that is what happened? What, in fact, has it served to confirm? Has it confirmed anyone in the Faith? Has it confirmed belief in the Real Presence? Has is led to renewed and greater devotion to the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament by priests and people? Has Buenos Aires seen a resurgence of Corpus Christi processions, Benediction, Forty Hours and other such devotions? Has communion in the hand all-but come to an end in Buenos Aires? Does everyone in Buenos Aires now treat the Blessed Sacrament with the reverence and respect it deserves (and the Mass likewise)? Does anyone know?
Without being present, it is impossible to tell absolutely for certain in any scientific way, but there is enough evidence easily found online all of which suggest the contrary. In the space of a few short minutes evidence can be found of Mgr. Bergoglio giving communion in the hand, Mass on tiny makeshift coffee tables, guitar Masses, and so on, years after this “miracle” supposedly took place. And besides, surely common sense suggests that if such a renewal of reverence and devotion had taken place (which in this day and age would itself be an almost miraculous thing!) we would certainly have heard about it by now!
The Pope Francis who as a bishop approved of a “Eucharistic miracle” is the same man who said the now infamous “World Youth Day” Mass at Copacabana where communion could be seen being distributed by lay men and women, in the hand, from disposable plastic cups.
Cardinal Bergoglio holds a Tango Mass in Buenos Aires Cathedral (year unknown)
2013 - helped by a woman (foreground)
2010 - "Mass for school children" with papier-mache costumes...
2010 - on a coffee table, in a railway station...
Communion being distributed by lay men and women in the hand and from plastic cups at Pope Francis's 'World Youth Day', 2013
Some "liturgical dancers" at one of Fr Pezet's Masses...
Mass on the floor...
...all gathered around the altar...
Fr. Pezet and Mgr Bergoglio
As for the Argentinian priest for whom the miracle happened, so to speak, the priest who discovered the host and put it into water, well… if the purpose was to show the wrongness of the Novus Ordo and the many abuses which accompany it, then that purpose was surely intended for him as much as for anyone else. And how close is that purpose to being fulfilled in his case? The priest, Fr. Alejandro Pezet, is a devotee of liturgical dance, and can be seen in one picture saying his Novus Ordo Mass sitting cross legged on the floor in front of the altar, surrounded by a circle of children. And if that is the case with the priest who was first to “witness” the miracle (even though, by his own admission, even he didn’t actually witness it) what can one say about the fruits of this “miracle”? What can we say about the purpose of this “miracle”? What can we conclude about where this “miracle” is leading? See for yourself and make up your own mind!
In a sense it is silly that we should even be asking these things as Traditional Catholics. Like “conservative Novus Ordites,” we need to realise that “Liturgical Abuse” is not the issue. The problem is that the New Mass itself, like the attitude which spawned it, lends itself to this type of thing and invariable leads to it. The New Mass itself is something deeply displeasing to Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament. If, therefore, these “miracles” were real, and if their purpose was to confirm belief in the Real Presence and to point to the wrongness of disrespect of the Blessed Sacrament, their purpose would also be to point to the wrongness of the New Mass which is inherently disrespectful and displeasing to God. How could God work a miracle to protest “liturgical abuse” but not wish to protest the New Mass itself? And yet, has anyone involved in these miracles become Traditional? Does anyone know of a case of one single soul in whom such a thing has come about as a result of these “miracles”? I have never heard of such a thing. Nor do I expect to any time soon.
Alas, however much the apologists of Bishop Williamson are loath to admit it, the fact remains that these “miracles” do confirm the conciliar church, and they do confirm not just “possible validity” but the very Novus-Ordo-ness of the Novus Ordo Mass! Let us suppose that a Eucharistic miracle were to have taken place at a Tridentine Mass. Let’s say it was at an indult Mass, in Buenos Aires, in the 1990s. Can you for one minute imagine Mgr. Bergoglio approving of it and promoting it? Can you for one moment imagine the Vatican under Pope Francis approving and promoting a miracle today which took place at a Tridentine Mass? No? Then what might that tell us…?
What is, in fact, confirmed by the “miracles”? Not only the legitimacy of the parish and diocese in question, of the ecclesiastical grandees involved, of the “new regime” so to speak, but also the legitimacy and worth of the New Mass itself. Nobody who re-reads those three ‘Eleison Comments’ at the end of last year (numbers 436, 437 & 438) can fail to spot that that is precisely where it leads Bishop Williamson - he as good as says so himself! Other than that, the real purpose, one suspects, behind these “new miracles” is the usual urbane answer: money, politics, fame, pilgrims, a revival of flagging numbers and a renewed sense of purpose in a conciliar church which has become as pointless as it is faithless. But principally filthy lucre. As one non-Catholic internet commentator said, regarding Legnica:
“Without impugning the Church’s motives, the bishop is also reported as saying he will instruct the parish church to ‘prepare a suitable place for a display of the Relic so that the faithful could give it the proper adoration’. He is obviously preparing for a stream of pilgrims bringing doubtless much-needed income.”
Who can doubt that that is the case?
​
5. Similarities. We cannot overlook the almost identical stories of the supposed “miracles” of Legnica, Sokolka and Buenos Aires, something which is itself highly suspicious (when has that ever happened before in the history of the Church?). Not only that, but there were in fact three such supposed “miracles” in the same church in Buenos Aires alone, within only a couple of years of each other, and that the first miracle (not such a success) happened in the very same month that Mgr. Bergoglio become auxiliary bishop (May 1992 - the second and third took place in 1994 and 1996). What are the odds?! The more one considers all these stories of “transformations” which nobody saw happening and which nobody may inspect, the similarities of so many stories of basically the same “miracle” happening, and happening more and more within the last 20 or so years, it reads like a successful PR campaign. They’ve found their ‘winning formula’ - that’s why it is so popular. As time goes on, and the story and tactics are refined, each new “miracle” will be slightly less obviously fraudulent than the last (to see an example of an earlier and more obviously bogus attempt at the same “Eucharistic miracle” story, look up “Bishop Gatti”, a priest who had more than one such Eucharistic “miracle” happen, before finally claiming that God had consecrated him bishop directly from heaven, right after he had run off with a woman who claimed to be a seer… You couldn’t make it up!) Perhaps if a new, even more effective formula or story for “miracles” is invented by some enterprising fraudster in the future, there will be no more of the current host-turning-into-blood-while-nobody-was-looking type “miracles”, and the new version (whatever it is) will become the norm. But in the meantime, this is what appears to be the fashion. Whereas, in reality, of course, there have been comparatively few miracles especially when one considers the length of the last 2,000 years and the whole span of the Catholic world. And yet suddenly there is a rash of Eucharistic miracles happening everywhere, all within the last twenty or so years, and its always the same miracle! This is just not something which can be taken seriously, and it leaves our religion open to mockery.
​
6. “Scientists”. The words “science” and “scientists” are held in quasi-religious awe by the modern world. To win any argument, all that is required is to say that “scientists have proven…” or “science has shown…” and the superstitious modern will recognise instantly the authority of his secular magisterium against which he dare not dissent. If true “Science” means anything at all, it is surely the art of knowing and the knowable (scientia, -ae is the abstract noun of scio, scire - to know), in which case the primary science, the foundation and bedrock of all other sciences, must surely be philosophy. But modern “Science” is a very different thing. It is a sort of Gnostic Mystery Religion, whose high priests announce (via the press) their latest auguries every once in a while, and we must accept what they say - after all, they are the ones who know. And if you are not an initiate, if you do not belong to their circle, you do not know. (“What makes you think you have a right to express an opinion concerning evolution? Are you a Scientist?”) It is a magisterium which can and does contradict itself from one year to the next without batting an eyelid and without any apparent loss of face in the eyes of its worshippers (For example, remember when it was “Global Cooling!”…? Then it became “Global Warming!” ...and now it’s “Climate Change!”).
Bear all this in mind when considering the topic of the “scientists” who approved of these “miracles”. We must be on our guard against letting ourselves be overawed by the magical words “scientist” and “scientific”, and we must be very wary of accepting what these men say simply because they possess the magic label “Scientist” and therefore cannot err or lie.
Little enough is known about the men who approved the “miracle” of Legnica. Doubtless with time, more will come to light. What do we know of the men who approved the (1996) “miracle” of Buenos Aires?
The man to whom a sample of the “miraculous host” was given in Argentina was one Dr. Ricardo Castanon. Let us allow Bishop Williamson to take up the story:
“Dr Castañon took the sample firstly to a forensic laboratory in San Francisco which recognized human DNA. A Dr Robert Lawrence located white globules. A Dr. Ardonidoli in Italy thought it was probably heart tissue. An Australian Professor, John Walker, recognized muscular tissue with white globules intact.
To remove all doubt Dr Castañon resorted to a renowned cardiologist and forensic pathologist from Columbia University, New York, Dr Federico Zugibe, without telling him where the specimen came from.
Looking down his microscope Dr Zugibe is quoted as having said, “I can tell you exactly what it is. It is part of the muscle found in the wall of the heart’s left ventricle which makes the heart beat and gives the body its life. Intermingled in the tissue are white blood-cells, which tells me firstly that the heart was alive at the moment when the sample was taken because white blood-cells die outside of a living organism, and secondly that white cells go to the aid of an injury, so this heart has suffered. This is the sort of thing I see in patients who have been beaten about the chest.” When asked how long these cells would have remained alive had they come from a sample kept in water, Dr. Zugibe replied that they would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes.”
​
(Eleison Comments #436)
Time, patience and resources mean that I cannot now tell you anything much about Dr. Andolini or Dr. Walker (I am sure I read somewhere that the latter is a Novus Ordo Catholic, but I cannot now locate it with any ease). But it seems to me that the two main personalities in the passage above are Dr. Castanon and Dr. Zugibe. What do we know about those two? Here are the facts which can be uncovered with relative ease with the aid of Mr. Google and Mr. Microsoft.
A. Dr. Ricardo Castanon is a convert and a zealous Novus Ordo Catholic. He has made a name for himself as a “specialist” in investigating “mystical phenomena”. In case anyone is tempted to think that this means he goes about disproving them, the contrary is the case - read on! It is clear that there is a certain amount of money and commercial interest involved, including books, DVDs, T.V. programmes and public appearances, not least thanks to his partnership with a Mr. Ron Tesoreiro and ‘Fox TV’ (yes, you did read that right!). To give just one example, Dr. Castanon appears in at least one such programme (a video of which can be seen online, here: www.youshallbelieve.com/biographies) promoting a lady called Catalina Rivas, whom he has supposedly “investigated” and for whom he has nothing but praise as a genuine and holy messenger of God!
Catalina Rivas is a bogus “stigmatist” and a promoter of the Novus Ordo Mass (among other things) through supposed “messages” which Our Lady and Our Lord tell her to write down. She has written volumes and volumes of these supposed “messages”, although one or two authors claim, and have proven, that her “messages from heaven” are almost word for word their own work which they published years before! We won’t waste time or space on her stupidities - look her up if you’re interested. She’s 100% Novus Ordo and 100% bogus. There seems to be a connection to “Bayside” apparitions and in some of her messages, “Our Lord” supposedly endorses other fake visionaries such as Vassula Ryden and Nancy Fowler. (See www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false54.htm) Again, look it up if you’re interested.
The point here is that the Dr. Castanon who approves this bogus “stigmatist” and “visionary” is the same man who approves the “miracle” of Buenos Aires. He is not some disinterested scientist with a healthy scepticism and no involvement in religion!
B. Dr. Frederick Zugibe who died in 2013 was, according to his obituary, “committed and involved” in his Novus Ordo parish. Like Dr. Castanon, he dabbled in more than just the Buenos Aires “miracle”, but also supposedly interviewed Sr. Lucy in 2003 and was described by The Wanderer newspaper as “the worlds leading expert on human crucifixion.”
Regarding Dr. Zugibe, it is worth noting how, in the passage from Eleison Comments quoted above, the tone suddenly changes from statement of fact into storytelling style, almost as though Bishop Williamson were there and saw it happen himself: “Looking down his microscope…” followed by what purports to be a direct quote from Dr. Zugibe himself. This might be a word-for-word account of exactly what happened (but then, why would that be necessary?), or it might be a rhetorical flourish made to try get the point accepted by the audience. Having read it, you feel as though you had been there yourself. We should be very suspicious of this sort of rhetorical tactic. It ought not to be necessary.
In fairness to Dr. Zugibe, he does not seem to have built a sort of career of fame and fortune as a result of his involvement in it the “miracle” of Buenos Aires in quite the same way Dr. Castanon has, selling books and DVDs and making shows for ‘Fox TV’ about these “miracles” in partnership with another man. But the same point applies about him not being a wholly disinterested witness. He is not just some “scientist” (and remember, be wary of that label!). He is another enthusiastically Novus Ordo Catholic confirming a “miracle” which itself confirms the Novus Ordo. It is a closed circle.
​
Summary
​
Everything about this is wrong. Whatever angle one looks at it from, whichever direction one strikes out in, one meets with overwhelming evidence that these “miracles” are bogus and fraudulent, a product of the same unbelieving conciliar monstrosity which gave us “Saint” John-Paul II and “blessed” Paul VI, the “Divine Mercy” devotion and the “Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary”.
It is not merely the fact that one cannot see the host if one asks - a priest of the Resistance visited the church in Buenos Aires and asked to see the host - he was refused, and not because they knew he was a priest of the Resistance. They didn’t know who he was, but they told him that the host was not available to be viewed or inspected.
It is not merely that the two main scientists were, to say the least, not wholly disinterested witnesses. Nor is it merely that there is something suspicious in the story itself (no witnesses, sending it to another continent for testing, etc.)
It is not merely that these “miracles” came from modernist unbelievers like Mgr. Bergoglio, and led to lasting modernism (as the personal examples of both Fr. Pezet and Cardinal Bergoglio/Pope Francis attest). Indeed, who can deny that they are leading even Traditional Catholics towards Novus Ordo-ism? The case of Bishop Williamson alone amply demonstrates it.
Nor, even, is it merely that the purpose of the “miracles” is either good but frustrated (to warn people against communion in the hand, the New Mass etc. - in which case God would have worked to no purpose, a miracle which led to the opposite of what He intended!) or bad (to confirm the legitimacy of the New Mass)...
All of those things are in their own way suspicious, but the most damning evidence is the thing as a whole. Not one piece of evidence points to the “miracles” being genuine and from God. The closer one looks, the more one notices that throughout the whole business, nothing points the right way. The more one looks into this, whatever direction one turns, it is all wrong. Everything about these “miracles” smells rotten, from beginning to end. To paraphrase Archbishop Lefebvre, these “miracles” begin in modernism and end in modernism. Our only response, therefore, must be a categorical refusal. Time will show that acceptance of these “miracles” by the Fake Resistance will lead to a weakening of the Faith by that party - but by the time that becomes clear to all, it will be too late. We must hope and pray that they overcome human respect and awake to the great folly of accepting this bogus Novus Ordo trickery before it is too late.
​
​