CathInfo.com

Regarding the Buenos Aires "miracle" --------------------  (If you don't misspell Buenos, then you manage to misspell Aires!)
Guess who put this out?    ---\/---    (You've got to admit, it's well worth reading this!)

...
Now there is a lie that is presently spread and it has become familiar with us in the last 11 months. Now we find it in the mainstream Society, in an unusual ploy. The mainstream Society is now following the liberalism of the resistance. We thought that the danger was that the resistance would follow the liberalism in the mainstream Society. But now we find the mainstream finding itself following the liberalism of a part of the resistance which says that there are miracles in the new mass.
.
So, we have here from the sspx.org on the website now. A few years ago whenever we gave a sermon about what’s on the website, a few days later it disappeared from the website. I don’t know if that will happen this time, maybe not, but in any case as of today, it’s still on the website. The sspx.org the miracles of the new mass, Eucharistic miracles. The latest Eucharistic miracles. New Eucharistic miracle in Poland. A report on the most recent Eucharistic miracle in Poland with an answer to a common objection. This miracle is a miracle of 2013 and this miracle almost looks completely identical to the miracle mentioned by Bishop Williamson and his first Eleison Comments of the five on the new mass in November of last year where he said that there were miracles in the new mass. Miracles, there are miracles in the new mass, points to the good, alas, in one of his little poems. So there's miracles in the new mass and he gives an example of Buenos Aires.
.
In Buenos Aires there was a host that was dropped on the floor. The priest put it into a bowl of water. Several days later when he opened up the bowl in the cabinet where the host was, that it turned into a human heart. It was sent to a laboratory. 2008 in Poland, he mentions that miracle a similar thing happened. 2013 in Poland also, now the Society of St. Pius X mentions a miracle. What happened? A host fell on the floor. The host was picked up. The host was put by the priest into a bowl of water allowed by the rubrics. Well the host was contaminated. He put the host in the water. He put the host in the tabernacle. A few days later they opened it up and it was turning into a human heart of a man who had been wounded. The same miracle. So we got the miracle in Buenos Aires in 1996, another one in Poland in 2008, and another one in 2013 in Poland also. All miracles of the new mass and then Bishop Williamson said about these miracles of the new mass, facts are stubborn, facts are stubborn things. These facts indicate that there's good coming out of the new mass. Yes, in general the new mass as a new religion is bad. But even then he doesn't say that. He says the new mass, like unto the new religion, is ambiguous. And the trouble with ambiguity is it depends if the good priest says it (the ambiguity) he turns it into the good, and the bad priest turns it into the bad. So he says, both the new mass and the new religion are ambiguous, and can be used for good or ill, depending upon the priest.
.
Now the SSPX follows suit with Bishop Williamson, and his part of the resistance, and they say, well, there's miracles in the new mass;  miracles in Poland:  "Recent miracles which are investigated by scientists and made public by the proper ecclesiastical authority, are they not in the plan of God? And today as in the past, are they not a reminder of His real presence, a powerful apologetical argument and an invitation to increase our faith and devotion?"
.
A powerful apologetical argument for what?!
.
Here there's a dispute. Some say it’s a powerful apologetic argument, that says only there may be valid masses in the new rite. And of course, where there's valid masses, well Christ is there, so certainly there must be some grace, since Christ is there. Others for whom are more reason to say, no, these miracles indicate that of course the new mass is good, the new mass is a true expression of the sacrifice of Calvary, it is pleasing to our Lord Jesus Christ and it is beneficial to souls.
.
Therefore, these are the facts. The facts are, there's miracles. How can you deny the miracles? Two priests in the resistance and Bishop Faure talked to me about the miracles. [They said] "These are our facts:  there are miracles in the new mass, there is miracles in the new mass." Is it a fact? No it is not.
.
No it is not at all. Just briefly, one point about this miracle which is different from the other Eucharistic miracles: There were no witnesses of the miracle. There was a host put in water. Come back three days later and it is changed. Is it changed or did someone make a switch? And furthermore, why the water? Is it water? Or is it some kind of fluid that preserves tissues. Is there a hoax? Or is it real? If It happens once maybe it’s real. But now we're finding a pattern of the same miracle in Buenos Ares.
.
The first miracle was in 1993, it didn’t work out. The second miracle was '94-'95, didn’t work out. The third miracle in '96, they finally got the miracle down. The same church. The third miracle worked. The third miracle is a charm, is how the saying goes. And then so the third miracle worked. Then the bishop Bergoglio and the other Bishop in Poland, they say it’s a miracle.
.
Now remember, these ones who say it’s a miracle, the proper ecclesiastical authority... the Pope is the proper ecclesiastical authority. The Bishop is the proper ecclesiastical authority. So ask them, "Do you believe in the miracle the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?" [They'll say] "Well we're not certain". Well they believe in the miracles of this host, but they don’t believe that Jesus Christ necessarily rose from the dead. [Ask them] "Do you believe that Moses walked on dry land with six hundred thousand men and another million and a half women and children through the middle of the Red Sea with a wall of water on one side and a wall of water on the other side and walked up the other side and Pharaoh tried it and it didn’t work. And Pharaoh and all of his cohorts were killed by that sea and that same sea saved Moses do you believe that?" [Their reply] "Well we don’t know."
.
They don’t believe in the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea;  they don’t believe in the miracle of the resurrection;  they don’t believe in the miracle of the raising of Lazarus; they don’t believe in the miracles contained in the Gospel;  they don’t believe in the miracles of the Old Testament.
.
But see these are the right experts to go to, so we go to see if this was a miracle. So, we go to the experts who do not believe the miracles of the Gospel, who do not believe in the miracles of sacred Scripture, who don't even believe that the Catholic Church is the true church and these are the "experts"! And they said it’s a miracle. Why do they say it’s a miracle? Because this miracle confirms Vatican II. Because this miracle confirms the new mass. This miracle means you can be madly in love with God and with your fourth wife, whereas a real miracle is going to tell you, that you gotta dump your 4th wife, and you’ve got to go back to God and you have to not live in sin anymore. The new miracle says you can have abortion and contraception. You don’t have to have all those children.
.
The old miracle says you have all the children God sends you. The old miracle confirmed 10 of the 10 commandments. 10 out of 10. The new miracle confirms 0.00 out of 10. Bad number, bad percentage. And so what is happening? These miracles are confirming souls unto damnation. They are not confirming souls onto salvation. Now, how is it causing confusion amongst our people? Well, Bishop Fellay says that it can be a real miracle, and he’s a man of tradition. Bp. Williamson's the man of tradition! He is the h0Ɩ0cαųst denier. You can't be more traditional than that. If you're a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier, then you are the most traditional man in the world. And therefore he is the most traditional man in the world since he's a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier, and he says that there are miracles in the new mass, so there must be miracles in the new mass. These miracles indicate that the new mass and the new church can do good for your souls.
.
(here he's speaking as some in the sspx might say)-Now I know the old Mass is better, I prefer the old mass but I can’t be against the new mass.
.
What is the purpose of this lie? It is to make traditional Catholics go one step closer to hell. What does that mean? That we will believe that the new mass, while it is not quite as good as the old Mass, essentially, it is good enough. It is like taking a cheap car and driving it, or taking a Lamborghini and driving it. You can take an expensive good car and take it from A to B. You can take a cheap car and take it from A to B. You can take a car that barely works and a car that is in magnificent condition but both of them will take you from A to B. So they're both essentially okay. One car might be faster. One car might be more beautiful. One car might be better, but they both get you there.
.
But what we say is the truth. and that is, the one car is owned by Al Qaeda and it has explosives in it. Don’t get in it! It’s going to be an unhappy experience for you and your neighbors. Don’t get in that car. That car will not get you to your destination. That car is deadly. That car is called the Novus Ordo Missae, which is straight from hell.
.
And not only that, but let’s see what the Church has to say about valid Sacraments. Confusion is coming to souls because they are saying, "well, if it's valid, then Christ is there. And if Christ is there, then it must be good - because Christ is there." I mean if a schismatic priest or a heretical priest says the Latin Tridentine Mass, can you go to it?
.
You know, that the Orthodox, the schismatics, - they have the Ukrainians and the Russians and so on - they say that they say the same Mass we say. It’s perfectly valid. They are real Priests, they're real Bishops. They are celebrating the same Mass, with the same words. And if you go to it, you commit a mortal sin. But that’s not all, that’s not all. The fact is, grace does not flow from that Mass. Christ is really present. We know the rules from Canon Law, if you walk by an Orthodox Church for instance, if you’re in that church and you have to attend a wedding. So what do you do if you have to attend a wedding in an Orthodox Church? You can't participate. Here is the rule of cannon law, you can’t participate but since Christ is really present in the tabernacle you can kneel down and you can genuflect, but you can’t participate. If you participate it’s a sin, but you can kneel down and you can genuflect because Christ is really present in the tabernacle, since it's a real Orthodox Priest. The Orthodox are validly ordained. They're valid priest and valid bishops and so on, but if you participate, it’s a mortal sin. It's a mortal sin, and grace does not flow from that valid mass.
...

Here! Here!

Happenby,
Thanks for not answering my questions and for interjecting the false assertion that I think the NO is intrinsically evil.  I've never said it was; only said that it was extremely doubtful, which doubt you continue to say doesn't matter because "the Church said it's ok".

The people during the Arian heresy were not obliged by the Pope or anyone to become Arian.  They chose to do it.  

The people during the [V2] heresy were not obliged by the Pope or anyone to become [modernists].  They chose to do it.

You're saying that Pope Paul VI deceived 95% of the Church, placed them under obligation as the authority, put the NO in most every church and that isn't a an epic fail?  

You missed the point of my entirely too long (and not very good) olive tree analogy.  There are 3 separate olive trees:
1.  The true, organic, pure olive tree - which had been planted in every diocese for centuries and which was thriving and beautiful.
2.  The new, hybrid olive tree which the pope had in his personal garden and which he wanted to spread to all dioceses.  This tree was meant to be "improved" over the organic tree.  More capable of withstanding disease, more fruitful, more "for the people".  The pope approved this tree, in theory, BUT THIS TREE WAS NEVER PLANTED IN THE DIOCESES.  It was only ever planted in the vatican garden, and NEVER LEFT THE VATICAN.    
3.  The 3rd tree is the GMO modified one, which was sickly, prone to disease, non-fruit bearing, and needed constant "tweaking" to keep it alive.  There were always excuses by the Bishops and priests as to why this or that had to be changed.  The soil had to be updated, the tree would be planted on the south side, then re-planted on the east side.  One day it would be in a greenhouse; the next day it would be in the open air.  Never in the same plot of land, never bearing the same amount of fruit.  This 3rd tree is the one that freemasonic bishops and priests gave to THE ENTIRE LATIN CHURCH.  It is NOT the one approved by the pope.  It was not the 2nd hybrid tree approved by the Church.  

If the NO is wrong and sinful, the Church by virtue of the Pope made an epic fail.  Or, the Church was guided to let down the walls and the bishops and priests went nuts.  

There is a BIG difference between the 2nd hybrid tree, which was approved by the Church and the 3rd, GMO crap version used in each diocese.  The true NO mass would've been the latin mass said in the vernacular, with a few other non-essential rubric changes.  This is all that was truly authorized by the pope.  (So if you a person goes to a NO with all the "abuses", they are committing a sin by going to an unauthorized mass!)  Instead, what showed up in the diocese was a full-blown protestant service, which was never authorized.  ...The bishops are not the church, nor do they have authority to change the liturgy, so the NO, as it is said in 95% of the world, DID NOT COME FROM ROME.

The Pope remains guilty for changing the liturgy because Pius V said anyone who did would answer to Peter and Paul.  I suspect he's done that.  But from my pew, it seems that he could only change it as far as it was technically possible before it was totally useless and couldn't confect the Sacrament.  

If the pope sinned in changing the liturgy, by violating Quo Primum, if he called down upon himself the wrath of Sts Peter and Paul, then how can we be sure that the Church was "guided" (I assume you mean "guided by the Holy Spirit", as the modernists love to say) in its presenting of the NO to the laity?  Does the Holy Ghost "guide" us when we sin?  How can a catholic presume he has God's blessing when he is violating Church law?  

Doesn't our cathechism teach the exact opposite?  Doesn't our Faith teach us that we lose God's grace when we sin?  How can the pope be guided by the Holy Ghost when he's rejecting the Holy Ghost at the same time, through sin, by violating Quo Primum and his predecessor St Pius V?

How can a liturgy which violates Church law be good?  How can a liturgy which does the opposite of another liturgy be correct?  Either liturgy A is correct, or liturgy B is correct - but both can't be correct, right?

Not saying it was good.  Pius V warned for a reason.  But, I can't say it is intrinsically evil because it came from the authority of the Church.

So you're saying the NO is not good, and you admit that it violates Church law, but since it's not "intrinsically evil" therefore it's ok?  Secondly, you're saying it's not good because it violated Pius V's law, but at the same time, it was approved as law?

Do you know how many sins are wrong, that are not intrinsically evil?  Many.  So the fact that the NO is not intrinsically evil is irrelevant.  

But from my pew, it seems that he could only change it as far as it was technically possible before it was totally useless and couldn't confect the Sacrament.

I agree that the "theoretical" NO which Paul VI made was "technically" ok, but as Card Ottaviani pointed out, it could very well NOT be ok, due to a whole list of problems and land mines.  But the mass that Card Ottaviani studied was NOT the one that was given to the laity by the freemasonic/communistic Bishops and priests.  The one rolled out on the red carpet to the people was a corruption of a corruption.  Paul VI's "pure" NO was a corruption of the True Mass and the protestant version (which most see) is a corruption of that.  Just like the 3rd sickly, GMO tree was a corruption of an already corrupted hybrid tree.  

Quote

Quote

But from my pew, it seems that he could only change it as far as it was technically possible before it was totally useless and couldn't confect the Sacrament.

Honestly, is this something the Catholic Church would do? Stretch things to the point of questionable validity? It is an absurd idea which breaks the promise of Christ.