Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 19

Author Topic: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles  (Read 30525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 15261
  • Reputation: +6250/-924
  • Gender: Male
Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
« Reply #150 on: December 20, 2022, 05:39:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 20, 2022, 05:27:53 AM
    And again, it is an indisputable fact that the NOM is illicit because it breaks the law of Quo Primum, there should not be any question whatsoever about this.

         There isn’t: You’re the only one talking about it.
         
    It makes zero sense and confuses the issue to say the NOM is valid/invalid when the issue is the NOC (NO consecration).

         The consecration (ie., essential form) is identical to that in the TLM.
    See comments above.
    Again you miss the point, the NOM cannot be valid/invalid - it can only be licit / illicit. The NOC can be valid/invalid. Stop saying NOM when you mean NOC.

    The NOC's essential form is *not* in any way, shape or form identical to that in the TLM.

    In the NOC, the priest faces the people, stands behind the banquet table and raises the matter up in order to show the people what it is they are about to eat. He is not offering the propitiatory sacrifice to God the Father.

    Identical?
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #151 on: December 20, 2022, 05:59:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 20, 2022, 05:39:41 AM
    Again you miss the point, the NOM cannot be valid/invalid - it can only be licit / illicit. The NOC can be valid/invalid. Stop saying NOM when you mean NOC.

         If you think the NOM is neither valid nor invalid, you’re out of options.  And the consecration for each is identical.

    The NOC's essential form is *not* in any way, shape or form identical to that in the TLM.

         Sorry, but you are completely ignorant on this point: The essential form is the same for both rites: Hoc est corpus meum/Hic est calix sanguinis meis.

    In the NOC, the priest faces the people, stands behind the banquet table and raises the matter up in order to show the people what it is they are about to eat. He is not offering the propitiatory sacrifice to God the Father.

         The posture of the priest is not relevant.  If it were, all Masses in St. Peter’s basilica would have been invalid for several hundred years (ie., the priest faces the people).

    Identical?

         Down to the last detail.

    Comments in red above.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6795
    • Reputation: +3472/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #152 on: December 20, 2022, 06:58:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 20, 2022, 05:21:04 AM
    There is no possible way they were including the NOM that goes on in all of the conciliar churches, no way. If I am not mistaken, Fr. Hesse made sure to say that only about the ones done "by the book" in Latin on an altar ad orientem.

    The typical, "reverent ewtn" style of NOM itself is a blasphemous mockery of the TLM. It is apparent that unless or until one looks at it this way they do not see this.

    And again, it is an indisputable fact that the NOM is illicit because it breaks the law of Quo Primum, there should not be any question whatsoever about this. The question of *validity* applies strictly to the *NO consecration* that happens *within* the blasphemous NOM.

    It makes zero sense and confuses the issue to say the NOM is valid/invalid when the issue is the NOC (NO consecration).
     

    I don't believe that +ABL or Fr. Hesse ever attached the stipulations or qualifiers that you do to the New Mass being valid. You've been a long-time attender of SSPX masses. The SSPX used to say that the New Mass was valid but illicit. I remember those days - don't you? And they also used to say that it is venially sinful to attend it for those who are aware of its defects. But that doesn't mean that it isn't valid. That was the opinion of the SSPX, and it probably still is, though they don't post it on their websites anymore.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15261
    • Reputation: +6250/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #153 on: December 20, 2022, 07:46:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Again you miss the point, the NOM cannot be valid/invalid - it can only be licit / illicit. The NOC can be valid/invalid. Stop saying NOM when you mean NOC.

         If you think the NOM is neither valid nor invalid, you’re out of options.  And the consecration for each is identical.

    The NOC's essential form is *not* in any way, shape or form identical to that in the TLM.

         Sorry, but you are completely ignorant on this point: The essential form is the same for both rites: Hoc est corpus meum/Hic est calix sanguinis meis.

    In the NOC, the priest faces the people, stands behind the banquet table and raises the matter up in order to show the people what it is they are about to eat. He is not offering the propitiatory sacrifice to God the Father.

         The posture of the priest is not relevant.  If it were, all Masses in St. Peter’s basilica would have been invalid for several hundred years (ie., the priest faces the people).

    Identical?

         Down to the last detail.

    Comments in red above.
    The NOM is either licit or illicit. The NOC is either valid or invalid. You confuse your own thinking by not differentiating between the two.

    Oh, now you say that the posture of the priest is not relevant?

    So if a priest were to baptize your baby while facing away from your baby and saying the right words, pouring water over his shoulder onto your baby - that's valid according to your reasoning because the posture of the priest is not relevant. We can do this with every sacrament without any concern whatsoever of invalidating the sacrament.

    If the priest gives the Last Blessing at the end of Mass with his back to the people while making the sign of the cross to the wall opposite the people, the people still receive the blessing according to your reasoning because the posture of the priest is not relevant. What, does it ricochet off the wall onto them?

    No Sean, the words the priest says for the NOC may be the same, but the form is not - because the posture of the priest is relevant.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15261
    • Reputation: +6250/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #154 on: December 20, 2022, 07:52:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on December 20, 2022, 06:58:50 AM
    I don't believe that +ABL or Fr. Hesse ever attached the stipulations or qualifiers that you do to the New Mass being valid. You've been a long-time attender of SSPX masses. The SSPX used to say that the New Mass was valid but illicit. I remember those days - don't you? And they also used to say that it is venially sinful to attend it for those who are aware of its defects. But that doesn't mean that it isn't valid. That was the opinion of the SSPX, and it probably still is, though they don't post it on their websites anymore.
    Again, the NOM is illicit, the NOC is either valid or invalid. They are two completely different things. The NOM is a blasphemous mockery of the TLM, the NOC that goes on within the blasphemous NOM we can only hope is invalid - we hope this because we do not really know either way and would rather the sacrilege be invalid rather than a valid sacrilege.

    And yes, I remember those days Meg, and many trad priests still say the same wrong thing today.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6479/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #155 on: December 20, 2022, 08:05:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 20, 2022, 07:52:06 AM
    Again, the NOM is illicit, the NOC is either valid or invalid. They are two completely different things. The NOM is a blasphemous mockery of the TLM, the NOC that goes on within the blasphemous NOM we can only hope is invalid - we hope this because we do not really know either way and would rather the sacrilege be invalid rather than a valid sacrilege.

    And yes, I remember those days Meg, and many trad priests still say the same wrong thing today.
    Which will also depend on whether the priest/bishop is validly ordained/consecrated.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6795
    • Reputation: +3472/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #156 on: December 20, 2022, 08:10:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 20, 2022, 07:52:06 AM
    Again, the NOM is illicit, the NOC is either valid or invalid. They are two completely different things. The NOM is a blasphemous mockery of the TLM, the NOC that goes on within the blasphemous NOM we can only hope is invalid - we hope this because we do not really know either way and would rather the sacrilege be invalid rather than a valid sacrilege.

    And yes, I remember those days Meg, and many trad priests still say the same wrong thing today.

    You are entitled to your opinion, Stubborn. I respect that, though I don't agree with it. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15261
    • Reputation: +6250/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #157 on: December 20, 2022, 08:11:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 20, 2022, 08:05:56 AM
    Which will also depend on whether the priest/bishop is validly ordained/consecrated.
    Yes certainly - which is a valid concern, but I am purposely *not* taking that into any consideration at all. For the sake of this discussion, I'm going along with the presumption that all NO priests performing all NOC's really are priests.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6479/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #158 on: December 20, 2022, 08:15:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 20, 2022, 08:11:25 AM
    Yes certainly - which is a valid concern, but I am purposely *not* taking that into any consideration at all. For the sake of this discussion, I'm going along with the presumption that all NO priests performing all NOC's really are priests.
    I understand.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure how it can be completely kept out of this discussion since a NO EM not only validates the NO consecration but the NO cleric. So, it does more than just teach the Real Presence in the NO. It provides yet another reason not to leave and go to the Traditional clergy/mass.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15261
    • Reputation: +6250/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #159 on: December 20, 2022, 08:18:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on December 20, 2022, 08:10:40 AM
    You are entitled to your opinion, Stubborn. I respect that, though I don't agree with it.
    I know, and it's crazy to disagree with it LOL

    Like Sean and others, you go with +ABL et al who say the NOM is valid - which makes zero sense no matter how you look at it. But such is life.

    I've seen NOers who came to our chapel completely lost, had zero clue what was going on. It's as if it is not even worthy to wonder why that is. As for me, I would be just as lost if I went to a NOM - but there's one thing that I would know for certain, that it's not a Catholic Mass. It's too obvious to not know for certain.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6795
    • Reputation: +3472/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #160 on: December 20, 2022, 08:24:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 20, 2022, 08:18:44 AM
    I know, and it's crazy to disagree with it LOL

    Like Sean and others, you go with +ABL et al who say the NOM is valid - which makes zero sense no matter how you look at it. But such is life.

    I've seen NOers who came to our chapel completely lost, had zero clue what was going on. It's as if it is not even worthy to wonder why that is. As for me, I would be just as lost if I went to a NOM - but there's one thing that I would know for certain, that it's not a Catholic Mass. It's too obvious to not know for certain.

    I understand. Yes, of course the NO'ers are completely lost and had zero clue as to what was going on. They'd been dumbed down for so long that they didn't know what true Catholic worship looked like. How many non-Catholics have attended your chapel? Probably very few, if any. At least the New Mass is a stepping stone for those who are given the graces to find or attend the TLM. 

    Keep in mind too that the sedevacantists will expect you to take the next step toward becoming a sedevacantist - that is, denying that the NO clergy are validly ordained. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15261
    • Reputation: +6250/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #161 on: December 20, 2022, 08:29:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    I understand.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure how it can be completely kept out of this discussion since a NO EM not only validates the NO consecration but the NO cleric. So, it does more than just teach the Real Presence in the NO. It provides yet another reason not to leave and go to the Traditional clergy/mass.
    And that is the whole argument in a nutshell. 

    It can be kept out of the discussion because the presumption of a NO EM is that it has for it's premise that the EM is not from God because it is an EM of the NO. (not sure why but using initials is kinda funny to me)

    I insist NO EMs do not teach NOers the Real Presence but it does provide yet another reason not to leave and go to the Traditional clergy/mass as you said - *that* is the .

    The reason NO EMs do not teach the RP in the NO is because the NO has gone to great lengths to be sure to not teach the RP, that goes completely against the eccuмania that the NO teaches and is literally drenched in.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6479/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #162 on: December 20, 2022, 08:51:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on December 20, 2022, 08:24:17 AM
    I understand. Yes, of course the NO'ers are completely lost and had zero clue as to what was going on. They'd been dumbed down for so long that they didn't know what true Catholic worship looked like. How many non-Catholics have attended your chapel? Probably very few, if any. At least the New Mass is a stepping stone for those who are given the graces to find or attend the TLM.

    Keep in mind too that the sedevacantists will expect you to take the next step toward becoming a sedevacantist - that is, denying that the NO clergy are validly ordained.
    My post was not expecting anything of Stubborn.  Besides, I thought that he already questioned their validity based on discussions he and I have had over the years.  
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6795
    • Reputation: +3472/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #163 on: December 20, 2022, 08:52:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 20, 2022, 08:51:16 AM
    My post was not expecting anything of Stubborn.  Besides, I thought that he already questioned their validity based on discussions he and I have had over the years. 

    Yeah....right. If you say so. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6479/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
    « Reply #164 on: December 20, 2022, 08:56:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on December 20, 2022, 08:52:25 AM
    Yeah....right. If you say so.
    I'll let Stubborn explain his position on the NO clergy.  I'm fairly certain that he questions their validity.  He didn't seem to have an issue with my bringing it up.  Only you did.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 19
    « previous next »