Author Topic: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles (Read 24412 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #60 on:** December 17, 2022, 02:24:24 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on December 17, 2022, 11:59:06 AM

I know one might protest "yes, Satan could engineer all of that". Two thoughts then: (a) we have made Satan almost as omnipotent, almost as omniscient, as Almighty God Himself. Indeed, a friend of mine in college (Jєωιѕн, BTW) said "you Christians make it almost as though there were two Gods, one good, one evil". Satan is neither omnipotent nor omniscient --- of a higher intelligence than any human, true, with angelic powers that no human has, true, but even with this conceded, he's not a god. (b) non-Catholic apologists of the Jack Chick variety (and those more cultured and erudite than Jack Chick was) could then come back and say "yes, and your older miracles, such as Lanciano, are of Satanic origin as well, ditto for Fatima, ditto for the liquefied blood of St Januarius, ditto for all your so-called 'miracles', and WRT your apparitions, Satan can indeed manifest as an 'angel of light' ". Then we're thrown back onto the argument of "if miracles buttress the contentions of traditional Catholics, then they're true, but if they bring one to other conclusions, then they're false". I hate to say it, but that's not the strongest argument in the world. Far from it.

Simple Man,

Which is why I say, if they are miracles, in the context of a disputed rite of questionable validity (the context Sean seems to be missing), they are a sign of the NO's validity, and - until I hear of miracles at a valid but illicit Orthodox or other valid liturgies - indicate that the priests and bishops who worship via the NO are true priests and bishops of the Catholic Church and their worship should not be avoided if there is not another place of fitting worship via the TLM available.

Quote

I've had to wonder, then, if eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo can be seen this way --- yes, the Novus Ordo is valid, it confects the Body and Blood of Christ, and post-Vatican II priestly and episcopal orders are valid (because you have to have those for the Mass to be valid, unless you manage to get a pre-V2 priest to offer it), but that does not mean it was good to make those changes, and the Novus Ordo clearly has many, many other problems besides questions of validity. The whole traditionalist argument (or set of arguments) does not collapse like a cake when the oven door is slammed, or like a house of cards, if one accepts the validity of the NOM and post-V2 orders, and if those things are proved, that does not mean that we all have to run off to the Novus Ordo and abandon the TLM.

Ok, but, as I suggested above, I think it does cause to collapse like a house of cards the argument that the NO is "offensive to God and harmful to souls," at least to the extent that so it should be avoided as inherently evil or whatever the SSPX used to say and could not be resorted to to satisfy the Sunday obligation.

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #61 on:** December 17, 2022, 02:29:11 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 17, 2022, 02:04:46 PM

Apples and oranges.

Indeed. The Ottaviani Intervention states it flatly rejects the Catholic theology of Sacrifice as laid out at Trent. And Pope Saint Paul VI's very definition in calling it the Lord's Supper - specifically Protestant terminology for a specifically Protestant event - showed amply what it is not (Roman Catholic).

Citing a docuмent released by the Head of the Holy Office, however, that references the Council of Trent, is 'babbling' according to Sean.

HolyAngels · « **Reply #62 on:** December 17, 2022, 03:55:43 PM »

Question for all here.

Say someone who has grown up on the novus ordo doesn't know what all the fuss is about. He/she doesn't frequent internet Catholic forums. He/she have never been to a Latin Mass and may or may not have one nearby. He/she doesn't know anyone who assists the TLM.

The person does have faith, has a strong devotion to Mary, understands the necessity of being in a state of grace to receive Communion, and follows all the precepts of the Church. The person has trusted the Church all their lives and sees their role as a layman requires obedience and trust in the clergy unless an obvious scandal is involved.

The person dies in a state of grace.

The question... Are they going to be damned because the NO is the only Mass they have ever known ? With Our Lord telling them "sorry, but you trusted the wolves" ?

Stubborn · « **Reply #63 on:** December 18, 2022, 05:13:00 AM »

Quote from: HolyAngels on December 17, 2022, 03:55:43 PM

Question for all here.

Say someone who has grown up on the novus ordo doesn't know what all the fuss is about. He/she doesn't frequent internet Catholic forums. He/she have never been to a Latin Mass and may or may not have one nearby. He/she doesn't know anyone who assists the TLM.

The person does have faith, has a strong devotion to Mary, understands the necessity of being in a state of grace to receive Communion, and follows all the precepts of the Church. The person has trusted the Church all their lives and sees their role as a layman requires obedience and trust in the clergy unless an obvious scandal is involved.

The person dies in a state of grace.

The question... Are they going to be damned because the NO is the only Mass they have ever known ? With Our Lord telling them "sorry, but you trusted the wolves" ?

Where did the person get their faith - from the NO religion? I don't think so because the virtues you grant the hypothetical person are not taught within the NO religion - it is in fact utterly adverse to their lex orandi lex credendi.

Which is to say that you are describing an impossible hypothetical, but if it were possible that such a person existed, God, if seeing the person would cooperate with the graces, would give the person all the graces necessary to leave the NO, get themself completely out of that situation and direct them to the True faith and Mass.....just as He has done for the rest of us who reject the NO religion for the true faith.

Very simply, if God arranged for you to know the truth, it is by the very same Providence that He can arrange for anyone else seeking it to know the truth. God has no need of the internet to do this.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #64 on:** December 18, 2022, 06:55:31 AM »

Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on December 17, 2022, 02:29:11 PM

Indeed. The Ottaviani Intervention states it flatly rejects the Catholic theology of Sacrifice as laid out at Trent. And Pope Saint Paul VI's very definition in calling it the Lord's Supper - specifically Protestant terminology for a specifically Protestant event - showed amply what it is not (Roman Catholic).

Citing a docuмent released by the Head of the Holy Office, however, that references the Council of Trent, is 'babbling' according to Sean.

Status disputationis:

1) It was shown, contrary to your contention, that the purpose of a Eucharistic Miracle has nothing to do with God endorsing a liturgical rite, but (per St. Thomas) to promote belief in the Real Presence;

2) You attempted to evade that necessary conclusion by contending that the NOM was not a “Catholic rite” (conflating that term with “Catholic theology”) to conclude that St. Thomas does not apply;

3) After directing you to the CE to show you that a Catholic Rite, as that term is understood by the Church, is nothing more than prayers and ceremonies received and approved by the pope for use in the Church, I further pointed to the example of Archbishop Lefebvre (who led the steering committee on the irrelevant Ottaviani Intervention you keep pointing to) acknowledging that a Catholic can satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending a NOM (a position he could not have taken, we’re the rite not Catholic).

I further pointed out the exceeding unlikelihood that Lefebvre simply didn’t know what a Catholic rite was, or that he would say Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligations by attending a non-Catholic rite.

4) The gratuitous and irrational response of your sedevacantist allies was not a theological response, but a statement of fact: that Lefebvre was simply wrong (an assertion without a demonstration).

Because you lack clear thinking, you have conflated a number of indistinct ideas and impressions to arrive at your erroneous position, and resolved a priori to fend off any argument -with willfulness rather than doctrinal argumentation- to the contrary.

I conclude by repeating that your mind lacks the precision to mettle in these matters, but because your mind perceives that assessment as an insult, your pride is triggered, leading to your ignorant obstinacy.

Well, I leave you to it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #65 on:** December 18, 2022, 12:26:57 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 18, 2022, 06:55:31 AM

Status disputationis:

1) It was shown, contrary to your contention, that the purpose of a Eucharistic Miracle has nothing to do with God endorsing a liturgical rite, but (per St. Thomas) to promote belief in the Real Presence;

This was already thoroughly debunked, and is entirely irrelevant. This is WHY God would work a Eucharistic miracle, or at least the primary reason He would. There's no bearing from this to whether God would work a Eucharistic miracle connected to a Mass that was displeasing to Him, lest He be seen as endorsing said Mass. But even when your reasoning gets debunked, you persist in simply regurgitating the same thing anyway.

Orthodox Masses are valid. Would God work a Eucharistic miracle at an Orthodox Mass in order to increase faith in the Real Presence? I say no. And I say the same thing for the NOM. You claim yes. That is the "status disputationis" as I've repeatedly pointed out ... your opinion vs. ours.

Bottom line is that purported "Eucharistic miracles" mean absolutely nothing where it comes to establishing the validity of the NOM, since Satan can simulate Eucharistic miracles.

This is the actual status disputationis. You can opine however you like, but there's absolutely nothing in NOM alleged Eucharistic miracles that proves a lick about anything.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** December 18, 2022, 12:31:22 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 18, 2022, 06:55:31 AM

Because you lack clear thinking ...

Your are among the top 5 muddled "thinkers" on this forum and wouldn't know a syllogism or a distinction if it hit you square in the face, to the point that I had to question whether you actually spent time at a Trad seminary (enough to get through Logic class) ... had others not affirmed that you did. Maybe you were asleep during the class ... I don't know.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #67 on:** December 18, 2022, 12:41:05 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 18, 2022, 06:55:31 AM

1) It was shown, contrary to your contention, that the purpose of a Eucharistic Miracle has nothing to do with God endorsing a liturgical rite, but (per St. Thomas) to promote belief in the Real Presence;

St. Thomas also teaches that canonizations are infallible.

Incredulous · « **Reply #68 on:** December 18, 2022, 05:56:22 PM »

Quote from: HolyAngels on December 17, 2022, 03:55:43 PM

Question for all here.

Say someone who has grown up on the novus ordo doesn't know what all the fuss is about. He/she doesn't frequent internet Catholic forums. He/she have never been to a Latin Mass and may or may not have one nearby. He/she doesn't know anyone who assists the TLM.

The person does have faith, has a strong devotion to Mary, understands the necessity of being in a state of grace to receive Communion, and follows all the precepts of the Church. The person has trusted the Church all their lives and sees their role as a layman requires obedience and trust in the clergy unless an obvious scandal is involved.

The person dies in a state of grace.

The question... Are they going to be damned because the NO is the only Mass they have ever known ? With Our Lord telling them "sorry, but you trusted the wolves" ?

Great question!

Assuming the person in question, was Baptized validly and had a devotion to the Blessed Mother, would go far.

That the person was duped and misled by the Church schism seemingly was not his fault.

That his Baptism and Our Lady would be sufficient to help the person receive more graces to discern the truth seems likely.

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #69 on:** December 18, 2022, 06:08:35 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 18, 2022, 06:55:31 AM

I conclude by repeating that your mind lacks the precision to mettle in these matters, but because your mind perceives that assessment as an insult, your pride is triggered, leading to your ignorant obstinacy.

Well, I leave you to it.

Thank you for leaving it to me. Your spelling has certainly improved this round.

Allow me to cordially recommend to you the local Open Mic comedy hour. What I've read from you here on CathInfo amply demonstrates that you have what it takes to hit the road.

Cheers

Confiteor Deo · « **Reply #70 on:** December 19, 2022, 04:44:53 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on December 18, 2022, 05:56:22 PM

Great question!

Assuming the person in question, was Baptized validly and had a devotion to the Blessed Mother, would go far.

That the person was duped and misled by the Church schism seemingly was not his fault.

That his Baptism and Our Lady would be sufficient to help the person receive more graces to discern the truth seems likely.

Who is more likely to be in a state of grace, a novos ordite who prays the rosary daily with his family, or a trad who doesn't ?

The covid scam showed us many novus ordites who refused the vaxx while Mgr Vigano, showed more catholic courage in speaking the truth about the con than most trad groups.

So when it comes to fighting for the truth, give me a novos ordite like E Michael Jones or Ann Barnardt over a trad who wealds the word 'prudence' like a weapon.

The stance of the SSPX, the Sedevacantist Bishop who was pro vax, (whose name I forget), shows that these people don't have the grace of state to advise us on much and quite honestly, we are on our own.

Mgr Lefevbre told us that some day in the future, we would have to rely on individual priests rather than any traditionalist group. These times are on us now.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** December 19, 2022, 07:45:10 AM »

Quote from: Confiteor Deo on December 19, 2022, 04:44:53 AM

Who is more likely to be in a state of grace, a novos ordite who prays the rosary daily with his family, or a trad who doesn't ?

The covid scam showed us many novus ordites who refused the vaxx while Mgr Vigano, showed more catholic courage in speaking the truth about the con than most trad groups.

So when it comes to fighting for the truth, give me a novos ordite like E Michael Jones or Ann Barnardt over a trad who wealds the word 'prudence' like a weapon.

The stance of the SSPX, the Sedevacantist Bishop who was pro vax, (whose name I forget), shows that these people don't have the grace of state to advise us on much and quite honestly, we are on our own.

Mgr Lefevbre told us that some day in the future, we would have to rely on individual priests rather than any traditionalist group. These times are on us now.

You're oversimplifying things grossly. Barnhardt, for instance, does a lot of damage with her pseudo-theology, promoting her man Ratzinger as if he were a paragon of orthodoxy. Piety with bad theology does not amount to "fighting for the truth". And holding out some priests' misfiring regarding the jab as the primary litmus test of orthodoxy is ridiculous also.

I'd take an SSPX priest who got it wrong about the jab but was otherwise orthodox vs. an Ann Barnhardt who's all over the map and upholds Ratzinger as some great defender of the faith rather than the destroyer he is. As far as I know, Ratzinger did not oppose the jab but was promoting it to the extent he could from his capacity as "hidden pope".

2Vermont · « **Reply #72 on:** December 19, 2022, 07:53:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 19, 2022, 07:45:10 AM

You're oversimplifying things grossly. Barnhardt, for instance, does a lot of damage with her pseudo-theology, promoting her man Ratzinger as if he were a paragon of orthodoxy. Piety with bad theology does not amount to "fighting for the truth". And holding out some priests' misfiring regarding the jab as the primary litmus test of orthodoxy is ridiculous also.

I'd take an SSPX priest who got it wrong about the jab but was otherwise orthodox vs. an Ann Barnhardt who's all over the map and upholds Ratzinger as some great defender of the faith rather than the destroyer he is. As far as I know, Ratzinger did not oppose the jab but was promoting it to the extent he could from his capacity as "hidden pope".

Wasn't it reported that he got the jab?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #73 on:** December 19, 2022, 07:54:48 AM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on December 17, 2022, 11:59:06 AM

I know one might protest "yes, Satan could engineer all of that". Two thoughts then: (a) we have made Satan almost as omnipotent, almost as omniscient, as Almighty God Himself. Indeed, a friend of mine in college (Jєωιѕн, BTW) said "you Christians make it almost as though there were two Gods, one good, one evil". Satan is neither omnipotent nor omniscient --- of a higher intelligence than any human, true, with angelic powers that no human has, true, but even with this conceded, he's not a god.

What are you talking about? Nothing about a "Eucharistic miracle" requires "god"-like powers. Per your scenario, Satan can simply reuse tissue from the same person for multiple such "miracles" (and likely would to make them more convincing). And even human beings do genetic engineering right now. While Satan is not god, the intellects of these fallen angels far surpass our wildest imagination. So if human beings are capable of genetic engineering, that's probably not even 1% of what the demons can do in that area.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #74 on:** December 19, 2022, 07:56:03 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 19, 2022, 07:53:08 AM

Wasn't it reported that he got the jab?

Yes, and I vaguely recall his making a statement endorsing it.

Author Topic: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles (Read 24412 times)

DecemRationis

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

HolyAngels

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Stubborn

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

SeanJohnson

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Ladislaus

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Ladislaus

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Ladislaus

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Incredulous

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Confiteor Deo

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Ladislaus

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

2Vermont

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Ladislaus

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles

Ladislaus

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles