Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
.
After 2-1/2 years, I just re-read this whole thread, because of a recent post by 2Vermont that made me re-think this whole affair.
.
She quoted Matthew 24:23-25 as a prophesy of Our Lord that this time would come, when "false Christs and false prophets" shall arise, and there will be those who say "Lo, here is Christ or there," but we should not believe such false signs and wonders, which in our day we say "miracles."
.
I posted a transcription of a speech given by a priest where he explains that there were two other so-called miracles in Buenos Aires in the several preceding years to 1996, both of which "failed to work," and only after this one in 1996 were there yet two more in Poland, 2008 and 2013, which followed the same pattern, as if someone was getting better at his magic show. He then explained that there is a possible motive that would account for all this effort to fake 3 so-called miracles in two countries on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and that would be to render the reforms of Vatican II as if they were legitimate, IOW "so as to deceive (if possible) even the elect" (Mt. 24:24).
.
I went to the trouble of compiling the posts below that seemed to be most relevant to this theme.
I was a bit surprised to see that no one hit the target theme square dead center, although there is one post near the end by Clemens Maria that gets pretty close.
.
Note: This is the first time I've tried to do this technique since the system was changed about a year ago, and this new platform does not allow copies of previous quotes to appear automatically, which is disappointing, actually. I could have inserted them, but that takes a lot of keystrokes and this was sufficient this time, IMHO.
.
+Williamson is just the messenger.  Put down your weapons.  Facts are facts.  A host was found. It was proven to be cardiac tissue.  End of story.  Who are we to judge God's will or His motive?  If He chooses to confect a miracle via a valid Novus Ordo Mass so be it. Rather than humbly admitting that this is one where we may not understand the wisdom of God,  now we're saying Satan can turn bread into cardiac tissue?  Really?

Put down your daggers and let the good Bishop finish his piece and by all means, let's not start touting that Satan has the power of transubstantiation.
.
In truth, the invectives and gutter-thesaurus-like language Bishop-of-Rome Bergoglio has been caught using numbers in the hundreds. There is a website devoted to such quotes. It's astonishing. "Rigid" and "neurotic" priests is not even scratching the surface....................
.
Again, Francis the Marxist is a Catholic tradition-hater.  He currently is very interested in trashing traditional priests - "rigid," "neurotic" priests.  So evidently it is important in his agenda to propagandize against true Catholicism since he is now doing so especially against its sacerdotal adherents.  It would play into this that some time ago, when he could, he was involved in an EM such as we see here, if only to "show" that Our Lord is truly in the NO, thus to legitimatize it, and lure the rigid and neurotic (back) into the radicalized Catholicism of the modernist Church.  We know he would not be having a loving devotion to Our Lord in the eucharist, etc., etc., such as a Pius X would, with an interest and follow-up in such an event that Pius or a Charles Borromeo would.  I wish the story hadn't been promulgated in KE like this, but if so, I wish it was totally completed within the one issue, with a negative warning against the NO despite this miracle being true or not.
.
Some sedevacantists (several in this thread) remind me of the Pharisees.

Our Lord could appear in person, as a beating heart, or anything else, and even the most spectacular of miracles would be attributed to... the devil. Sound familiar? That's exactly how the Pharisees justified rejecting Our Lord.

Both were stubborn, both were bitter. Both were stubborn even in the face of facts. When given the choice between their pet views and the facts, they went with their pet views!

Sedevacantism has never looked less attractive to me than it does right now. That "yuck" that I reject at Novus Ordo Watch *is* the essence of Sedevacantism. If Sedevacantism could become a website, it would become Novus Ordo Watch. Mocking, irreverent, disrespectful, bitter, negative, full of anger and hate, and obsessively seething at all times. Traditio is the same way. I think I've uncovered the essential "spirit" of sedevacantism.

I'm starting to see that the "good willed" sedevacantists are the exception. Because basically they have to somehow reject all those negative elements which are so common in the sedevacantist movement. I still understand why (humanly speaking) some people adopt this stance, but I still think it's more simplistic, and far inferior to recognize and resist.

I think Sedevacantism, as a solution to the Crisis, is the equivalent of curing the disease by killing the patient. Sure, all the "mess" and "hassle" is solved, but your patient is never going to recover now! You've torpedoed the very foundation of authority, and it's not coming back. Now every sede has to be his own pope, in love with his own opinions. And you'll never get them to agree long enough to elect a pope or anything else for that matter.

I think there's something dangerous, giving men the de-facto power to decide all matters. It's like the tree in the Garden of Eden -- opening their eyes, "to be as gods". It's one of those things you can't turn back the clock on. It's intoxicating to take the reins of the Church and direct things for yourself (deciding what to reject and accept).

THIS is what people mean when they say Sedevacantism isn't Catholic. It's the mindset. That Catholic spirit that +Lefebvre was so good at preserving and trasmitting is exactly what the sedes lack. It doesn't mean they're not Catholic, but their mindset is lacking something that Catholics normally have.

They're not non-Catholic, they're defective Catholics. Just speaking objectively here, this isn't personal against any of the sedes here on CI (though I just *know* they're all going to react).
.
It's a "fact" that the kids at Garabandal were levitating backwards up steep hills.  It's a "fact" that someone found a piece of heart tissue somewhere.  But is the devil incapable of creating levitation, obtaining a piece of heart tissue, and putting words and visions into someone's mind?  Clearly not.  So before we begin speculating on what "God" might be trying to communicate here, that conversation needs to go hand in hand with what the devil may have been trying to accomplish with this.

To me, the following scenario of a diabolical activity is just as likely as that God was trying to tell us something.

Let's assume that the New Mass is invalid and/or displeasing to God and that Bergoglio in his activities as Francis is not pleasing to God.  But in order to cast doubt on this, the devil concocts this miracle in order to get people thinking that the New Mass might be valid/pleasing to God, that Bergoglio might be a holy man after all, that Traditional Catholicism which criticizes both the New Mass and Bergoglio might be false, and that Bishop Williamson should announce publicly to people that one might attend the New Mass under certain circumstances.  In that case, mission accomplished for the devil based upon the replies we see on this thread.  Lots of damage done through the simple act of finding a piece of cardiac tissue somewhere.
.

Quote from Ladislaus:
Quote
We begin with the conclusion, based upon theological principles, that the New Mass displeases and offends God.  But here were have a purported miracle which suggest the contrary.

While I can imagine a Host turning into blood might suggest the contrary to some who are already willfully blind to the abomination of the NOM, that thought never entered my mind nor does it seem to have entered the thoughts of others here.  

To me, valid miracle or not, it likely means that particular NO service (and therefore many other NO services) are valid sacrileges which greatly offend God - perhaps so much so that He chose to show His pain and sorrow on this occasion. Why He chose to do this we will never know unless He reveals His reason.  

Like you, I fear +Williamson will not leave it at that but will draw some theological conclusions from this which in some way, shape or form favors the NO, which I agree, is incredibly dangerous.
.
covet truth said:
Quote
Pure speculation, therefore, utterly worthless.

Except that I am not the one drawing conclusions from this.  YOU ARE.  Your conclusions are just as worthless as any I might make.  Except of course that I'm not making any conclusions.  I'm saying in fact that no conclusion can be drawn EITHER WAY about this.
.


You get it!  It only makes the NOM worse than if it was invalid.  I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.  Chances are he will ask for our prayers and sacrifices in reparation for these grievous sins being committed every hour of every day around the world.  We'll just have to wait and see what follows in Part II.
.
Quote

And where have you been?  He's already condoned attending the NOM.

Shows Fr. Wathen for a good shepherd.  He warned people about the Novus Ordo and stayed away from it himself.  Also condemned the Indult/Motu Masses.  Did not change his positions - knew the conspiracy in the Church and the tricks of the hierarchy.
.
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Quote from: covet truth

Quote
I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]And where have you been?  He's already condoned attending the NOM.[/font][/size]
He made a bad judgment call giving a lady private advice in a public forum, and he was CRUCIFIED for it. I think the reaction was way overblown. No rule has changed, and +W is still a huge proponent of the Resistance and rejecting the Novus Ordo -- at least for those who understand. But what about those (objective) fools who don't understand? But I'm not going to get into that discussion again.

But like I said: "sedevacantists".  They'll take anything they can get to go on another attack. It's what they do.

I hope I'm not referring to any members here. But to anyone who enjoyed the various CRAP coming out of certain sede quarters regarding +Williamson a few months ago -- well, there's not much I can say.
.
Actually, +W stated at the time that he was sticking his neck out and was aware he could get his head chopped off for saying what he was about to say, and then he went right ahead and said it anyway. A little more emphatic than merely "a bad judgment call" by anyone's objective account.
.

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Quote from: covet truth

Quote
I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]And where have you been?  He's already condoned attending the NOM.[/font][/size]

Quote from: covet truth
Quote
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Evidently your logical faculties fail you.  YOU are the one who's claiming that these purported miracles mean something.  
I am saying that they mean nothing.  My point was that my own speculation is every bit as plausible as yours.  Go take a course in Logic 101 and then rejoin this thread.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]I am saying that they mean nothing to YOU.  You can't say they "mean nothing" to those involved and who witnessed it.[/font][/size]
:facepalm:

I am saying that they mean nothing objectively or from a theological standpoint.  Subjective "meaning" has nothing to do with this.
.
Quote from: covet truth
Quote
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Quote from: Matthew
Quote
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Quote from: covet truth
Quote
I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.
And where have you been?  He's already condoned attending the NOM.
Oh please. That whole comment was blown WAY out of proportion.
I wrote that he "condoned" it.  I never said that he endorsed it, promoted it, or offered it.  But, speaking of "facts", Matthew, it's a straightforward fact that +Williamson condoned attendance at the New Mass.
And this "miracle" appears to validate such attendance.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]This miracle appears to validate its consecration, nothing more. The subsequent finding of it on the floor was the result of communion in the hand.  It would be interesting to know if that practice ceased in that parish.  [/font][/size]
Bergoglio has had every opportunity to ban the practice in the Universal Church.
.
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote
What about other pre-Vatican II EM's that resulted from Latin Masses where the host turned to blood?  Those were not to show God was offended.
Several pre-Vatican II EM's involved attempted desecrations.  There is one that involved a woman stealing a host for sacrilegious purposes, even though Communion in the hand was not allowed.  She quickly removed the Lord from her mouth.  So it was indeed to show that God was offended by the action.  But it was consecrated at a Tridentine Mass, and so it had nothing to do with the Mass itself.

But it is my opinion that God would not even tacitly endorse a Mass that displeases Him.  If the NOM displeases Him, something like this would in effect give a divine stamp of approval to the NOM itself rather than just be taken as condemning the practice of Communion in the hand.  In fact, the Novus Ordites probably do not see this as a commentary of Communion in the hand but just against a grosser mistreatment of the Blessed Sacrament.  Yes, this incident occurred due to Communion in the hand, but pre Vatican II desecrations occurred even when Communion was given exclusively on the tongue.
.

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote
Quote from: Stubborn

Quote
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote
To me, valid miracle or not, it likely means that particular NO service (and therefore many other NO services) are valid sacrileges which greatly offend God

That's absolutely non sequitur.  If it's "not" a valid miracle, then how does it "likely mean" that the NO is a valid sacrilege?  Nothing of the sort follows from that.

I meant if it's a miracle from God or a trick from Satan that either way does not bode well for the NO. But SOMETHING happened because hosts dissolve in water, they do not turn into blood. If you do not believe it turned into blood then I suppose that's your prerogative, but assuming the reports are accurate, then I do not see how it could mean anything other than the NO offends God greatly.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]

What about other pre-Vatican II EM's that resulted from Latin Masses where the host turned to blood?  Those were not to show God was offended.[/font][/size]

I won't presume to guess about the reasons God had for the pre-V2 miracles, but because the True Mass is the propitiatory sacrifice and pleases God, we can safely rule that out as a reason God might have to show His displeasure for those EM's pre-V2.
.
It's entirely logical that those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy sould recognize the Novus Ordo Mass as essentially Catholic, even if there are sometimes problems with the way it is celebrated. It's therefore entirely reasonable that those people should be saying that Catholics can attend the NO when it's celebrated "reverently", and try to justify this with alleged Eucharistic miracles.

It's disappointing though, I used to think Bp Williamson was a solid traditionalist. Obviously not.
.
The following post by Clemens Maria is the only post in this entire thread that comes close to touching on the possibility that one erstwhile Bishop Jorge Bergoglio could have deliberately orchestrated this so-called miracle from afar (but not too terribly far!) for the singular purpose of having developed an ostensibly credible background to validate the entire Vatican II agenda and revolution as if it were pleasing to God. You can check to see the discussion it evoked:
.
If you put faith into this "miracle" you would be logically compelled to accept post V2 theology.  You can't limit the implications of such a miracle merely to the validity of the sacrament.  It would most certainly be a confirmation of the entire Conciliar approach.
.

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote
If you put faith into this "miracle" you would be logically compelled to accept post V2 theology.  You can't limit the implications of such a miracle merely to the validity of the sacrament.  It would most certainly be a confirmation of the entire Conciliar approach.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]Remember this thinking is within the R&R universe, where you can point out the apostasies and heresies of the conciliar church while maintaining that it it the True Church of Christ, never drawing to the conclusions from the facts that are in evidence

We are back to half rotten fruit again.[/font][/size]

What a rotten mess!  The R&R daily becomes more untenable. To say that the Conciliar Church is the Mystical Body while shunning its head and all of his Bishops, calling him the Vicar and his Bishops the Apostles while maintaining they are pariah to the remnant is almost ridiculous.

You either agree they are legit, in which case it would seem to be part of your duty as a Catholic to convert them, or agree that they are a different religion and be done with it.
.
I would like to start by saying that I believe, the Mass of the ages (The Holy Tridentine Mass) is what God has given us and we should strive to preserve and pray for it’s complete restoration.

However, here are some questions I would like to ask:

---- With approx. 1.2 Billion Roman Catholics around the world, there are approx. 415K NO priests as compared to approx. 1K to 2K priests who say the Tridentine mass (including SSPX and others). If the same ratio is true with the faithful, we are left with approx. 0.25% to 0.5% Traditional Catholics…..Would Our Dear Father in Heaven have left His children ( remaining 99.5%) without a valid Mass for 46+ years, until they could stumble across a Traditional Mass?

---- There have been many Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo..…why? Could it be that Our Blessed Lord is trying to bolster the faith of an impoverished NO faithful that has been abandoned for the last 46 years and left with a ‘weakened’ doctrine and liturgy?

---- Do we realize that thousands of Catholic are tortured and die for their Catholic faith in recent times in places like Algeria, India, Vietnam, Iraq, Colombia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Liberia, China and Indonesia to name a few….. Aren’t most, if not all of them NO, who have received Our Lord in the Eucharist?  

I do agree the Novus Ordo Missae was forced upon the faithful against their will…however in his infinite Mercy, God would never abandon his NO faithful although it may often seem so to us mere mortals.

In the meantime, what would God want us to do? I believe those of us who have been given the grace to ‘understand’, are duty bound to assist in the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass, witness and spread the truth to our NO Bishops, priests and faithful. Also, by proclaiming our faith and doctrine with our non-Catholic neighbors.  This is often accomplished with a humble and charitable disposition towards our NO brethren.
.
Quote from: Paul FHC
Quote
How do you think bishop Williamson is going to conclude this topic in the following EC? What was his purpose in pointing out the miracles  in the NO?

He already has concluded this.  His conclusion is simple:  The Novus Ordo is possibly licit and valid, as are the priests and bishops.  Only, it's hard to tell because the Novus Ordo has been compromised with Vatican II theology.

I have so many problems with this conclusion, from a logical standpoint, that I am really having a hard time with Bishop Williamson at this point.  However, it does explain to me how he can support Garabandal and the writings of Maria Valtorta.  

If I actually did believe that the NO was both valid and licit, I never would have left because that would have been true disobedience.  I just would have continued to stay and prayed for God to have mercy on me and my family for our obedience.
2
Art and Literature for Catholics / Re: Spiritual Reading
« Last post by poche on Today at 04:27:03 AM »
Now I am reading from the Book of the Canticle of Canticles.
Now I am reading from the Book of Wisdom.
3
Health and Nutrition / Re: Friday or not, whats your dinner?
« Last post by poche on Today at 04:26:02 AM »
Today for dinner I had potatoes with spaghetti and meat sauce.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:
4
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Red light vs yellow light
« Last post by Confiteor Deo on Today at 04:15:06 AM »
The only SSPX priest who matches the above description at the present time (i.e., rails against the new direction AND stands up to superiors) is Fr. Xavier Beauvais of France, and there are reasons he is allowed to get away with it.
The reason he can get away with it is because one of the is the most courageous priest we have had the privilege to know. Here he is 2013 telling a riot police officer that should lower his gaze in in shame after arresting a religious brother from Saint Nicolas. At 1:25 in the following video:

 
5
Great article! Thank you for posting, Klas.
6
These are delightful, Cantarella. Thankyou!
7
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: The Coyote Saint
« Last post by klasG4e on Today at 03:21:42 AM »
The Mexican and Central American people are predominantly Catholic. Wouldn't a more Catholic population be an improvement?

No, a more nominally Catholic population would not necessarily be an improvement.  The corruption of the best (Catholics) is the worst corruption and sad to say most of the Catholic population both North and South of the border is quite corrupt in a lot more ways than one.

But let's keep things on track.   The OP was about a novus ordo saint.  I couldn't find any official canonization degree on him at the Vatican's website or anywhere else.  The scarce biographical information I did find out about him makes him appear rather unremarkable, especially for a priest in Mexico at the time of his priesthood.
8
.
.
And another thing -- when they moved the Tabernacles off the altars, some went into janitor closets -- I know this for a fact because I was told I had to move one there, and I refused, and I lost my job -- the Scripture says, "If therefore they say to you, ... behold he is in the closets, believe it not" (Mt. 24:26). "But for the sake of the elect, those days shall be shortened" (v. 22).
I think we need some new rabble rousing nuns. Nuns who will rabble rouse for the tabernacle to be front and center.
9
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: Who can work on Sundays?
« Last post by poche on Today at 02:44:47 AM »
Did your work prevent you from assisting at mass?
10
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Who can work on Sundays?
« Last post by DanielJS on Today at 02:15:19 AM »
Can you work on Sundays in any of the following jobs?: 
1. Security guard for a building guarding an empty building.
2. Truck driver that delivers food or medical supplies.
3. Locksmith.
4. Roadside assistance.

This last weekend I wasn't thinking when my boss asked if I could work from 7 PM on Saturday to 7 AM on Sunday and I said yes, so I worked 
Sunday as a security guard just guarding a building making sure there weren't issues. 
So I was wondering if that was sinful, and the other professions I listed I was just curious about because I might do them in the future. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10