Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles (Read 1776 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2017, 05:02:58 PM »

JP:

Quote

He (Bp. W) is leading entirely unqualified people into an area in which they have no competence to judge, and he is advocating for the new mass. There is no doubt about it.

You're saying that we unqualified people have no competence to judge? The NOM Eucharistic miracles, I suppose. Perhaps not. But if a consecrated Host becomes flesh, and that flesh is submitted to an independent lab for analysis; and that analysis concludes that the sample is indeed taken from a specific area of a human heart; and the findings are signed off upon by the forensic experts who conduct the analysis, don't we have at least some competence to accept such evidence as genuinely miraculous?
If you want to make the argument that it's all satanic or that it's a lying wonder of some kind, Ok, make that argument. But "unqualified people" are certainly entitled to think that something very odd and out of the ordinary has taken place here, and that it is probably supernatural.
As for Williamson advocating for the NOM, that is an extremely reckless assumption. From my perspective anyway, I see no evidence that he is. There is a great deal of doubt about it.

JPaul · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2017, 05:07:49 PM »

The issue is not one of whether there might be a valid mass here and there. It is the fact that the Church forbids, under pain of mortal sin, any participation in a possibly invalid sacrament, period!

In any given circuмstance, it is next to impossible to ascertain whether a priest is valid, what translation, has been used, what the priest's intention might be, whether the matter is correct.

There is simply to much doubt introduced into the process before you even get to what is required for a valid consecration. This is why the Church prohibits taking part in a doubtful sacrament. She does not give one the option of doing so with the speculative hope that all the required parts are present.

From another thread this quote, I think is an appropriate attitude that one should have towards the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. It is not our business to be hunting among the ruins for something that is Catholic in a non-Catholic wasteland,
Quote

Quote

Quote
As Mary and Joseph sought to protect their innocent Son from Herod, so we are all bound to protect and honor the Most Blessed Sacrament. We are not free merely not to profane it ourselves, but duty-bound to "throw our own bodies over it," as it were, to protect it from the least irreverence, to risk whatever consequences in the effort, and consider ourselves extremely blessed if we are called upon to do such a thing. There is simply nothing as holy and wonderful as the Mass.

Wessex · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2017, 06:16:02 PM »

Indeed, the bishop may also find something valuable inside an Anglican setting where conditions may create a situation 'pleasing to God'. Who are we to judge?! We can extend this argument to include all churches, mosques, temples and ѕуηαgσgυєs just in case we have overlooked a unique set of 'pleasing' circuмstances.

Merry · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2017, 06:19:50 PM »

It is not just that this Mass is illicit. There is no doubt about that. In the Latin Rite, Quo Primum forbids any Mass but our Pius V Latin Mass.

What needs to be remembered is that the Modernist heresy has been condemned by Pius X! This "Mass," and any "miracles" from it do not matter, in the sense that we are obliged and commanded to stay away from such things as the New Mass - should even Our Lord stand on the altar and tell us to attend!!!

With due respect, what is it with this fascination of miracles, and/or continued defense of such interest in them? I wish Bishop Williamson would clearly warn souls against attending these Masses, instead of dangling miracles as possibilities of these Masses having some value. His job is to save souls, not tempt them. Good shepherd, come forth! There is so much muddle and unknowing about what is really happening here - what God intends or doesn't; indeed, the conspiracy or modernists, call them what you will, are more than capable of having a laboratory study be conclusive in any way they desire. The Bishop keeps going back to these "possibilities" instead of the reality of Church law. This Mass is absolutely illicit. Modernism is condemned. The New Mass issue is clearly decided: God forbids attendance.

Miracle or not, Rome has spoken.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2017, 06:20:45 PM »

Quote

The issue is not one of whether there might be a valid mass here and there. It is the fact that the Church forbids, under pain of mortal sin, any participation in a possibly invalid sacrament, period! ... She does not give one the option of doing so with the speculative hope that all the required parts are present.

This is an excellent point.
New Mass Validity = ?questionable. Attendance = sinful.

From Quo Primum (emphasis mine):

Quote

We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Any cleric (and by extension, layperson) who says or attends the new mass is committing a grave sin because the new mass is illicit. Quo Primum, which Pope Benedict told us in the 'motu' is still in force, forbids any other missal from being used except the 62 missal.

New Mass Lawfulness = not lawful. Attendance = sinful.

From Fr Wathen:

Quote

What is called the New Mass is more offensive to God than all the Protestant services and pagan rites of the world, because it mimics and mocks the all-holy Sacrifice, and perfidiously deceives those in attendance at the same time. It is the superlative act of lawlessness and hypocrisy, pretending to be a prayer, when it is nothing but a burlesque and a charade.

That is what it is, regardless of the good intentions of the presiding clergyman and his trusting people. A great degree of the evil of the New Mass is in its deception of well-meaning people, although after so long a time very little excuse can be made for them. If all the light throughout the world were to be extinguished, so that there was only darkness both day and night, it would not be a greater tragedy than the suppression of the true Mass. This has been the Devil’s ambition and goal since the Last Supper: to rid the world of the hated Sacrifice, against which he is powerless.

Nothing could be more offensive to God or injurious to men than what our religious superiors have done. Consider all the sins of the world: all the blasphemies, the impurities, the cruelties, the incessant, needless wars, the murders, the divorces, the abortions, the lies, the betrayals, the abandonment of God, and on and on. All these things are nothing compared to the loss of the Holy Mass, because it is through the Mass that forgiveness and mercy is gained for the world; it is through the Mass that God is worthily honored despite all.

New Mass Morality = immoral. Attendance = sinful.

The new mass fails at all 3 major tests and is sinful to attend, objectively speaking. It must be presumed to be invalid. It is certainly illicit. And its purpose and circuмstances make it highly immoral. It must be rejected with no ifs, ands or buts.

Kazimierz · « **Reply #20 on:** December 12, 2017, 08:49:00 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 11, 2017, 06:20:45 PM

This is an excellent point.
New Mass Validity = ?questionable. Attendance = sinful.

From Quo Primum (emphasis mine):
Any cleric (and by extension, layperson) who says or attends the new mass is committing a grave sin because the new mass is illicit. Quo Primum, which Pope Benedict told us in the 'motu' is still in force, forbids any other missal from being used except the 62 missal.

New Mass Lawfulness = not lawful. Attendance = sinful.

From Fr Wathen:
New Mass Morality = immoral. Attendance = sinful.

The new mass fails at all 3 major tests and is sinful to attend, objectively speaking. It must be presumed to be invalid. It is certainly illicit. And its purpose and circuмstances make it highly immoral. It must be rejected with no ifs, ands or buts.

Precisely. There is sufficiently reasonable doubt considering NOM validity,and I will again emphasize the question of the validity of a said bishop or priest, serves to clearly illustrate the dubious and thus sinful nature of the bastard rite.
Taking a chance on a NO liturgy is akin to Russian roulette......with all six chambers loaded.

Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles (Read 1776 times)

hollingsworth

Re: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles

JPaul

Re: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles

Wessex

Re: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles

Merry

Re: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles

Pax Vobis

Re: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles

Kazimierz

Re: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles