Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles (Read 1777 times)

Miseremini · « **on:** December 09, 2017, 09:31:28 PM »

Number DXLIII (543)

December 9, 2017

NOM Miracles?
The human shepherds may desert the sheep,
But God cannot – unless these want to sleep.
When these “Comments” claimed last year that in Sokulka, Poland, there had been in 2008 a Eucharistic miracle worked upon a host consecrated at a New Mass (NOM), a number of Catholics in the English-speaking world denied that such a thing was possible. When the same claim was made recently in Paris ( ), it was the turn of some French Traditionalists to call in question the apparent scientific evidence of the miracle furnished independently at the time by two Polish laboratories, both of which claimed that the sample submitted to them from the host in question came from the heart muscle of a human being in acute distress.
In the face of such evidence, two opposite lines of argument are possible. Either one can argue from the modernist poison of the NOM to the intrinsic impossibility of God working such a “miracle” within the framework of the NOM, or one can argue from the seriousness of the evidence to the necessary possibility of a new Mass, new priestly Ordinations and new episcopal Consecrations all being valid (because the priest and bishop concerned were ordained and consecrated in 2005 and 1980 respectively). A number of valiant Traditionalists hotly contest all three possibilities within the modernist Newchurch.
What is certain, at least within the Catholic Church, is that such questions must be decided by doctrine and not by emotion. Reason must prevail – for instance, flying by instinct can be fatal for aviators. What Church doctrine says on the validity of a sacrament is that it requires four things: a valid Minister, Form, Matter and sacramental Intention. The NOM may exclude one or all of these, but it excludes automatically none of them. Where all four are present, the New Mass is valid. That is why Archbishop Lefebvre, who knew his theology, never claimed that the NOM was automatically invalid. That is why the NOM celebrated in Sokulka was not necessarily invalid. That is why it seems more reasonable to argue from the evidence to the miracle than from the impossibility of the “miracle” to the falsehood of the evidence. Otherwise one needs a precise reason to question the pathologists’ precise testimony.
The great objection remains: how can Almighty God work miracles in the framework of the NOM, clearly designed by its makers to poison gradually the faith of Catholics and so destroy the Catholic Church? The answer must be that God is not primarily authentifying the NOM, but He is maintaining its possible validity in order not to abandon a mass of Catholic sheep who are still attending it in relative ignorance and innocence of the poison, and therefore by the miracle He is primarily warning both sheep and shepherds to remember that He is Present beneath the appearances of bread and wine. When one remembers the Catholic doctrine by which the NOM can be valid; when one recalls St Paul saying that anyone who partakes unworthily of the Holy Eucharist is “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (I Cor. XI, 27–39); and when one sees how widespread in the Newchurch is the lack of respect for the Real Presence, then one immediately sees how necessary for the salvation of many souls can be such warnings as the miracle in Sokulka. The parish priest there testifies to how it has raised the level of Catholic faith and practice in the whole region around Sokulka.
But the objector insists – how could God possibly allow such a poisoned rite of Mass ever to be valid? Answer, He does not take away men’s free-will, but He allows us to a great extent to do what we want. In this case the neo-modernists wanted (and still want) a Rite of Mass poisoned enough to kill off the true Church in the long run, but still Catholic enough to deceive in the short run ignorant and innocent Catholics who still trust their pastors telling them, for instance, that the NOM is the Church’s “ordinary rite.” The NOM would never have gained acceptance in the Universal Church had it been obvious from the start that it was automatically invalid.
Kyrie eleison.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2017, 10:04:36 PM »

.
While trying to read this EC, I was at the same time listening to Fr. Hewko's sermon from Saturday, Nov. 11th, 2017:
"The Evil of Trad-ecuмenism."
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=725&v=ae9yYun-9GU
.

Meg · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2017, 10:20:19 AM »

Quote from: Miseremini on December 09, 2017, 09:31:28 PM

Number DXLIII (543)
December 9, 2017
The great objection remains: how can Almighty God work miracles in the framework of the NOM, clearly designed by its makers to poison gradually the faith of Catholics and so destroy the Catholic Church? The answer must be that God is not primarily authentifying the NOM, but He is maintaining its possible validity in order not to abandon a mass of Catholic sheep who are still attending it in relative ignorance and innocence of the poison, and therefore by the miracle He is primarily warning both sheep and shepherds to remember that He is Present beneath the appearances of bread and wine. When one remembers the Catholic doctrine by which the NOM can be valid; when one recalls St Paul saying that anyone who partakes unworthily of the Holy Eucharist is “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (I Cor. XI, 27–39); and when one sees how widespread in the Newchurch is the lack of respect for the Real Presence, then one immediately sees how necessary for the salvation of many souls can be such warnings as the miracle in Sokulka. The parish priest there testifies to how it has raised the level of Catholic faith and practice in the whole region around Sokulka.

A very good reminder by +W as to why NOM miracles are necessary to point out.

His explanation above, as to why God works miracles in the NOM, is clear. Mainly, he says that God is primarily warning both sheep and shepherds that He is present in both appearances of bread and wine. And, that the miracle in Sokulka raised the level of faith and practice in the whole region.

He also mentions the widespread lack of respect for the Real Presence in NewChurch. It is a huge problem.

IMO, NewChurchers believe in the Real Presence, but it's just not a big deal, sadly. That's also why the miracle in Sukulka is important.

JPaul · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2017, 11:08:15 AM »

Well, he is at it again. He did not say that the "new mass" can be valid or might be valid under certain conditions, he said that it is valid. He avoids the serious questions of priestly validity and under what form a "new mass" might have been said. He says that it is valid.
The lack of distinctions and discernment is exasperating. It is not honest argumentation when you leave out all manner of problems to declare the sacramental integrity of the Mass.

Again, this is based upon his subjective presumtions of God's will, in relation to the Mass, giving the novus ordo people a way out of their Catholicity conundrum. It is more salvation via ignorance, there is always some reason why the pope does not really mean what he says, that a novus ordoite escapes judgement for a lifetime of sacriledge and adherence to a false religion, and so on and so forth.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2017, 11:19:52 AM »

NO:

Quote

While trying to read this EC, I was at the same time listening to Fr. Hewko's sermon from Saturday, Nov. 11th, 2017:
"The Evil of Trad-ecuмenism."

Oh boy! So NO, you're trying to do two things at once? I'm beginning to wonder whether some of you can even walk and chew gum at the same time, much less evaluate an EC and a sermon by Fr. H. simultaneously. What has CI come to?
I could not stomach listening to a long sermon by this priest, which takes away the time I normally allot to watching paint dry. But it was obvious from the little that I did patiently endure that Fr. H. did not address the NOM eucharistic miracles in any way. So why have you posted his sermon? What new light do his tedious remarks contribute to a possible explanation of these certified miracles?
And why, someone, do you post a Williamson interview in French? Most of us don't understand French. I'm beginning to think that the brains of some of you have died. But they certainly have not gone to heaven.

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2017, 11:32:37 AM »

I appreciate this EC from his excellency. I think it is a real good one.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2017, 12:41:19 PM »

Quote from: JPaul on December 10, 2017, 11:08:15 AM

Well, he is at it again. He did not say that the "new mass" can be valid or might be valid under certain conditions, he said that it is valid. He avoids the serious questions of priestly validity and under what form a "new mass" might have been said. He says that it is valid.
The lack of distinctions and discernment is exasperating.

I hate to interrupt your engagement of a favorite pastime (+Williamson bashing -- in particular, harping on his position vis-a-vis the New Mass)
but what part of this Catholic doctrine do you have a problem with?

Quote

What Church doctrine says on the validity of a sacrament is that it requires four things: a valid Minister, Form, Matter and sacramental Intention. The NOM may exclude one or all of these, but it excludes automatically none of them. Where all four are present, the New Mass is valid.

JPaul · « **Reply #7 on:** December 10, 2017, 02:35:34 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 10, 2017, 12:41:19 PM

I hate to interrupt your engagement of a favorite pastime (+Williamson bashing -- in particular, harping on his position vis-a-vis the New Mass)
but what part of this Catholic doctrine do you have a problem with?

It is not a favorite pastime. I might remind folks that it is not I who hold these opinions. His position vis-a-vis the new mass is bad. There is no certainty as to validity and it is always illicit. It should not even be a subject for consideration unless so qualified.
He 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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2017, 04:20:03 PM »

Quote from: JPaul on December 10, 2017, 11:08:15 AM

Well, he is at it again. He did not say that the "new mass" can be valid or might be valid under certain conditions, he said that it is valid. He avoids the serious questions of priestly validity and under what form a "new mass" might have been said. He says that it is valid.
The lack of distinctions and discernment is exasperating. It is not honest argumentation when you leave out all manner of problems to declare the sacramental integrity of the Mass.

Again, this is based upon his subjective presumtions of God's will, in relation to the Mass, giving the novus ordo people a way out of their Catholicity conundrum. It is more salvation via ignorance, there is always some reason why the pope does not really mean what he says, that a novus ordoite escapes judgement for a lifetime of sacriledge and adherence to a false religion, and so on and so forth.

I'm not sure how you can maintain this argument:

His Excellency clearly/explicitly recalls the four elements necessary for a valid sacrament, and speaks within this context: Minister, form, matter, intention:

"What Church doctrine says on the validity of a sacrament is that it requires four things: a valid Minister, Form, Matter and sacramental Intention. The NOM may exclude one or all of these, but it excludes automatically none of them."

What distinctions is he overlooking then?

Given your past objections to the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the new Mass, my suspicion is that you deny the validity of the new rite flatly, and the problem, therefore, is not that His Excellency is overlooking some critical distinction which you manage to perceive, but that you are upset he allows for validity at all.

If so, then your argument is only as good as the authority upon which that opinion is based (i.e., Your own).

Incredulous · « **Reply #9 on:** December 10, 2017, 04:59:19 PM »

Gentlemen. It is the 2nd Sunday of Advent.

Let's have a taste of Port, a smoke and debate HE's points like civilized Catholics.

1. Valid Minister: Heavy debate here.
2. Form: The Novus ordo missae Canon?
3. Matter: Acceptable in most cases.
4. Sacramental intention: Very possible.

Will you agree that for over 50 years, the modernist have been trying to sell the world on the Novus ordo missae's legitimacy?

They have driven out all the traditional Catholics, taken Rome, and all our Church properties.
They have the pope and the world media and still they're constantly trying to prove their legitimacy... ?

Then, they have their Saints... and their miracles... hoping we will buy them.

But to be honest, how easy would it be to gin-up a miracle from a Novus ordo missae, which would add to their legitimacy?

The miracles cited for John XXIII, JPII and Cardinal Newman needed for the Canonization process were far from convincing.

So, after 50 years of lies, theft and deceit, it's healthy for the remnant to be skeptical of any story from the Conciliar church, which helps to legitimize them.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** December 10, 2017, 05:10:14 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on December 10, 2017, 04:59:19 PM

Gentlemen. It is the 2nd Sunday of Advent.

Let's have a taste of Port, a smoke and debate HE's points like civilized Catholics.

1. Valid Minister: Heavy debate here.
2. Form: The Novus ordo missae Canon?
3. Matter: Acceptable in most cases.
4. Sacramental intention: Very possible.

Will you agree that for over 50 years, the modernist have been trying to sell the world on the Novus ordo missae's legitimacy?

They have driven out all the traditional Catholics, taken Rome, and all our Church properties.
They have the pope and the world media and still they're constantly trying to prove their legitimacy... ?

Then, they have their Saints... and their miracles... hoping we will buy them.

But to be honest, how easy would it be to gin-up a miracle from a Novus ordo missae, which would add to their legitimacy?

The miracles cited for John XXIII, JPII and Cardinal Newman needed for the Canonization process were far from convincing.

So, after 50 years of lies, theft and deceit, it's healthy for the remnant to be skeptical of any story from the Conciliar church, which helps to legitimize them.

All BW said was that these four criteria of a valid Mass are not per se lacking (i.e., It is not impossible that all of these elements could be present).

JPaul is taking exception to that.

But in doing so, he is on his own: I am not aware of any non-sedes who will maintain that all four criteria are certainly per se invalid (and even most of them don't).

Miseremini · « **Reply #11 on:** December 10, 2017, 05:26:54 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on December 10, 2017, 11:19:52 AM

And why, someone, do you post a Williamson interview in French? Most of us don't understand French. I'm beginning to think that the brains of some of you have died. But they certainly have not gone to heaven.

I copied and pasted the whole EC comments from my email. In the email it referenced youtube but when I pasted it here.....up it came in french which I too don't understand and I couldn't modify it out.
I am not good with computers and apologize for pissing anyone off.
My brain is old but I don't think it's dead yet.

Kazimierz · « **Reply #12 on:** December 10, 2017, 06:03:40 PM »

1. Must abstain from good libations until after special endoscopy later this week. By the Christmas will be close enough that I will await the beginning of the holy season, when I witness the first star on Wigilia, that being Christmas Eve. Ditto on the fine cigars I am expecting.

Satan wishes to obfuscate the Truth. Ergo to make it crystal clear sans doute that the NOM is invalid ultimately defeats the plans of the Evil One. By keeping the masses confused and doubting - and here can also insert the validity or not of orders received according to the new rites - far far more souls are being lost to Hell and its minions. Mass confusion, literally, with no pun intended.

The four necessary elements: always present at NO consecration? I agree with Incredulous. Caution and skepticism in massive doses.
The Mass is the expression of the Faith, of Doctrine. If the post Vatican II is in substance and essence a new religion, then the liturgy is the expression of that. Have we not heard that it is better to have the Faith without the Mass, than the Mass without the Faith? And this is referring to the false traditionalists versus the True believers, let alone a fabricated rite!

It is my theological opinion that we are very likely dealing with a fabrication of the Devil when it comes to NOM Eucharistic or other miracles. If it keeps people from continuing to attend the NO - which we are told ad nauseam we should avoid like the Plague - for such attendance serves the Devil's purpose.

To reiterate, the four necessary elements are the condition for the possibility of validity. Thus I agree with His Excellency's postulation on that reality. Whether that possibility is positively actualized is where my motherlode of doubt rests.

I may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic you're looking for. :P

Praying always for clarity in discernment, and humility, and forgiveness when I err.

PS. Returning to point 1: the wine served shall be a French red, Cabernet Sauvignon. Single malt scotch Auchtoshan (sp)
with Grand Marnier and Amaretto for liquers. For cigars, Toscano, Toscanello, Padron and La Flor Dominicana. ;D

Cantarella · « **Reply #13 on:** December 10, 2017, 07:57:47 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on December 10, 2017, 04:59:19 PM

Gentlemen. It is the 2nd Sunday of Advent.

Let's have a taste of Port, a smoke and debate HE's points like civilized Catholics.

1. Valid Minister: Heavy debate here.
2. Form: The Novus ordo missae Canon?
3. Matter: Acceptable in most cases.
4. Sacramental intention: Very possible.

Will you agree that for over 50 years, the modernist have been trying to sell the world on the Novus ordo missae's legitimacy?

They have driven out all the traditional Catholics, taken Rome, and all our Church properties.
They have the pope and the world media and still they're constantly trying to prove their legitimacy... ?

Then, they have their Saints... and their miracles... hoping we will buy them.

But to be honest, how easy would it be to gin-up a miracle from a Novus ordo missae, which would add to their legitimacy?

The miracles cited for John XXIII, JPII and Cardinal Newman needed for the Canonization process were far from convincing.

So, after 50 years of lies, theft and deceit, it's healthy for the remnant to be skeptical of any story from the Conciliar church, which helps to legitimize them.

This ^^^^

Frankly, I wonder what possible good does it bring for Traditionalists to be legitimizing in any way a "miracle" in the NOM at this point?

Incredulous · « **Reply #14 on:** December 10, 2017, 09:58:55 PM »

Quote from: Kazimierz on December 10, 2017, 06:03:40 PM

By keeping the masses confused and doubting - and here can also insert the validity or not of orders received according to the new rites - far far more souls are being lost to Hell and its minions. Mass confusion, literally, with no pun intended.

Good point Kazimierz.

In the last 50 years, on the Heavenly balance sheet, billions of souls were lost to Hell, because of the confusion and despair generated from Vatican II and the Novus ordo missae.

The fruit is rotten with flies swarming all over it.
Please... no more Novus Ordo Miracles.

We need them like we need a hole-in-our-heads.

Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS (543) Dec 9, AD 2017 NOM Miracles (Read 1777 times)

Miseremini

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

Neil Obstat

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

Meg

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

JPaul

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

hollingsworth

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

PG

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

Matthew

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

JPaul

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

SeanJohnson

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

Incredulous

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

SeanJohnson

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

Miseremini

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

Kazimierz

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

Cantarella

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

Incredulous

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