Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXC (490) (Read 9331 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #15 on:** December 05, 2016, 11:10:43 AM »

Well, it is likely that one who is a believer in various apparitions and visionaries, would be just as likely to believe in Novus Ordo "miracles". Belief is not confirmation of their validity or authenticity which falls to more objective criteria.
A strong belief in the integrity of the Catholic Church must lead one to conclude that if the is some actual miraculous occurrence within the Novus Ordo, that to God's good purposes it must be happening in spite of the conciliar surroundings and not because of them. It has been established decades ago that with the doubts about who is and who is not a priest or bishop, and the complete inconsistency of matter, form, and intent within the conciliar entity, no one can reasonably assume that a majority of Novus Ordo "masses" or consecrations are valid. As well, concluding that the good intentions of a Novus Ordo priest overcomes all of the other factors is an unsound proposition which might be considered a type of validity by desire.

If you observe much of the Bishops proposals, you will see that he engages presumption and speculation to fill out his assertions. The Bishop has his point of view. He sees everything in the Church as potentially half rotten and half good.

It is similar to Francis's view where all is open to "discernment" and black and white are avoided in both judgement and principal.

Vatican II and the New Order service were conceived in opposition to Catholic truth and practice. That has not changed and does not change. It is a waste of time and a fruitless effort to search for good in these two things which must be entirely done away with for the return of orthodoxy and the salvation of souls.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #16 on:** December 05, 2016, 05:12:49 PM »

JPaul:

Quote

If you observe much of the Bishop's proposals, you will see that he engages presumption and speculation to fill out his assertions. The Bishop has his point of view. He sees everything in the Church as potentially half rotten and half good.

Not necessarily. Half rotten and half good might be how the bishop sees things. But it might be 90/10, or 80/20,or even 95/5. Whatever he sees, the papacy and the church remain in tact for him, as they do still for the sspx, and for several independent traditional works, including the Boston crowd.

ABL declared that the post-conciliar church was "apostate." I think he said, also, that many of that church's officials were "anti-Christs." Having said those things, he still hung onto the papacy. He still dealt with the Vatican, and even signed a Protocol in 1988, and expressed satisfaction for having done so. Like Bp. W, ABL saw the rottenness, but did not let go of the NO church altogether.

Do you presume that the bishop merely speculates about NO Eucharistic miracles, or is there enough solid forensic evidence to indicate that these miracles really occurred? Are these alleged miracles merely flights of fancy and wishful thinking, or did they actually occur?

JPaul · « **Reply #17 on:** December 05, 2016, 06:48:42 PM »

Quote

If the material evidence is to be believed, then in Sokulka God worked one more in a long series down the ages of eucharistic miracles to help souls to believe in something normally difficult enough to believe in, namely that he is Really Present beneath the appearances, once consecrated, of bread and wine. But how is that possible when Traditional Catholics know that the New Mass is the single major cause of the Church’s destruction by loss of faith since Vatican II? An answer may be that the Sacred Heart, knowing that the shepherds were mainly responsible for the ambiguous NOM, refused to abandon his sheep, a nd continues to feed them with what is still Catholic amidst the ambiguity. And amidst all the Newchurch’s relative carelessness in dealing with the Holy Eucharist, the Sokulka event is also a daunting reminder to shepherds and sheep alike – “Remember whom you are handling – it is I, your God!”

Based upon the predicate IF is the following speculation about what God is doing.

Following on is the assertion that the Novus Ordo religion and "mass" suffer mainly from ambiquity. Not included are the serious doctrinal and practical aberrations of said religion and ritual. Nor are the invalidating factors of ordinations , consecrations, translations, and intentions being considered. What evidence is presented that the mass in question was valid, or the priest?

Is it more likely that God is performing miracles which confirm conciliarists in a false form of their religion and not giving cause for them to return instead to the true Church and the surety of salvation in Her?

Frankly speaking if it is our Lord at work here, I believe that it is in spite of the conciliar religion, either that or it is someone else at work trying to hold on to the souls which he has captured. I do not think that the Bishop has considered those as plausible possibilities.

I fully expect that he will continue to search and make the case for the "good" in the conciliar religion and as you see, he always has a sentence or two which subtly implies that those principled Traditionalists who know that Vatican II, its religion and rituals are the enemies of the Church as being somehow unreasonable and wrongheaded in the rigidity of their resistance to them.
Much the same as Fellay has done on many occasions.

Matthew · « **Reply #18 on:** December 05, 2016, 08:22:48 PM »

I received this via e-mail:

Quote

The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

AJNC · « **Reply #19 on:** December 05, 2016, 11:01:26 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I received this via e-mail:

Quote
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

I think Bishop Sanborn has said that this was the period when Abp Lefebvre thought that he could come to some sort of deal with JPII.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #20 on:** December 05, 2016, 11:02:42 PM »

This is what was explained to me by a very reliable source, and how I interpreted it. Because of Vll modernism inherent in the Novus Ordo Mass ( and by extention the Dioscesan Indult Mass) , a Traditionalist attending it would eventually lose their faith as the destruction of the Faith is implicitly "built in" the NO, and over time becomes even more dangerous, as we are distanced from the Truth of Tradition. With seminarians instructed more and more liberally, the Truth becomes more and more distant, to the point that the intention of the priest in the Novus Ordo Mass may no longer have the intention of the Church.
My assumption is that that would include the Consecration as well. There is that doubt. The doubt can destroy the faith of a true Traditionalist who knows enough to avoid this spiritual quagmire. I don't know if anyone can say with assurity that the NO Sacrament is always invalid, at least that's my understanding. But as time goes on it will be invalid more and more.
Someone who has only known the NO and/or who has no true understanding of Tradition may not have their Faith( as) damaged by attendance. I know this sound very subjective, and unfortunately the state of the Church has caused subjectivism in people who are otherwise very well planted. Maybe the Archbishop knew where this woman was at, at the time, and allowed this, knowing the state of her soul. Just a presumption. I just know personally, that it takes much more faith and resolution to be a part-time " home-aloner" than to literally indulge at the local Indult which would might temporarily assuage my Sunday obligation "guilt" . It's all very difficult.

Of course, this doesn't take into consideration the "new" rites of ordination, which I'm sure has been discussed many times here. I have heard that the Pope has the Pastoral rights to change elements of the Sacraments. I do not know if this is true, as I haven't been shown the Canons on this. Changing them certainly was disasterous, but I can't be positive if it invalidated them ( as long as certain elements are still present.) It certainly is another cause to doubt ,especially the consecration of Bishops.
But I certainly can see why BW says there are many more sheep that God needs to care of, even in the NO.
Oh, well.

Incredulous · « **Reply #21 on:** December 05, 2016, 11:55:45 PM »

“NEW MASS” CONCLUSIVELY INVALID"

According to the Preponderance of Evidence
(the product of 15 years of study)
by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

In the aftermath of Henry VIII, Catholics suffered martyrdom upon discovery of Holy Ordered priests offering valid Canonized Latin Masses in homes. In 1896, after centuries of uncertainty, it was Pope Leo XIII himself, who declared (Anglican) “New Mass” and even “New Ordinal” “null and void” or invalid.

Catholics, are you aware that the Anglican problem of invalid “New Mass” and “New Ordinal” is now the Catholic problem of our times? Does Pope Leo XIII’s dogmatic definition apply to the present “New Mass” and “New Ordinal?” Has the Catholic Church prospered since the 1960's when the Bishops’ imposed their “New Mass” and “New Ordinal?”

Father Paul Trinchard +

AJNC · « **Reply #22 on:** December 06, 2016, 05:34:20 AM »

I wonder if Bp W has read the apparitions of Sister Hermana Guadalupe. A friend sent me this today:

One of the message is very striking - I quote the words supposedly said by Our Lord to Sr. Hermana. He said this to priests: "You who celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass are sons of the devil and you, on the Day of the Wrath of the Eternal Father, I will leave abandoned to the slaughter, to extermination, because the day is coming when My sword will descend to purify the earth with blood and fire."

For more information:
HERMANA GUADALUPE
Comunidad de Desagravio
9a. Avenida 6 - 71 Zona 7
Colonia Quinta Samayoa.
Guatemala, C. A.

Mission of the Blessed Virgin
The Lady of the Apocalypse
15851 Quartz Street
Westminster, CA 92683 – USA

Anthony Nguyen
P.O. Box 262482
Houston, TX 77207, USA
http://margaretdurbin2012.blogspot.com

John Grace · « **Reply #23 on:** December 06, 2016, 08:25:33 AM »

Quote

But I certainly can see why BW says there are many more sheep that God needs to care of, even in the NO.

Indeed. The Jєωs always want to divide Catholics.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #24 on:** December 06, 2016, 09:18:52 AM »

Quote

Indeed. The Jєωs always want to divide Catholics.

That is for sure.
I didn't mean to sound so wishy washy, but even with the evil intent of the changes, and the need to stay away from it all, I personally see very holy people ( much holier than me!) in the mainstream Church, maybe despite the "liturgy " than because of it. And as far as Bishop's Eucharistic Miracle in Poland, I can't 100% say that it was not real. He poses a convincing set of circuмstances. Besides the fact he is a GREAT Bishop, docuмentably not one to ever back down ( especially to the Jєωs). He courageously stands for Truth and has a history of not "going along to get along" AND he is doubling down on this issue. I HAVE to take a sincere look at this. It doesn't change my opinion on the "NO Mass" or my perspective of Jєωιѕн-installed modernism in the NO Church.
What is does is allow me to see that God does what He Wills and sometimes operates outside of His own laws for His own purposes, which is always for the salvation of souls. He of course, is in charge of even of this very bad situation. I don't understand it, but maybe I just have to be more amenable to it.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2016, 09:30:16 AM »

Quote

Returning to the “myth” that Protestant observers did not contribute in creating the New Mass, to hold this position is to deny the obvious – not only in fact, but also in substance. In the first place, an ecuмenical liturgy that would no longer offend Protestants was Fr. Annibale Bugnini’s intention from the get-go as he declared in 1965:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants… [my emphasis]

While we learn from the close confidant of Pope Paul VI, Jean Guitton:

The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecuмenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass” [my emphasis][4].

To accomplish this ecuмenical goal, the Consilium enlisted the help of these Protestant observers:

1. A. Raymond George (Methodist)

2. Ronald Jaspar (Anglican)

3. Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian)

4. Friedrich Künneth (Lutheran)

5. Eugene Brand (Lutheran)[5]

6. Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize).

Footnotes
4 Apropos, December 19, 1993 and again in Christian Order, October 1994.
5 Note, he has been mistakenly listed as “Dr. Smith” in some publications; the correct list of names can be found in Michael Davis’ works.

cf. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/24-what-about-those-six-protestants-and-the-new-mass

Also, please get yourself a copy of the study on the new rite of episcopal consecration by the Dominicans of Avrille. You will be absolutely shocked by the evidence presented not-withstanding the conclusion that the new rite is probably(???) valid. What!? If there is a positive doubt about the validity of a sacrament, you must treat it as if it were invalid.

If the Anglican rites are found to be absolutely null and utterly void by Pope Leo XIII, then I don't see how the Conciliar rites can pass the test given they are almost indistinguishable from the Anglican rites.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #26 on:** December 06, 2016, 09:43:03 AM »

I agree with you. I have heard Fr Angelico speak a few times and am on board with this understanding.
That is why I don't attend ANY NO or Indult or SSPX Masses.
But ,there is a place for the Mercy of God in all of this ( NO I am not a Pope Francis fan) . Our Lady promised to those who pray the Rosary that they would not be led or stay in error. There are a lot of other people who pray the Rosary that are not Resistance or Sedes .Maybe there is a possibility of God operating in their arenas despite the error ( in order to get them out? )

Hey, obviously I am no scholar, just trying to figure it out , too.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #27 on:** December 06, 2016, 09:56:44 AM »

The New Order of Mass was introduced on April 4, 1969. On June 5, 1969 Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani of the Holy Office, and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, along with a group of Roman theologians, presented Pope Paul VI with a Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. The Study contained a cover letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, which warned that the Novus Ordo, "represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent".

cf. http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm

Supposed miracles will not change the facts.

Quote

[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

cf. Galatians 1:8-9

JPaul · « **Reply #28 on:** December 06, 2016, 10:14:40 AM »

Quote from: AJNC

Quote from: Matthew
I received this via e-mail:

Quote
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

I think Bishop Sanborn has said that this was the period when Abp Lefebvre thought that he could come to some sort of deal with JPII.

Either way, what this shows, is that, the SSPX has never had the strong principled opposition to Vatican II and the New Order service as has been mythologized by its supporters. It is thus not surprising that the Bishop holds the views that he does.
Boiling it down to a benign ambiquity does not rise to the level of a true resistance to the corruption of the Church. It is essentially the position of the FSSP and the various indult groups. They are not concerned with the questions of ordinations, consecrations, validity, or doctrinal disruptions either.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #29 on:** December 06, 2016, 11:14:59 AM »

The problem is, as in most cases concerning Catholic theology, is a failure to DISTINGUISH. One must distinguish between 1) the mass and 2) the sacrament of the eucharist.

The mass is composed of 3 parts - offertory, canon, communion - which make up the sacrificial rite. At a new 'mass', the canon/consecration COULD be valid, while the Mass, overall, IS NOT, because there is no sacrifice, as is understood by catholic theology.

The 'sacrifice' as, heretically taught by V2, is Christ's offering of Himself in Holy Communion at the Last Supper; the REAL sacrifice of Calvary/Good Friday is nowhere mentioned in the new 'mass'. Hence it is not a mass which is why it is "odious in God's sight" (MARIE-JULIE JAHENNY visions).

To sum up, it's possible to receive Our Lord at the new 'mass' provided the consecration is valid. Therefore, it's possible that the eucharistic miracles are true, in that Our Lord allows those who still have some Faith to see, but these miracles do not change the facts that

1) the new 'mass' is not a mass. Therefore, God is not properly adored, thanked, petitioned and asked forgiveness for sin.
2) V2 and the new 'mass' teach a new theology and faith. They cause people to lose the Faith and go to hell.
3) the new 'mass', in many cases, is NOT valid and is a circus act. This is a blesphemy, sacrilege and highly offensive sin against God and heaven.

Humanly speaking, we might say, "Oh, God is present during that ceremony, so that's good." God would say, "I have allowed Myself to be present for those few who still believe. But, in this unholy atmosphere, I am reliving My passion, for I am mocked, blasphemed and forgotten, and it's worse than at Calvary, for it happens from My own people, by My own ministers, in My own house. They honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me."