Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 26

Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.  (Read 21559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ihsv

Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2015, 09:43:27 PM »
Quote from: Miseremini
I've never been to a black mass, BUT I understand to have a black mass they have to have a consecrated host to perform the sacrilage.
How could a satanist do a consecration unless he was a valid priest?
I don't believe Our Lord becomes present at the whim of a satanist !


There are black masses and then there are black masses.  Most of the time a stolen, pre-consecrated host is used.  However, a true, hard-core Satanic black mass requires a valid priest.  

Not that I would recommend it (for a number of reasons), but Malachi Martin's "Hostage to the Devil" details one such true black mass, and it involved an apostate priest.  Every rubric and word was done backwards, except for the consecration, which was done quite correctly.  What followed is unfit for print.

In such a case, the consecration was indeed valid, but it was not offered as a sacrifice.  Not to God, at any rate.
Logged

Offline Recusant Sede

Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2015, 09:48:31 PM »
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: Recusant Sede
I'll suggest an answer, bishop Williamson, maybe your facts are wrong. Where are your sources for this? Bergoglio? Other modernists?


I wonder this too, especially considering the 3-year gap between the alleged miracle and their decision to investigate. I would like to know at what point in time all of this information was released to the public.

But...

Quote
If the NO service is a source of miracles, is valid and is apparently a source of graces, why doesn't he celebrate it? The man is a serious danger with talk like this.


I don't think it changes the practical application of how we should react to the N.O. We all know what a disaster it is and even a valid consecration wouldn't eliminate the many reasons to avoid N.O. Masses.


But he believes that it is truly a miracle and if it really is, then God is saying that this service is holy and should be celebrated by all priests. That would be the only purpose that I can think of why God would allow a miracle to take place. Ergo, the NO is good and holy. But we all know it is intrinsically evil. Just one example is the heretical falsification of Christ's words from "for many" to "for all men".
Logged

Offline ihsv

Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2015, 09:58:26 PM »
Quote from: Recusant Sede

But he believes that it is truly a miracle and if it really is, then God is saying that this service is holy and should be celebrated by all priests. That would be the only purpose that I can think of why God would allow a miracle to take place. Ergo, the NO is good and holy. But we all know it is intrinsically evil. Just one example is the heretical falsification of Christ's words from "for many" to "for all men".


Not at all.  There was a story once of a Jewess who, in order to obtain money for her ill husband's surgery, agreed to obtain a consecrated host and deliver it to some wealthier of her kind.  Having stolen the host and making the exchange, her compatriots proceeded to cut it with a knife.  The host began to bleed at once.  In this case, the miracle was meant to confound the sacrilegious acts of these men.  

IF the purported miracle that +Williamson speaks of is true, the only thing it means is that that particular consecration was valid.  It means nothing more.  It is neither a seal of approval of the New Mass, nor is it a vindication of the new religion.

And in terms of the validity of the consecration of the New Mass, I have no idea whether it's valid or not.  My objections to it are much deeper than that.  
Logged

Offline OldMerry

Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2015, 10:13:02 PM »
I, for one, am so glad that the response to this KE has been alarm and disbelief amongst you.  I had a couple of thoughts.  That this happened under Bishop Bergolio (or whatever he was), a Marxist/Communist, who only this week, still has traditional Catholicism as a giant burr and target under his saddle, is a huge red light.  He has more angst against "rigid" priests than child-abusing gαy ones.  (Wonder why.)  He has a real "THING" against the Church.  And now he is top hater and destroyer (if possible). This whole account in KE is quite capable of being a set up, specifically and exactly to attempt proving the point (or selling the idea) of the Novus Ordo "Host" being valid.  With these enemies of Christ, and about such a subject, anything can be said.  Anyone can be paid off.  Any result can come if these evil people put their mind to it to make it happen.  That said, even if the NO consecration is valid it is still an illicit "Mass" and - to top it off - such things as "Our Lord" being discarded in the back of the church, is blown on by in a rush to prove that a NO "Host" is Our Lord.  Imagine discarding Him - one shouldn't even be present where such sacrilegious happenings are so prone.  Now, having said all this, is not Bishop Williamson a convert?  Does he not have a proclivity (weakness?) towards - maybe not sensationalism, but let's say, mysticism?  Personally, I think prudence would have dictated that he just have left this subject/happening alone, rather than letting out any plus points in favor of the Novus Ordo, as now people are tempted to attend it since "Our Lord is there" according to this story.  People should be discouraged from attending it - forbidden, even.  The theory of Our Lord present at the NO could be bandied about maybe privately, but for the sake of some kind of full disclosure, to air out this occurrence, is not in the best interests of souls and is not the best "good shepherding."            
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2015, 04:57:02 AM »
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam
Diabolical disorientation is BOTH physical and spiritual.  For Bp. Williamson to even hint at believing the miracle of transubstantiation is based and proved on microscopes, scientists, glasses of water, etc. in the heretical Novus Ordo (and the Catholic Mass) is distressing in the least and blasphemous at the most.  The Novus Ordo "mass" (service) has already exposed itself as non-Catholic and thus any scientific "support" or intimation of so-called "miracles" and transubstantiation within the Novus Ordo "mass" (service) is a bold-faced lie and satanic.  What this woman found on the floor was nothing more than a piece of unleavened bread.  Nothing more.


Say it a couple more times and you might convince yourself.

I see a problem with the "Novus Ordo Watch" crowd, whose love and defense of Tradition is dependent on the Novus Ordo being completely invalid. I never saw the need to go to this extreme.

I think some might adopt this position out of anger for being deceived and kept from the truth for so long. They are angry for having their birthright stolen for so many years, and all the pains it caused (having to deal with the Novus Ordo) including many effects lasting to the present day. To give just one example: a man who was mired in the novus ordo for years might have ended up marrying a novus ordo woman, with all the consequences that would come from that. Perhaps she hasn't converted yet, and is still duped by those bad guys, for extra angst!

I'm not mocking these feelings; they are real and understandable. I'm just spelling them out here because I'm sure this is the "backstory" of countless Trads you'll meet.

There's *got* to be, on a human level, a certain amount of resentment for what happened to the Church, especially when its effects hit so close to home. How you raise your children, how many children you have, feminism, the whole nine yards. The consequences of going along with the Novus Ordo are LEGION (get it? a legion of devils?)

But I am saying this: as a life-long Trad, I don't carry any such baggage, and so I can be a bit more objective about things like the Novus Ordo. If it turns out to be valid, fine. If it turns out to be invalid, fine. Either way, I know for a fact it destroys souls, so it is to be avoided at all costs (even at the cost of having NOWHERE to attend Mass, even once a year!)


This.

There is no way to know if all NO transubstantiations are invalid or not, imo the one +Williamson is talking about was likely one of the valid ones.

The Host turning into blood imo is not a sign of God's pleasure, forgetting for the moment that they found Our Lord dirty and discarded, more likely it is a sign of the broken Sacred Heart of Our Lord from the profane and sacrilegious offerings that Our Lord is subjected to in every NO "mass". Could also be a prophetic sign of the pain that Our Lord would experience during the reign of the current pope. It could be a lot of things, none of which bode well for the NO imo.



 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 26
« previous next »