Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D. (Read 21560 times)

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #20 on:** November 22, 2015, 08:20:46 AM »

Quote from: richard

Quote from: 2Vermont
It is interesting that this is part of today's gospel reading:

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

It appears that the so-called EM's at a NO service are deceiving the elect.

To answer the poster above, I found this regading what ABL said about the New Mass:

Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to speak publicly on the question of the orthodoxy and validity of Paul VI’s Mass. He considered that “one cannot say generally that the New Mass is invalid or heretical”; however, “it leads slowly to heresy.”

Why would Christ confirm a service that "leads slowly to heresy"? Also, regarding validity, the Church teaches that the Orthodox liturgy is "valid" but we never hear of EM's at Orthodox liturgies.

I don't think that it was a confirmation so much as a showing of displeasure.

It would be a miracle none the less and confirm the validity of the NO and that God is pleased with the NO.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** November 22, 2015, 09:31:40 AM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Quote from: NatusAdMaiora
Here is the link

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3gPAbD43fTI

Yes, let's believe what the pro-homo modernists tell us, let's trust them. At our own peril. To tell you the truth it looked like mold to me, not even remotely resembling the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.

It looks like this:

Benzel · « **Reply #22 on:** November 22, 2015, 11:09:08 AM »

When God makes eucharistic miracles in sacrileges, He does not approve those sacrileges. If God makes eucharistic miracles in Novus Ordo new Masses, He does not not approve the Novus Ordo Mass:
http://digilander.libero.it/rexur/miracoli/inglese/sacrilegio.htm

2Vermont · « **Reply #23 on:** November 22, 2015, 01:15:04 PM »

Quote from: ihsv

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.

If the bolded is the case, then I have a question: are there any such miracles in the Orthodox Church (post the Great Schism) given the Catholic Church has always held their liturgy to be "valid".

Emerentiana · « **Reply #24 on:** November 22, 2015, 01:27:18 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

So much for the Mohammedan menace. We're taking two weeks for Newmass Eucharistic miracles.

:applause: