Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D. (Read 21561 times)

Ekim · « **Reply #35 on:** November 22, 2015, 08:59:33 PM »

+Williamson is just the messenger. Put down your weapons. Facts are facts. A host was found. It was proven to be cardiac tissue. End of story. Who are we to judge God's will or His motive? If He chooses to confect a miracle via a valid Novus Ordo Mass so be it. Rather than humbly admitting that this is one where we may not understand the wisdom of God, now we're saying Satan can turn bread into cardiac tissue? Really?

Put down your daggers and let the good Bishop finish his piece and by all means, let's not start touting that Satan has the power of transubstantiation.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #36 on:** November 22, 2015, 10:12:35 PM »

"True Mass, new mass, schismatic mass, satanic mass--it doesn't matter. If there is valid matter and form, and the celebrant is a valid priest and has the proper intention, then there is transubstantiation necessarily because all the Sacraments work ex opere operato. God must allow this to take effect because it is the way He designed the Sacraments and His veracity and holiness require that He obeys Himself."

Motorede, it does matter. A valid consecration, where transubstantiation occurs does NOT make the Mass automatically pleasing to God!! I hear this argument all the time by my "conservative novus ordo" relatives and by many trads and it shows a lack of understanding of the Mass, as a whole. The Consecration is NOT the only part of the Mass. The Consecration does NOT define the morality of the mass.

We must look and understand the Mass in a deeper way. We must distinguish between the validity/intention of the Consecration vs the validity/intention of the Mass. They are not the same; far from it. The novus ordo is wrong because it, as a WHOLE, is deficient in its purpose, nature and intention.

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci covered all of this in their "Ottaviani Intervention" and so does Fr Wathen in his "The Great Sacrilege" and nothing has improved for anyone to now say it's "ok". The consecration may well be valid but the mass is not.

covet truth · « **Reply #37 on:** November 23, 2015, 12:16:48 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci covered all of this in their "Ottaviani Intervention" and so does Fr Wathen in his "The Great Sacrilege" and nothing has improved for anyone to now say it's "ok". The consecration may well be valid but the mass is not.

It was Fr. Wathen's book that caused me to leave the N.O. back in the early 70's. No one, including Bishop Williamson is saying, it is "okay". However, this eucharistic miracle is proof that the consecrations can be valid but can also become an enormous sacrilege in the profanations that occur in the New Mass, like communion-in-the-hand. Maybe this was the reason for the miracle, to show that Our Lord is truly present even at a N.O. Mass and yet is treated like trash to be thrown on the ground and trodden upon. If that is the case, it is so much worse than an invalid consecration.

Motorede · « **Reply #38 on:** November 23, 2015, 01:43:38 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

"True Mass, new mass, schismatic mass, satanic mass--it doesn't matter. If there is valid matter and form, and the celebrant is a valid priest and has the proper intention, then there is transubstantiation necessarily because all the Sacraments work ex opere operato. God must allow this to take effect because it is the way He designed the Sacraments and His veracity and holiness require that He obeys Himself."

Motorede, it does matter. A valid consecration, where transubstantiation occurs does NOT make the Mass automatically pleasing to God!! I hear this argument all the time by my "conservative novus ordo" relatives and by many trads and it shows a lack of understanding of the Mass, as a whole. The Consecration is NOT the only part of the Mass. The Consecration does NOT define the morality of the mass.

We must look and understand the Mass in a deeper way. We must distinguish between the validity/intention of the Consecration vs the validity/intention of the Mass. They are not the same; far from it. The novus ordo is wrong because it, as a WHOLE, is deficient in its purpose, nature and intention.

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci covered all of this in their "Ottaviani Intervention" and so does Fr Wathen in his "The Great Sacrilege" and nothing has improved for anyone to now say it's "ok". The consecration may well be valid but the mass is not.

PAX and Covet Truth: I'm on board with both of your postings; I agree 100%.I wrote what I did b/c some were suggesting that they did not believe that God would allow Transubstantiation to take place at an illicit NOM. I believe that He would have to b/c of the reasons I already listed. And if this is the case, then, the NOM would be a greater sacrilege. And as a matter of interest to you both, perhaps, I also left the novus ordo system b/c of the graces I received from reading The Great Sacrilege. I think, I hope, that we are correctly presenting Father Wathen's arguments here.

stgobnait · « **Reply #39 on:** November 23, 2015, 02:43:21 AM »

Thank you for these posts, they have given me another perspective, I confess, I thought 'a trick of the devil' too, and when I read bergolio's name.. well.............