Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D. (Read 21570 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #50 on:** November 23, 2015, 08:24:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

We have no proof that the devil didn't concoct this entirely.

Bingo. I find it interesting that folks will go to great lengths to affirm this as a miracle from Christ .... in the NO.

2Vermont · « **Reply #51 on:** November 23, 2015, 08:35:52 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

How can we be sure that the host came from a NO Mass? They just assumed that was the case.

Given the location and the date and the fact that the Cardinal was Cardinal Bergoglio, I think it's probably safe to say this. ;-)

OldMerry · « **Reply #52 on:** November 23, 2015, 08:40:52 AM »

Again, Francis the Marxist is a Catholic tradition-hater. He currently is very interested in trashing traditional priests - "rigid," "neurotic" priests. So evidently it is important in his agenda to propagandize against true Catholicism since he is now doing so especially against its sacerdotal adherents. It would play into this that some time ago, when he could, he was involved in an EM such as we see here, if only to "show" that Our Lord is truly in the NO, thus to legitimatize it, and lure the rigid and neurotic (back) into the radicalized Catholicism of the modernist Church. We know he would not be having a loving devotion to Our Lord in the eucharist, etc., etc., such as a Pius X would, with an interest and follow-up in such an event that Pius or a Charles Borromeo would. I wish the story hadn't been promulgated in KE like this, but if so, I wish it was totally completed within the one issue, with a negative warning against the NO despite this miracle being true or not.

Matthew · « **Reply #53 on:** November 23, 2015, 08:49:17 AM »

Some sedevacantists (several in this thread) remind me of the Pharisees.

Our Lord could appear in person, as a beating heart, or anything else, and even the most spectacular of miracles would be attributed to... the devil. Sound familiar? That's exactly how the Pharisees justified rejecting Our Lord.

Both were stubborn, both were bitter. Both were stubborn even in the face of facts. When given the choice between their pet views and the facts, they went with their pet views!

Sedevacantism has never looked less attractive to me than it does right now. That "yuck" that I reject at Novus Ordo Watch *is* the essence of Sedevacantism. If Sedevacantism could become a website, it would become Novus Ordo Watch. Mocking, irreverent, disrespectful, bitter, negative, full of anger and hate, and obsessively seething at all times. Traditio is the same way. I think I've uncovered the essential "spirit" of sedevacantism.

I'm starting to see that the "good willed" sedevacantists are the exception. Because basically they have to somehow reject all those negative elements which are so common in the sedevacantist movement. I still understand why (humanly speaking) some people adopt this stance, but I still think it's more simplistic, and far inferior to recognize and resist.

I think Sedevacantism, as a solution to the Crisis, is the equivalent of curing the disease by killing the patient. Sure, all the "mess" and "hassle" is solved, but your patient is never going to recover now! You've torpedoed the very foundation of authority, and it's not coming back. Now every sede has to be his own pope, in love with his own opinions. And you'll never get them to agree long enough to elect a pope or anything else for that matter.

I think there's something dangerous, giving men the de-facto power to decide all matters. It's like the tree in the Garden of Eden -- opening their eyes, "to be as gods". It's one of those things you can't turn back the clock on. It's intoxicating to take the reins of the Church and direct things for yourself (deciding what to reject and accept).

THIS is what people mean when they say Sedevacantism isn't Catholic. It's the mindset. That Catholic spirit that +Lefebvre was so good at preserving and trasmitting is exactly what the sedes lack. It doesn't mean they're not Catholic, but their mindset is lacking something that Catholics normally have.

They're not non-Catholic, they're defective Catholics. Just speaking objectively here, this isn't personal against any of the sedes here on CI (though I just *know* they're all going to react).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #54 on:** November 23, 2015, 09:02:59 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Both were stubborn even in the face of facts.

Alleged miracles and alleged visions are not facts, Matthew. That's the crux of the problem. For every Dawn Marie, there are about a thousand other people claiming to have visions. For every true apparition such as at Fatima and Lourdes, you'll have a dozen others that were faked by the devil. At the end of the day, it comes down to the judgment of the Church, and without that judgment, these things mean absolutely nothing. No theological conclusions can be inferred from these things. In fact, the process goes the other way around. We use theology in order to assess the credibility of the miracles. If there's something contrary to faith or morals or piety in them, then the Church rejects them out of hand. We begin with the conclusion, based upon theological principles, that the New Mass displeases and offends God. But here were have a purported miracle which suggest the contrary. So do we overturn the theological conclusion or do we reject the purported miracle? We know where Bishop Williamson is going with this. He's trying to justify his much-maligned comments about how it might be OK to attend the New Mass under certain conditions. In other words, he'll be attempting to draw theological conclusions from this thing, which is incredibly dangerous. Even if this happens to be a true miracle, and the Mass in question happened to be valid, we have absolutely no idea what God intended to convey with it; it's nothing but pure speculation.