Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D. (Read 21578 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #80 on:** November 23, 2015, 11:59:55 AM »

You are one of the rare SVs TKGS, one of the exceptions Matthew mentioned.

covet truth · « **Reply #81 on:** November 23, 2015, 12:01:22 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: covet truth
I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.

And where have you been? He's already condoned attending the NOM.

Oh please. That whole comment was blown WAY out of proportion.

I wrote that he "condoned" it. I never said that he endorsed it, promoted it, or offered it. But, speaking of "facts", Matthew, it's a straightforward fact that +Williamson condoned attendance at the New Mass.

And this "miracle" appears to validate such attendance.

This miracle appears to validate its consecration, nothing more. The subsequent finding of it on the floor was the result of communion in the hand. It would be interesting to know if that practice ceased in that parish.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** November 23, 2015, 03:35:25 PM »

Quote from: covet truth

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: covet truth
I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.

And where have you been? He's already condoned attending the NOM.

Oh please. That whole comment was blown WAY out of proportion.

I wrote that he "condoned" it. I never said that he endorsed it, promoted it, or offered it. But, speaking of "facts", Matthew, it's a straightforward fact that +Williamson condoned attendance at the New Mass.

And this "miracle" appears to validate such attendance.

This miracle appears to validate its consecration, nothing more. The subsequent finding of it on the floor was the result of communion in the hand. It would be interesting to know if that practice ceased in that parish.

Bergoglio has had every opportunity to ban the practice in the Universal Church.

2Vermont · « **Reply #83 on:** November 23, 2015, 04:39:15 PM »

Quote from: covet truth

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: covet truth
I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.

And where have you been? He's already condoned attending the NOM.

Oh please. That whole comment was blown WAY out of proportion.

I wrote that he "condoned" it. I never said that he endorsed it, promoted it, or offered it. But, speaking of "facts", Matthew, it's a straightforward fact that +Williamson condoned attendance at the New Mass.

And this "miracle" appears to validate such attendance.

This miracle appears to validate its consecration, nothing more. The subsequent finding of it on the floor was the result of communion in the hand. It would be interesting to know if that practice ceased in that parish.

So where are the Eucharistic miracles in the Orthodox Church?

2Vermont · « **Reply #84 on:** November 23, 2015, 04:46:58 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Stubborn
To me, valid miracle or not, it likely means that particular NO service (and therefore many other NO services) are valid sacrileges which greatly offend God

That's absolutely non sequitur. If it's "not" a valid miracle, then how does it "likely mean" that the NO is a valid sacrilege? Nothing of the sort follows from that.

I meant if it's a miracle from God or a trick from Satan that either way does not bode well for the NO. But SOMETHING happened because hosts dissolve in water, they do not turn into blood. If you do not believe it turned into blood then I suppose that's your prerogative, but assuming the reports are accurate, then I do not see how it could mean anything other than the NO offends God greatly.

What about other pre-Vatican II EM's that resulted from Latin Masses where the host turned to blood? Those were not to show God was offended.