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.
Theoretically, the consecration can be valid, so there can be transubstantiation, just like at a black mass the consecration can be valid, so that satanists can blaspheme God to the highest degree.
Here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gPAbD43fTI
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3gPAbD43fTI
I'll suggest an answer, bishop Williamson, maybe your facts are wrong. Where are your sources for this? Bergoglio? Other modernists?
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'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 !
Quote from: Recusant SedeI'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...QuoteIf 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".
Quote from: Emitte Lucem TuamDiabolical 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!)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that ABL ever said the New Mass, when said strictly in accordance to the rubrics and the original version , was invalid. What he said was that it was a danger to the faith. If this is true, then there is a possibility that the Mass in which this host came from did in fact confer transubstantiation.
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.
Quote from: 2VermontIt 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.
Quote from: 2VermontIt 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.
Quote from: NatusAdMaioraHere is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gPAbD43fTI
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.
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.
.
So much for the Mohammedan menace. We're taking two weeks for Newmass Eucharistic miracles.
Once again we see +Williamson's excessive credulity for things like visions and miracles being his Achilles' heel. We do not draw theological conclusions from such things, not ever. It's very easy for the devil to create fake miracles and visions.
I for one do not believe that God would ever perform a Eucharistic miracle if the Mass itself were displeasing to Him because that could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the Mass. So if Bishop Williamson thinks this "miracle" is legit (along with Garbandal, Valtorta, Dawn Marie, and all the other crap he believes in), then he has no business rejecting the New Mass or doing anything else that he does.
I'm sorry, but when people cling so much to these types of phenomena, that's generally a sign of weak faith. We don't need any of this crap to confirm our faith, and we most certainly do not theologize based on it.
Quote from: LadislausOnce again we see +Williamson's excessive credulity for things like visions and miracles being his Achilles' heel. We do not draw theological conclusions from such things, not ever. It's very easy for the devil to create fake miracles and visions.
I for one do not believe that God would ever perform a Eucharistic miracle if the Mass itself were displeasing to Him because that could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the Mass. So if Bishop Williamson thinks this "miracle" is legit (along with Garbandal, Valtorta, Dawn Marie, and all the other crap he believes in), then he has no business rejecting the New Mass or doing anything else that he does.
I'm sorry, but when people cling so much to these types of phenomena, that's generally a sign of weak faith. We don't need any of this crap to confirm our faith, and we most certainly do not theologize based on it.
Did you ever consider that this miracle wasn't necessarily for you who doesn't need to have his faith confirmed, but what about the priest who found the host; or the people involved in the process of analyzing it? What about Bergoglio who, maybe more than any of the others, Our Lord is manifesting Himself to show His Real Presence in this particular host? He can't deny the Truth of it even if he doesn't "believe" it. Our Lord's ways are not our ways. None of us can know, let alone judge, the reasons God chooses to make Himself known. It can give us hope for those who were chosen to see it that one day they will also come to believe it.
Once again we see +Williamson's excessive credulity for things like visions and miracles being his Achilles' heel. We do not draw theological conclusions from such things, not ever. It's very easy for the devil to create fake miracles and visions.
I for one do not believe that God would ever perform a Eucharistic miracle if the Mass itself were displeasing to Him because that could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the Mass. So if Bishop Williamson thinks this "miracle" is legit (along with Garbandal, Valtorta, Dawn Marie, and all the other crap he believes in), then he has no business rejecting the New Mass or doing anything else that he does.
I'm sorry, but when people cling so much to these types of phenomena, that's generally a sign of weak faith. We don't need any of this crap to confirm our faith, and we most certainly do not theologize based on it.
Quote from: covet truthQuote from: LadislausOnce again we see +Williamson's excessive credulity for things like visions and miracles being his Achilles' heel. We do not draw theological conclusions from such things, not ever. It's very easy for the devil to create fake miracles and visions.
I for one do not believe that God would ever perform a Eucharistic miracle if the Mass itself were displeasing to Him because that could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the Mass. So if Bishop Williamson thinks this "miracle" is legit (along with Garbandal, Valtorta, Dawn Marie, and all the other crap he believes in), then he has no business rejecting the New Mass or doing anything else that he does.
I'm sorry, but when people cling so much to these types of phenomena, that's generally a sign of weak faith. We don't need any of this crap to confirm our faith, and we most certainly do not theologize based on it.
Did you ever consider that this miracle wasn't necessarily for you who doesn't need to have his faith confirmed, but what about the priest who found the host; or the people involved in the process of analyzing it? What about Bergoglio who, maybe more than any of the others, Our Lord is manifesting Himself to show His Real Presence in this particular host? He can't deny the Truth of it even if he doesn't "believe" it. Our Lord's ways are not our ways. None of us can know, let alone judge, the reasons God chooses to make Himself known. It can give us hope for those who were chosen to see it that one day they will also come to believe it.
For those that saw it, what "mass" does it help them to believe in? What mass does it lead them to attend?
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: covet truthQuote from: LadislausOnce again we see +Williamson's excessive credulity for things like visions and miracles being his Achilles' heel. We do not draw theological conclusions from such things, not ever. It's very easy for the devil to create fake miracles and visions.
I for one do not believe that God would ever perform a Eucharistic miracle if the Mass itself were displeasing to Him because that could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the Mass. So if Bishop Williamson thinks this "miracle" is legit (along with Garbandal, Valtorta, Dawn Marie, and all the other crap he believes in), then he has no business rejecting the New Mass or doing anything else that he does.
I'm sorry, but when people cling so much to these types of phenomena, that's generally a sign of weak faith. We don't need any of this crap to confirm our faith, and we most certainly do not theologize based on it.
Did you ever consider that this miracle wasn't necessarily for you who doesn't need to have his faith confirmed, but what about the priest who found the host; or the people involved in the process of analyzing it? What about Bergoglio who, maybe more than any of the others, Our Lord is manifesting Himself to show His Real Presence in this particular host? He can't deny the Truth of it even if he doesn't "believe" it. Our Lord's ways are not our ways. None of us can know, let alone judge, the reasons God chooses to make Himself known. It can give us hope for those who were chosen to see it that one day they will also come to believe it.
For those that saw it, what "mass" does it help them to believe in? What mass does it lead them to attend?
One can't discount the grace of God to lead them to the Truth. Where would any of us be without His grace that led us to Him, so unworthy thou we are?
You didn't answer my question. What mas does a supposed EM in the New "Mass" lead one?
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.
"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."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.
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.
Quote from: ihsv
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.
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".
"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.
+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?
A valid consecration, where transubstantiation occurs does NOT make the Mass automatically pleasing to God!!
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.............
CRAP? Seriously?
this eucharistic miracle is proof that the consecrations can be valid
Quote from: Pax VobisA valid consecration, where transubstantiation occurs does NOT make the Mass automatically pleasing to God!!
Except that if God were to work a miracle in relation to the New Mass, this would entail a tacit endorsement of the New Mass ... which IMO He would not do if it indeed displeases Him. Let me repeat. We do NOT draw theological conclusions from these things and they must be ignored.
Maybe ...
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: Pax VobisA valid consecration, where transubstantiation occurs does NOT make the Mass automatically pleasing to God!!
Except that if God were to work a miracle in relation to the New Mass, this would entail a tacit endorsement of the New Mass ... which IMO He would not do if it indeed displeases Him. Let me repeat. We do NOT draw theological conclusions from these things and they must be ignored.
What it means is that the New Mass can be a much greater sacrilege ...
We have no proof that the devil didn't concoct this entirely.
How can we be sure that the host came from a NO Mass? They just assumed that was the case.
Both were stubborn even in the face of facts.
Quote from: Clemens MariaHow 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. ;-)
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).
It's a "fact" that the kids at Garabandal were levitating backwards up steep hills. It's a "fact" that someone found a piece of heart tissue somewhere. But is the devil incapable of creating levitation, obtaining a piece of heart tissue, and putting words and visions into someone's mind? Clearly not. So before we begin speculating on what "God" might be trying to communicate here, that conversation needs to go hand in hand with what the devil may have been trying to accomplish with this.
To me, the following scenario of a diabolical activity is just as likely as that God was trying to tell us something.
Let's assume that the New Mass is invalid and/or displeasing to God and that Bergoglio in his activities as Francis is not pleasing to God. But in order to cast doubt on this, the devil concocts this miracle in order to get people thinking that the New Mass might be valid/pleasing to God, that Bergoglio might be a holy man after all, that Traditional Catholicism which criticizes both the New Mass and Bergoglio might be false, and that Bishop Williamson should announce publicly to people that one might attend the New Mass under certain circuмstances. In that case, mission accomplished for the devil based upon the replies we see on this thread. Lots of damage done through the simple act of finding a piece of cardiac tissue somewhere.
if God were to work a miracle in relation to the New Mass, this would entail a tacit endorsement of the New Mass ... which IMO He would not do if it indeed displeases Him. Let me repeat. We do NOT draw theological conclusions from these things and they must be ignored.
Again, you know this how? How do you know "what it means"? You're making it up. It's pure speculation. And, as such, it's utterly worthless.
To me, the following scenario of a diabolical activity is just as likely as that God was trying to tell us something.
Let's assume that the New Mass is invalid and/or displeasing to God and that Bergoglio in his activities as Francis is not pleasing to God. But in order to cast doubt on this, the devil concocts this miracle in order to get people thinking that the New Mass might be valid/pleasing to God, that Bergoglio might be a holy man after all, that Traditional Catholicism which criticizes both the New Mass and Bergoglio might be false, and that Bishop Williamson should announce publicly to people that one might attend the New Mass under certain circuмstances. In that case, mission accomplished for the devil based upon the replies we see on this thread. Lots of damage done through the simple act of finding a piece of cardiac tissue somewhere.
Quote from: MatthewBoth were stubborn even in the face of facts.
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.
Quote from: Ladislaus
To me, the following scenario of a diabolical activity is just as likely as that God was trying to tell us something.
Let's assume that the New Mass is invalid and/or displeasing to God and that Bergoglio in his activities as Francis is not pleasing to God. But in order to cast doubt on this, the devil concocts this miracle in order to get people thinking that the New Mass might be valid/pleasing to God, that Bergoglio might be a holy man after all, that Traditional Catholicism which criticizes both the New Mass and Bergoglio might be false, and that Bishop Williamson should announce publicly to people that one might attend the New Mass under certain circuмstances. In that case, mission accomplished for the devil based upon the replies we see on this thread. Lots of damage done through the simple act of finding a piece of cardiac tissue somewhere.
Pure speculation, therefore, utterly worthless.
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
Quote from: Ladislaus
if God were to work a miracle in relation to the New Mass, this would entail a tacit endorsement of the New Mass ... which IMO He would not do if it indeed displeases Him. Let me repeat. We do NOT draw theological conclusions from these things and they must be ignored.
Again, you know this how? How do you know "what it means"? You're making it up. It's pure speculation. And, as such, it's utterly worthless.
I couldn't say it better so I'll let your own words speak for me.
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 - perhaps so much so that He chose to show His pain and sorrow on this occasion. Why He chose to do this we will never know unless He reveals His reason.
Like you, I fear +Williamson will not leave it at that but will draw some theological conclusions from this which in some way, shape or form favors the NO, which I agree, is incredibly dangerous.
I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.
Quote from: covet truthI 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.
Quote from: covet truthI 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.
Quote from: covet truthI 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.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: covet truthI 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.
Evidently your logical faculties fail you. YOU are the one who's claiming that these purported miracles mean something. I am saying that they mean nothing. My point was that my own speculation is every bit as plausible as yours. Go take a course in Logic 101 and then rejoin this thread.
Quote from: Ladislaus
Evidently your logical faculties fail you. YOU are the one who's claiming that these purported miracles mean something. I am saying that they mean nothing. My point was that my own speculation is every bit as plausible as yours. Go take a course in Logic 101 and then rejoin this thread.
I am saying that they mean nothing to YOU. You can't say they "mean nothing" to those involved and who witnessed it.
Quote from: MatthewQuote from: LadislausQuote from: covet truthI 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.
Quote from: StubbornTo 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.
. :applause:Quote from: Neil Obstat.
So much for the Mohammedan menace. We're taking two weeks for Newmass Eucharistic miracles.
:applause:
So much for the Mohammedan menace. We're taking two weeks for Newmass Eucharistic miracles.
I'm starting to see that the "good willed" sedevacantists are the exception.
I think Sedevacantism, as a solution to the Crisis, is the equivalent of curing the disease by killing the patient.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: MatthewQuote from: LadislausQuote from: covet truthI 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.
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: LadislausQuote from: MatthewQuote from: LadislausQuote from: covet truthI 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.
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: LadislausQuote from: MatthewQuote from: LadislausQuote from: covet truthI 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.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: StubbornTo 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.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: covet truthI 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. It gets better ever time it's told. By now, there should be rumors he's saying the NOM itself.
He made a bad judgment call giving a lady private advice in a public forum, and he was CRUCIFIED for it. I think the reaction was way overblown. No rule has changed, and +W is still a huge proponent of the Resistance and rejecting the Novus Ordo -- at least for those who understand. But what about those (objective) fools who don't understand? But I'm not going to get into that discussion again.
But like I said: "sedevacantists". They'll take anything they can get to go on another attack. It's what they do.
I hope I'm not referring to any members here. But to anyone who enjoyed the various CRAP coming out of certain sede quarters regarding +Williamson a few months ago -- well, there's not much I can say.
Ladislaus, are you sedevacantist now?
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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: LadislausQuote from: StubbornTo 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.
Quote from: 2VermontLadislaus, are you sedevacantist now?
I'm a sede-doubtist. I think that it's very likely that the Holy See is vacant but do not have competence or authority to make that determination on my own without the authority of the Church. If I were a sedeplenist, I would immediately return to communion with and canonical submission to the Holy See. R&R (as currently defined by most, with the exception of someone like Father Chazal who's effectively a sedeprivationist) just isn't Catholic.
It's entirely logical that those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy sould recognize the Novus Ordo Mass as essentially Catholic, even if there are sometimes problems with the way it is celebrated. It's therefore entirely reasonable that those people should be saying that Catholics can attend the NO when it's celebrated "reverently", and try to justify this with alleged Eucharistic miracles.
It's disappointing though, I used to think Bp Williamson was a solid traditionalist. Obviously not.
Quote from: AlanFIt's entirely logical that those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy sould recognize the Novus Ordo Mass as essentially Catholic, even if there are sometimes problems with the way it is celebrated. It's therefore entirely reasonable that those people should be saying that Catholics can attend the NO when it's celebrated "reverently", and try to justify this with alleged Eucharistic miracles.
It's disappointing though, I used to think Bp Williamson was a solid traditionalist. Obviously not.
That's a good point, but ABL even said that the NO leads to heresy. I have a hard time believing that he would consider an EM in a service that "leads to heresy".
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: AlanFIt's entirely logical that those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy sould recognize the Novus Ordo Mass as essentially Catholic, even if there are sometimes problems with the way it is celebrated. It's therefore entirely reasonable that those people should be saying that Catholics can attend the NO when it's celebrated "reverently", and try to justify this with alleged Eucharistic miracles.
It's disappointing though, I used to think Bp Williamson was a solid traditionalist. Obviously not.
That's a good point, but ABL even said that the NO leads to heresy. I have a hard time believing that he would consider an EM in a service that "leads to heresy".
No, Archbishop Lefebvre even celebrated the "new mass" since the beginning of April 1969 until December 24, 1970. There were many who were not happy about this, of course. For example, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers.
Fr. Guérard des Lauriers to Msgr. Lefèbvre:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm
Here the critics implicitly claim that in the Novus Ordo (modern) mass cannot be some miracle. It is a logical fallacy:
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: 2VermontQuote from: AlanFIt's entirely logical that those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy sould recognize the Novus Ordo Mass as essentially Catholic, even if there are sometimes problems with the way it is celebrated. It's therefore entirely reasonable that those people should be saying that Catholics can attend the NO when it's celebrated "reverently", and try to justify this with alleged Eucharistic miracles.
It's disappointing though, I used to think Bp Williamson was a solid traditionalist. Obviously not.
That's a good point, but ABL even said that the NO leads to heresy. I have a hard time believing that he would consider an EM in a service that "leads to heresy".
No, Archbishop Lefebvre even celebrated the "new mass" since the beginning of April 1969 until December 24, 1970. There were many who were not happy about this, of course. For example, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers.
Fr. Guérard des Lauriers to Msgr. Lefèbvre:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm
Yes that was in 1970. His views on the New Mass changed as time went on......
http://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass
To use your analogy, I think ignoring the reality of Crisis, i.e, that the See of Peter is vacant, is the equivalent of refusing to operate even though the patient is clearly suffering from a massive tumor that is growing and killing him and simply declaring that the cancer will reverse itself on its own.
If you put faith into this "miracle" you would be logically compelled to accept post V2 theology. You can't limit the implications of such a miracle merely to the validity of the sacrament. It would most certainly be a confirmation of the entire Conciliar approach.
Quote from: Clemens MariaIf you put faith into this "miracle" you would be logically compelled to accept post V2 theology. You can't limit the implications of such a miracle merely to the validity of the sacrament. It would most certainly be a confirmation of the entire Conciliar approach.
Remember this thinking is within the R&R universe, where you can point out the apostasies and heresies of the conciliar church while maintaining that it it the True Church of Christ, never drawing to the conclusions from the facts that are in evidence
We are back to half rotten fruit again.
If you put faith into this "miracle" you would be logically compelled to accept post V2 theology. You can't limit the implications of such a miracle merely to the validity of the sacrament. It would most certainly be a confirmation of the entire Conciliar approach.
No, Archbishop Lefebvre even celebrated the "new mass" since the beginning of April 1969 until December 24, 1970. There were many who were not happy about this, of course. For example, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers.
Fr. Guérard des Lauriers to Msgr. Lefèbvre:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm
I hope Bp Williamson looks at a video recently put out by the Schism House. It is titled: Magicians Prove A Spiritual World Exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkZvYglefsU
Quote from: AJNCI hope Bp Williamson looks at a video recently put out by the Schism House. It is titled: Magicians Prove A Spiritual World Exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkZvYglefsU
My husband and I just watched this over the past few days or so. One of the things that stuck with me were the "magicians" that walked on water.
How do you think bishop Williamson is going to conclude this topic in the following EC? What was his purpose in pointing out the miracles in the NO?
Quote from: Paul FHCHow do you think bishop Williamson is going to conclude this topic in the following EC? What was his purpose in pointing out the miracles in the NO?
He already has concluded this. His conclusion is simple: The Novus Ordo is possibly licit and valid, as are the priests and bishops. Only, it's hard to tell because the Novus Ordo has been compromised with Vatican II theology.
I have so many problems with this conclusion, from a logical standpoint, that I am really having a hard time with Bishop Williamson at this point. However, it does explain to me how he can support Garabandal and the writings of Maria Valtorta.
If I actually did believe that the NO was both valid and licit, I never would have left because that would have been true disobedience. I just would have continued to stay and prayed for God to have mercy on me and my family for our obedience.
+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.
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..
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).
It's a "fact" that the kids at Garabandal were levitating backwards up steep hills. It's a "fact" that someone found a piece of heart tissue somewhere. But is the devil incapable of creating levitation, obtaining a piece of heart tissue, and putting words and visions into someone's mind? Clearly not. So before we begin speculating on what "God" might be trying to communicate here, that conversation needs to go hand in hand with what the devil may have been trying to accomplish with this..
To me, the following scenario of a diabolical activity is just as likely as that God was trying to tell us something.
Let's assume that the New Mass is invalid and/or displeasing to God and that Bergoglio in his activities as Francis is not pleasing to God. But in order to cast doubt on this, the devil concocts this miracle in order to get people thinking that the New Mass might be valid/pleasing to God, that Bergoglio might be a holy man after all, that Traditional Catholicism which criticizes both the New Mass and Bergoglio might be false, and that Bishop Williamson should announce publicly to people that one might attend the New Mass under certain circuмstances. In that case, mission accomplished for the devil based upon the replies we see on this thread. Lots of damage done through the simple act of finding a piece of cardiac tissue somewhere.
.
Quote from Ladislaus:QuoteWe 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.
While I can imagine a Host turning into blood might suggest the contrary to some who are already willfully blind to the abomination of the NOM, that thought never entered my mind nor does it seem to have entered the thoughts of others here.
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 - perhaps so much so that He chose to show His pain and sorrow on this occasion. Why He chose to do this we will never know unless He reveals His reason.
Like you, I fear +Williamson will not leave it at that but will draw some theological conclusions from this which in some way, shape or form favors the NO, which I agree, is incredibly dangerous.
covet truth said:.QuotePure speculation, therefore, utterly worthless.
Except that I am not the one drawing conclusions from this. YOU ARE. Your conclusions are just as worthless as any I might make. Except of course that I'm not making any conclusions. I'm saying in fact that no conclusion can be drawn EITHER WAY about this.
.
You get it! It only makes the NOM worse than if it was invalid. I have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O. Chances are he will ask for our prayers and sacrifices in reparation for these grievous sins being committed every hour of every day around the world. We'll just have to wait and see what follows in Part II.
.Quote
And where have you been? He's already condoned attending the NOM.
Shows Fr. Wathen for a good shepherd. He warned people about the Novus Ordo and stayed away from it himself. Also condemned the Indult/Motu Masses. Did not change his positions - knew the conspiracy in the Church and the tricks of the hierarchy.
Quote from: Ladislaus.QuoteQuote from: covet truthHe made a bad judgment call giving a lady private advice in a public forum, and he was CRUCIFIED for it. I think the reaction was way overblown. No rule has changed, and +W is still a huge proponent of the Resistance and rejecting the Novus Ordo -- at least for those who understand. But what about those (objective) fools who don't understand? But I'm not going to get into that discussion again.QuoteI have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]And where have you been? He's already condoned attending the NOM.[/font][/size]
But like I said: "sedevacantists". They'll take anything they can get to go on another attack. It's what they do.
I hope I'm not referring to any members here. But to anyone who enjoyed the various CRAP coming out of certain sede quarters regarding +Williamson a few months ago -- well, there's not much I can say.
Quote from: covet truthQuoteI have no fear that +Williamson will in any way endorse or take a position that favors the N.O.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]And where have you been? He's already condoned attending the NOM.[/font][/size]
Quote from: covet truth.QuoteQuote from: Ladislaus:facepalm:QuoteEvidently your logical faculties fail you. YOU are the one who's claiming that these purported miracles mean something.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]I am saying that they mean nothing to YOU. You can't say they "mean nothing" to those involved and who witnessed it.[/font][/size]
I am saying that they mean nothing. My point was that my own speculation is every bit as plausible as yours. Go take a course in Logic 101 and then rejoin this thread.
I am saying that they mean nothing objectively or from a theological standpoint. Subjective "meaning" has nothing to do with this.
Quote from: covet truth.QuoteQuote from: 2VermontBergoglio has had every opportunity to ban the practice in the Universal Church.QuoteQuote from: Ladislaus[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]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. [/font][/size]QuoteQuote from: MatthewAnd this "miracle" appears to validate such attendance.QuoteQuote from: LadislausI 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.QuoteQuote from: covet truthOh please. That whole comment was blown WAY out of proportion.QuoteI 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.
Quote from: 2Vermont.QuoteWhat 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.Several pre-Vatican II EM's involved attempted desecrations. There is one that involved a woman stealing a host for sacrilegious purposes, even though Communion in the hand was not allowed. She quickly removed the Lord from her mouth. So it was indeed to show that God was offended by the action. But it was consecrated at a Tridentine Mass, and so it had nothing to do with the Mass itself.
But it is my opinion that God would not even tacitly endorse a Mass that displeases Him. If the NOM displeases Him, something like this would in effect give a divine stamp of approval to the NOM itself rather than just be taken as condemning the practice of Communion in the hand. In fact, the Novus Ordites probably do not see this as a commentary of Communion in the hand but just against a grosser mistreatment of the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, this incident occurred due to Communion in the hand, but pre Vatican II desecrations occurred even when Communion was given exclusively on the tongue.
.
Quote from: 2VermontQuoteQuote from: StubbornQuoteQuote from: Ladislaus[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]QuoteQuote from: StubbornQuoteTo 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.[/font][/size]
I won't presume to guess about the reasons God had for the pre-V2 miracles, but because the True Mass is the propitiatory sacrifice and pleases God, we can safely rule that out as a reason God might have to show His displeasure for those EM's pre-V2.
It's entirely logical that those who recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy sould recognize the Novus Ordo Mass as essentially Catholic, even if there are sometimes problems with the way it is celebrated. It's therefore entirely reasonable that those people should be saying that Catholics can attend the NO when it's celebrated "reverently", and try to justify this with alleged Eucharistic miracles..
It's disappointing though, I used to think Bp Williamson was a solid traditionalist. Obviously not.
If you put faith into this "miracle" you would be logically compelled to accept post V2 theology. You can't limit the implications of such a miracle merely to the validity of the sacrament. It would most certainly be a confirmation of the entire Conciliar approach..
.
Quote from: J.PaulQuoteQuote from: Clemens MariaQuoteIf you put faith into this "miracle" you would be logically compelled to accept post V2 theology. You can't limit the implications of such a miracle merely to the validity of the sacrament. It would most certainly be a confirmation of the entire Conciliar approach.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]Remember this thinking is within the R&R universe, where you can point out the apostasies and heresies of the conciliar church while maintaining that it it the True Church of Christ, never drawing to the conclusions from the facts that are in evidence
We are back to half rotten fruit again.[/font][/size]
What a rotten mess! The R&R daily becomes more untenable. To say that the Conciliar Church is the Mystical Body while shunning its head and all of his Bishops, calling him the Vicar and his Bishops the Apostles while maintaining they are pariah to the remnant is almost ridiculous.
You either agree they are legit, in which case it would seem to be part of your duty as a Catholic to convert them, or agree that they are a different religion and be done with it.
I would like to start by saying that I believe, the Mass of the ages (The Holy Tridentine Mass) is what God has given us and we should strive to preserve and pray for it’s complete restoration..
However, here are some questions I would like to ask:
---- With approx. 1.2 Billion Roman Catholics around the world, there are approx. 415K NO priests as compared to approx. 1K to 2K priests who say the Tridentine mass (including SSPX and others). If the same ratio is true with the faithful, we are left with approx. 0.25% to 0.5% Traditional Catholics…..Would Our Dear Father in Heaven have left His children ( remaining 99.5%) without a valid Mass for 46+ years, until they could stumble across a Traditional Mass?
---- There have been many Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo..…why? Could it be that Our Blessed Lord is trying to bolster the faith of an impoverished NO faithful that has been abandoned for the last 46 years and left with a ‘weakened’ doctrine and liturgy?
---- Do we realize that thousands of Catholic are tortured and die for their Catholic faith in recent times in places like Algeria, India, Vietnam, Iraq, Colombia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Liberia, China and Indonesia to name a few….. Aren’t most, if not all of them NO, who have received Our Lord in the Eucharist?
I do agree the Novus Ordo Missae was forced upon the faithful against their will…however in his infinite Mercy, God would never abandon his NO faithful although it may often seem so to us mere mortals.
In the meantime, what would God want us to do? I believe those of us who have been given the grace to ‘understand’, are duty bound to assist in the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass, witness and spread the truth to our NO Bishops, priests and faithful. Also, by proclaiming our faith and doctrine with our non-Catholic neighbors. This is often accomplished with a humble and charitable disposition towards our NO brethren.
Quote from: Paul FHCQuoteHow do you think bishop Williamson is going to conclude this topic in the following EC? What was his purpose in pointing out the miracles in the NO?
He already has concluded this. His conclusion is simple: The Novus Ordo is possibly licit and valid, as are the priests and bishops. Only, it's hard to tell because the Novus Ordo has been compromised with Vatican II theology.
I have so many problems with this conclusion, from a logical standpoint, that I am really having a hard time with Bishop Williamson at this point. However, it does explain to me how he can support Garabandal and the writings of Maria Valtorta.
If I actually did believe that the NO was both valid and licit, I never would have left because that would have been true disobedience. I just would have continued to stay and prayed for God to have mercy on me and my family for our obedience.
| "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." |
It's mainly the sedevacantists and sedewhatevers who believe that the Novus Ordo is always invalid..
That Bp. Williamson allows for the possibility that it may be valid is a scandal to them, and their personal interpretation of Scripture.
Sedevacantists believe that the Church has defected, and that nothing of it remains in Rome. That's not the Resistance view, however.
A fitting addition,.
"He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth."
There are so many tricks magicians/illusionists use. Personally they all creep me out and I refuse to watch them. But I know that even "walking on water" can be accomplished with a simple glass platform right under the water. The real ones though, I believe they use the power of evil spirits, yes.FAIRYLAND IS HELL
And yet, we're supposed to accept this "miracle" in Argentina at face value? Especially when neo-rome is LOOKING for a miracle, like they did for JPII's canonization? So many problems here and neo-rome is not unbaised or impartial in these matters, so their "approval" is tainted. +W should be way more cautious about all of this. It's embarassing.
But to assume that it absolutely could not be a eucharistic miracleThe Church assumes it is not a miracle until it is proved otherwise. If the investigation is biased (it is), and if the rome officials are biased (they are), and if there is motivation to lie (absolutely there is), then we should not treat it like a miracle, per Church thinking.
to say it could not be a miracle is like saying that the Novus Ordo is indeed invalid, because it could never possibly take place in an invalid Mass.Even if the consecration is valid at a Novus Ordo, the mass is still sinful. No one has ever said that all N.O. masses are invalid. Straw man argument.
.The long and the short of it is that Holy Scripture is, at least on a certain level, is accessible to the lay person who reads it. The Lord does not make it difficult or impossible to understand basic points of doctrine and examples which were imparted to us by Our Lord.
The real startling thing about prophesy is, when the the literal words for perhaps centuries or even millennia make no sense in the big picture, that is, there are many different ways of interpreting what is really being predicted; then one day, something happens where all doubt is removed "for those with eyes to see and ears to hear." Meaning that there could continue to be deniers, those who cling to the longstanding state of diversity of interpretation. But for those without obstacles to their faith, the meaning of the prophesy becomes clear as a crystal glass.
.
The term "clear as a bell" refers to the clear sound a bell makes, one that carries over vast distances. I knew a man who refused to understand this, and enjoyed scoffing at the ridiculousness that a bell could appear to be "clear" when bells are visually opaque. So he was an example of one who prefers to cling to his ignorance, even when the thing is explained to him.
.
The long and the short of it is that Holy Scripture is, at least on a certain level, is accessible to the lay person who reads it. The Lord does not make it difficult or impossible to understand basic points of doctrine and examples which were imparted to us by Our Lord.
Yes the appearance of the bell and the message which it carries are two different things, two different realities if you will..
The Scripture quoted by is when [??] applied to this and like situations, is crystal clear, beware of false Christs and beware of miracles which are presented in His name.
A clear divine teaching which is unassailable to simple men of Faith who are pure of heart and without guile, and yes, who have ears to hear. <-- [not a sentence]
Our Faith teaches us to discern the spirits, what spirit is behind this thrice proposed miracle? Who and what benefits from our belief in such alleged events? Is it the Church? Is it the Novus Ordo cabal? is it the Devil? Is it this or that cleric who takes on its cause?
Yes, discern the spirit of these and other apparitions, visions, and miracles, but do so under the teaching of our Lord and you will find that there are very few that are genuine and wholesome to the soul, and which will contribute to our eternal end.
.
I don't think that Bp. Williamson is insisting that everyone accept the Argentine situation at face value.
That would be to use sedevacantist logic.
FAIRYLAND IS HELL.
MAGIC IS DEMON POWER
by Paula Haigh
Chapter FiveDoctrinal considerationsMagic is Lucifer’s attempt to imitate the power of God to work miracles. More subtly and more dangerously, it is his attempt to imitate and thereby replace the Sacraments of the Church. St. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, addressed to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, says:‘After Christ’s Ascension into heaven, the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you but even deemed worthy of honors. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of a village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in our royal city of Rome, did mighty works of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: “Simoni Deo Sancto” (To Simon the holy god). And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. …’
St. Justin is here showing Simon to have been both a magician, working by devils, and a Gnostic, for the Gnostics, besides being magicians intent upon destroying the doctrine of creation as narrated in Genesis One, were obsessed with generational genealogies, or adaptations of the pagan theogonies – not unlike what both C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien do in their popular works of fiction. One wonders just how fictional the fantasies were in the minds of these authors, especially Lewis who defends both his Narnia for grown-ups, his space trilogy, and his Narnian Chronicles for children, with long philosophical disquisitions.
But more of Lewis and Tolkien later. For now it is important to note that the great heresy of Gnosticism, really a false religion, besides being a huge frontal attack on the doctrine of’ Creation and the nature of God as Trinity, also claimed to have superior knowledge from which flowed the magical powers of their Magicians. These three tenets of the Gnostic religion are found in the Fantasy literature, most explicitly in the works of Lewis and Tolkien, but also in many others as will be illustrated later.
Saint Irenaeus also has much to say of Simon the Magician whom be calls “the father of all heretics”[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftn1) insisting more than once that “all these heretics, taking their rise from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this life” that is of the world and the Church.[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftn2) St. Irenaeus explains how Simon approached St. Peter[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftn3):
‘This Simon, then – who feigned faith, supposing that the Apostles themselves performed their cures by the art of magic, and not by the power of God; and with respect to their filling with the Holy Ghost, through the imposition of hands, those that believed in God through Him who was preached by them, namely, Christ Jesus – suspecting that even this was done by a kind of greater knowledge of magic, and offering money to the Apostles, thought he, too, might receive this power of bestowing the Holy Spirit on whomsoever he would – was addressed in these words by Peter: “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God can be purchased with money: thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God; for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” He, then, not putting faith in God a whit the more, set himself eagerly to contend against the Apostles, in order that he himself might seem to be a wonderful being, and applied himself with still greater zeal to the study of the whole magic art, that he might the better bewilder and overpower multitudes of men.… and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father, while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit. He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him.’
Here in Simon the Magician we see, at least in germ, that attack upon the Most Blessed Trinity and Unity of God so fiercely defended by the early Fathers against these early heretics. For Simon was followed by Menander, also a Samaritan, who deceived many by his magical art and also by Marcion, a man of Pontus, who, by the aid of devils, persuaded many to believe in some other god greater than the Creator of Genesis One........
Finally, it would be well to emphasize the difference between the miracles worked by God through His Saints and good Angels and the magical arts of the demons working through magicians, witches, sorcerers, etc.
St. Thomas insists that real miracles are the work of God alone, that “God alone can work miracles.” [4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftn4) But it seems that God can delegate certain powers to the good Angels:‘Some Angels are said to work miracles, either because God works miracles at their request, in the same way as holy men are said to work miracles, or because they exercise a kind of ministry in the miracles which take place; as in collecting the dust in the general resurrection, or by doing something of that kind.’
The demons, like the good angels, because of their superior natural knowledge of created laws and causes, may do works that seem to us miraculous because we do not know the causes or the laws being manipulated. St. Thomas says: “These things are called miracles, not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. In this way the magicians work miracles through the demons.…” [5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftn5)‘… the devil can deceive the human fancy so that a man really seems to be an animal. … Therefore the devil can, by moving the inner perceptions and humors effect changes in the actions and faculties, physical, mental, and emotional, working by means of any physical organs whatsoever. … William of Paris tells of a certain man who thought that he was turned into a wolf ... which went about devouring children; and though the devil, having possessed a wolf, was really doing this, he erroneously thought that he was prowling about in his sleep. And he was for so long thus out of his senses that he was at last found lying in the wood raving. The devil delights in such things and caused the illusion of the pagans who believed that men and old women were changed into beasts. …’ (First Part, Question 10)
At the same time, we cannot underestimate the power of the devil over the secret workings of nature. As Fr Valentine Long says, the Devils are instant scientists, since, by their superior knowledge, they can see into the minutest processes of corporeal things. Who can fail to realize, with mounting horror, the demonic inspiration of the modern scientists who with truly diabolical irreverence, and the most brutal arrogance, probe the very genetic structure of the human cell and seek to manipulate its activities to inhuman ends. For it may well be asked: Did God ever intend for us to see into the deepest recesses of our bodies and to know how they work in order to bend their actions to human and even bestial purposes? Certainly not.The power of the devils to effect these illusory transformations is borne out abundantly in the lives of the Saints who were tormented and tried by devils in various physical forms: as Angels of light or as horrifying animals. And we might well ask: if the good angels can take on human forms, as did the Archangel Raphael to guide the young Tobias, could not the demons, also, take on material forms in order to work their evil designs, as far as God permits?In the Fantasy literature, Magicians who, as St. Thomas says, work their “miracles” through the demons, exercise magical powers. And the Malleus, speaking of Witches, tells us even more emphatically those effects of magic:‘… cannot be procured without resort to the power of the devil, and it is necessary that there should be made a contract with the devil, by which contract the witch truly and actually binds herself to be the servant of the devil and devotes herself to the devil, and this is not done in any dream or under any illusion, but she herself bodily and truly co-operates with, and conjoins herself to, the devil. For this indeed is the end of all witchcraft, whether it be the casting of spells by a look or by a formula of words or by some other charm, it is all of the devil, ...’ p.7
And the Malleus, again speaking of Witches and Magicians:
‘… that the works of witches can in some way be called miraculous, in so far as they exceed human knowledge, is clear from their very nature; for they are not done naturally. It is shown also by all the Doctors, especially St. Augustine in Book 83, where he says that by magic arts many miracles are wrought similar to those miracles that are done by the servants of God. And again in the same book he says that Magicians do miracles by private contract, good Christians by public justice, and bad Christians by the signs of public justice. And all this is explained as follows.
For there is a Divine Justice in the whole universe, just as there is a public law in the State. But the virtue of any creature has to do with the universe, as that of the private individual has to do with the State, Therefore inasmuch as good Christians work miracles by Divine Justice, they are said to work them by public justice. But the Magician, since he works through a pact entered into with the devil, is said to work by private contract for the works by means of the devil, who by his natural power can do things outside the order of created nature as known to us, through the virtue of a creature unknown to us; and it will be for us a miracle, although not actually so, since he cannot work outside the order of the whole of created nature, and through all the virtues of creatures unknown to us. For in this way only God is said to work miracles...’ (p.38)‘Magic’ in the 20th CenturyThese principles explain how such seemingly miraculous events as those exhibited by men like Edgar Cayce and Brazilian José Pedro de Freitas, known as Arigo, can take place. Both men were obviously Magicians in the technical sense, though the term was never applied to them. Gary North, in his book Unholy Spirits[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftn6) gives us in detail the story of each of these modern day Merlyns. Most important to note is that each one of them made a pact with occult powers (Gary North calls it “occult bondage”) and both men insisted they wanted to do good in the world.Edgar Cayce (l877-l945) was born in small-town Kentucky and his story is most complex. He was a devout reader of the Bible (at age thirteen he was on his twelfth reading of the Bible in its entirety) though he belonged to no particular denomination. However, he is a prime example of the Protestant principle of private interpretation, as he attempted, in later life, to reconcile his theosophical-Gnostic beliefs with the Scriptures.As a child, he claimed to see “little people” and at thirteen he experienced a vision of a “lady with wings” who asked him what he wanted most (like the fairy-godmother of the Fairy Tale literature). He answered that he wanted to be of service to people. She granted his wish and thus the contract with the satanic power was sealed. Cayce began immediately to demonstrate a remarkable ability: always a poor student and especially an abysmal speller, even beaten by his father for his scholastic failures, he heard the lady’s voice say, “If you can sleep a little we can help you.” (Note the pronoun “we” for these lesser devils rarely work alone). Cayce put his spelling book behind his head, dozed for a while (probably a self-induced trance, or a type of self-hypnosis) and on awaking, knew every word in the book, including the page numbers and lines. This method was repeated with every schoolbook he had and the miracle, likewise, was repeated.This was the beginning of his real ministry of healing. In 1900, he lost his voice. It was restored by a hypnotist but only while under hypnosis. This hypnotist, Dr. A. Layne, having a previous experience to go on, put Cayce into a trance and told him to diagnose his own problem:‘Immediately, the fateful words came forth: “Yes, we can see the body.” The voice diagnosed the problem as insufficient circulation. Layne gave a suggestion that the body cure itself. Cayce’s neck grew pink, then bright red. Twenty minutes later, it became normal again. Layne told Cayce to wake up, and when he did, his voice had returned.’
And what North adds here is of the utmost significance, for it highlights the fact of Cayce’s dependence, a willing slavery, to the satanic power.
‘This was the beginning, not only of Cayce’s diagnostic ministry, but also of a lifetime of trouble with his voice. His biographers seldom refer to the fact that throughout the remainder of his life – 45 years – Cayce had recurring voice failures. He was completely dependent upon his trance state and its circulation stimulation to return his waking voice to normal. No one could give a physiological reason for the loss of his voice. Those familiar with demon possession would immediately recognize the cause: occult bondage. Cayce could not abandon the physical “readings” once they had begun. He was trapEven more spectacular is the case of Arigo, a Brazilian peasant who became, however, involved in Union politics. Again, the humanitarian motive is present. He was trapped by a voice and dream-visions which promised to cure him of terrible headaches. The voice identified itself as that of Dr. Adolpho Fritz, a German physician who had died in 1918. When Arigo capitulated to Dr. Fritz, promising to help him in his work, his headaches immediately ceased, beginning again only when he later temporarily agreed to discontinue the healings. But:
‘Like Edgar Cayce, Arigo was possessed; without becoming a healer, he could not avoid the headaches and dreams, just as Cayce could not maintain his voice. Arigo was trapped.’
When Arigo put up a sign outside his house that read: “In this house, we are all Catholics. Spiritism is a thing of the Devil,” his headaches returned, along with daytime blackouts. He had undergone exorcism by the Church in Brazil. But he could not be cured except by the pact with “Dr. Fritz” to continue his work of healing. And the healings, which continued from 1950 to 1970, are surely the most bizarre in all of occult literature.The first occurred while Arigo still controlled the Union, as its president. A pro-labour politician [Bittencourt] was informed that he had lung cancer that required immediate surgery and he intended to return to the U.S.A. as soon as the campaign was over. He spent that night in the same hotel with Arigo. As he lay in his bed, Arigo entered his room:‘He seemed to be in a trance. He was carrying a razor. Bittencourt blacked out. When he awoke the next morning, his pajama top was slashed, there was blood on both his chest and pajama top, and there was a neat incision on his rib cage. He got up, staggered to his closet to get dressed. He was in a state of shock. He went to Arigo and told him what he had seen. Then Arigo went into a state of shock. He had no memory of such a thing.’
Later, when x-rayed, the senator was told that all traces of the cancer were gone. He began to tell people what had happened to him, and the sick and wounded began streaming to the door of Arigo’s house. This continued for the next two decades.Arigo’s usual method was to take a pocket knife or some other common, cutting instrument, jab it into the body of the sick person, usually the eye, twist it around violently, reach in and pull out the growth or whatever was the source of the trouble, seal up the flesh in a matter of seconds, without stitches, and send the patient away cured. There was no pain on the part of the patient, no fear, little bleeding – if there was, he would simply tell it to stop – and no scarring. These operations were witnessed by scores of physicians and even recorded on film. No one ever detected a single sign of fraud, manipulation or sleight-of-hand.[ (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftn8)[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref1) Preface, Book III.[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref2) Preface, Book II.[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref3) Acts 8:20-23.[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref4) ST, I, Q 110, a 4, ad 1.[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref5) ST, I, Q110, a 4, ad 2.[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref6) Dominion Press, 1986.[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref7) Cf. F. Crombette, CESHE, France.[8] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref8)See Reader’s Digest, March 1975 for some of this docuмentation.[9] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref9) ST, I, Q 57, a 3.
[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref10) See Proverbs 30.[11] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref11) Second Apology of Justin, ch, v.[12] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/Paula's%20Fairy%20Book%20(2).doc#_ftnref12) Malleus. Part One. Question III, p.28.