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.

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.

That was my thought also.

Quote from: 2Vermont

It is interesting that this is part of today's gospel reading:

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

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


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

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


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

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

Displeasure?  How?  The description of the EM sounds just like pre-Vatican II EM's.

Quote from: NatusAdMaiora

Here is the link

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

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

It looks like this:

Quote from: Recusant Sede

But he believes that it is truly a miracle and if it really is, then God is saying that this service is holy and should be celebrated by all priests. That would be the only purpose that I can think of why God would allow a miracle to take place. Ergo, the NO is good and holy. But we all know it is intrinsically evil. Just one example is the heretical falsification of Christ's words from "for many" to "for all men".

Not at all.  There was a story once of a Jewess who, in order to obtain money for her ill husband's surgery, agreed to obtain a consecrated host and deliver it to some wealthier of her kind.  Having stolen the host and making the exchange, her compatriots proceeded to cut it with a knife.  The host began to bleed at once.  In this case, the miracle was meant to confound the sacrilegious acts of these men.  

IF the purported miracle that +Williamson speaks of is true, the only thing it means is that that particular consecration was valid.  It means nothing more.  It is neither a seal of approval of the New Mass, nor is it a vindication of the new religion.

And in terms of the validity of the consecration of the New Mass, I have no idea whether it's valid or not.  My objections to it are much deeper than that.  

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

And now, this partly-told account, that makes the Novus Ordo look better, hangs out there for a week, before readers get "the rest of the story" (whatever that may be).  

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.

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.

Ladislaus said:
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




CRAP? Seriously?