Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.  (Read 18411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 13825
  • Reputation: +5568/-865
  • Gender: Male
Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
« Reply #75 on: November 23, 2015, 10:59:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.


       

     
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16477
    • Reputation: +4866/-1803
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #76 on: November 23, 2015, 11:17:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Emerentiana
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    .

    So much for the Mohammedan menace.  We're taking two weeks for Newmass Eucharistic miracles.


     :applause:
    .    :applause:
    Logged
    May God bless you and keep you

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16477
    • Reputation: +4866/-1803
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #77 on: November 23, 2015, 11:18:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Yes, what about the ongoing h0Ɩ0cαųst of Christians?
    Logged
    May God bless you and keep you

    Offline MariaCatherine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1061
    • Reputation: +353/-9
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #78 on: November 23, 2015, 11:24:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    So much for the Mohammedan menace.  We're taking two weeks for Newmass Eucharistic miracles.

    Not really. I'm sure the Bishop knows we're aware of that already.
    Logged
    What return shall I make to the Lord for all the things that He hath given unto me?

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4622/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #79 on: November 23, 2015, 11:35:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew
    I'm starting to see that the "good willed" sedevacantists are the exception.


    Actually, I've had the same opinion of the non-sedevacantist because most non-sedevacantists seem to be rabidly anti-sedevacantist.  Sorry, but I just don't see what you're seeing on this topic or virtually any topic on this forum.

    Quote from: Matthew
    I think Sedevacantism, as a solution to the Crisis, is the equivalent of curing the disease by killing the patient.


    You don't seem to understand sedevacantism.  Sedevacantism (which is not a proper noun) is certainly not a solution to the Crisis.  Sedevacantism is merely the explanation of how the Crisis could be such that the purported pope is scared of Catholic priests, who is itching for granting public adulterers the right to receive communion, who is winking and nodding at ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists, who has hinted at inter-communion with Lutherans, etc., etc., etc.  

    I'm not smart enough to know the solution, but I do know that there will be no solution until a great many people have admitted the problem.

    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.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #80 on: November 23, 2015, 11:59:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • You are one of the rare SVs TKGS, one of the exceptions Matthew mentioned.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline covet truth

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 277
    • Reputation: +317/-15
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #81 on: November 23, 2015, 12:01:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.  
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #82 on: November 23, 2015, 03:35:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #83 on: November 23, 2015, 04:39:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?
    Logged
    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. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #84 on: November 23, 2015, 04:46:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    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. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline stgobnait

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1346
    • Reputation: +941/-65
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #85 on: November 23, 2015, 04:54:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Perhaps He was, when He saw that His Real Presence was not being Venerated as It should have been. Disbelieved even.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #86 on: November 23, 2015, 04:56:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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. 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?
    Logged
    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. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Paulus Dei

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 1
    • Reputation: +9/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #87 on: November 23, 2015, 07:15:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Here the critics implicitly claim that in the Novus Ordo (modern) mass cannot be some miracle. It is a logical fallacy: M. Miracles are made by the power of God to prove the truth or kindness of something . m.: The New Mass is bad. C.: Then, it cannot be any miracles in the new mass. About the minor I distinguish : the rite of the Mass celebrated according to the Novus Ordo is a bad thing, I grant; the new Mass validly celebrated, as in this mass is verified the Sacrament and exist Eucharistic Sacrifice is something equally bad, I deny it ; whereby the fallacy is destroyed.
    An eventual miracle in the new mass validly celebrated would confirm, for example, the catholic doctrine about the real presence of Crist in the consecrated species, not the pretended kindness of the “bastard rite.”
    Even more, the prophecy it’s an intellectual miracle. Caifas really prophesied, but not because God wanted to prove the moral kindness of Caifas through a  miracle.
    (...)

    From the breviary of the  Society Saint Pius X (Holy Cross Seminary, 1998):

    Why the Catholics should abstain from the new mass?

    The criticism to the “new rite” [1] cannot be a critic of the mass herself, because this one is the true Sacrifice of Our Lord  bequeathed to his Church, but an examination of whether it is a convenient rite or ceremonial to embody and carry out this august Sacrifice (Please note that the vality of a mass  and the convenience of its rite are two different matters, as it is evident in the case of a black mass)
    _______________
    1 We considerate the expressions “new rite”, equal  to “new mass”, “mass of Paul VI”, “Novous Ordo Missae etc. It’s a reference of the liturgic reform of 1969.

    SOURCE: http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2015/07/sobre-una-palabras-recientes-de-mons.html
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #88 on: November 23, 2015, 07:44:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Ladislaus, 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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #89 on: November 23, 2015, 07:54:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont
    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.


    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.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
    « previous next »