Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D. (Read 21567 times)

stgobnait · « **Reply #85 on:** November 23, 2015, 04:54:48 PM »

Perhaps He was, when He saw that His Real Presence was not being Venerated as It should have been. Disbelieved even.

2Vermont · « **Reply #86 on:** November 23, 2015, 04:56:38 PM »

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?

Paulus Dei · « **Reply #87 on:** November 23, 2015, 07:15:27 PM »

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #88 on:** November 23, 2015, 07:44:30 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** November 23, 2015, 07:54:53 PM »

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.