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

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

Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.  (Read 18412 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 #90 on: November 24, 2015, 04:07:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont
    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.


    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.
    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 TheRealMcCoy

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1242
    • Reputation: +866/-173
    • Gender: Female
    • The Thread Killer
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #91 on: November 24, 2015, 05:43:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Unfortunately Novus Ordites tend to intrepret Eucharistic miracles as being a sign of the holiness of the people associated with the event.  Many fake seers of NewChurch report miracles involving the Euchrarist.  
    Logged

    Offline Recusant Sede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 313
    • Reputation: +155/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #92 on: November 24, 2015, 06:12:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Could it be......is it red mold???

    http://www.twincities.com/ci_19546770

    Signs and wonders, Bishop Williamson, signs and wonders.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #93 on: November 24, 2015, 06:30:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus
    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.


    Oh okay.  I was just wondering because you are probably one of the most vocal on this thread.
    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 #94 on: November 24, 2015, 07:49:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AlanF
    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.


    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".
    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 Paul FHC

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +146/-21
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #95 on: November 24, 2015, 08:04:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?
    Logged

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #96 on: November 24, 2015, 08:10:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: AlanF
    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.


    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
    Logged
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10060
    • Reputation: +5256/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #97 on: November 24, 2015, 08:14:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: AlanF
    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.


    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

    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)

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #98 on: November 24, 2015, 08:47:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Paulus Dei
    Here the critics implicitly claim that in the Novus Ordo (modern) mass cannot be some miracle. It is a logical fallacy:


    Speaking of logical fallacy.  Nobody said "cannot".  God CAN do anything He wants to.  I believe that God WOULD not ... if the New Mass displeases Him as much as we think.
    Logged

    Offline AlanF

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 64
    • Reputation: +28/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #99 on: November 24, 2015, 09:07:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: AlanF
    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.


    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



    Yes, unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre wavered hugely in his views as time went on.
    Logged

    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +1983/-96
    • Gender: Female
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #100 on: November 24, 2015, 09:33:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • I love how everyone is arguing about this before Bishop Williamson even has time to make his point.  :popcorn:

    Quote from: TKGS
    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.


    We are not doctors and it has already been divinely revealed to us that the patient will not die. Our place, as uncomfortable and fidgety as it can be, is to stand and wait and suffer by Her side.

     
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #101 on: November 24, 2015, 09:46:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I don't recall receiving any flak for being skeptical of the miracles trotted out for the canonization of JP2.  How is skepticism in this case any different?  But even if we are unable to disprove or cast suspicion on this event, I am in complete agreement with Ladislaus that we need to ignore it. The validity of at least some of the Conciliar sacraments will always be doubtful due to the changes made to the forms which can be reasonably interpreted to be changes to the meaning of the same. Those types of changes potentially invalidate the sacrament and even if it is not invalidated the positive doubt forces us to act as if it is invalid. I.e. We avoid it like the plague.
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #102 on: November 24, 2015, 09:55:36 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #103 on: November 24, 2015, 03:27:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria
    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.


    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.
    Logged

    Offline BJ5

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +2/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D.
    « Reply #104 on: November 24, 2015, 03:58:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: J.Paul
    Quote from: Clemens Maria
    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.


    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.


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