Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXXXVI (436) Nov. 22, 2015 A.D. (Read 21596 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #90 on:** November 24, 2015, 04:07:10 AM »

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.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #91 on:** November 24, 2015, 05:43:47 AM »

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.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #92 on:** November 24, 2015, 06:12:45 AM »

Could it be......is it red mold???

http://www.twincities.com/ci_19546770

Signs and wonders, Bishop Williamson, signs and wonders.

2Vermont · « **Reply #93 on:** November 24, 2015, 06:30:41 AM »

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #94 on:** November 24, 2015, 07:49:43 AM »

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".