The only Roman rite Mass approved by the Church IN PERPETUITY is the Latin Tridentine Mass.  That is what Quo Primum is all about.  Anything else is forbidden, any Mass whose rubrics do not match and respect the Missale that Quo Primum introduced is forbidden.  For exactly problems such as this KE trots out did Pius V protect the Mass by promulgating the Tridentine Mass.  (Though heaven knows if he ever imagined the abuses masquerading as "masses" in our time, perhaps using all his papal authority with the "new" church in mind.)

Point is, we are forbidden to offer a Roman rite Mass other than what the Church gave us through Pius.  A Black Mass is forbidden, though Our Lord be present.  Any "Eucharistic miracles" I've read about seem always to happen in response to an ABUSE of Our Lord in the Eucharistic.  Even IF He is at these NO Masses, it does not bode well.  One should be appalled to attend, partake of, or witness it.  It is forbidden.  The Church has spoken.  Anyone who has never read Quo Primum should do so.            

Quote

For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo.  Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell.  Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!  

If this is true then,

1) Apparently for Bishop's Williamson and Faure, time has indeed told, and their opinions have now come down on the side of the legitimacy of the conciliar sacraments.

2) This makes the second R in the formula very questionable, if not untenable.

3) We are on our own.

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote

For example, Bishop Faure mentions in a recent conference in Texas that many in the Novus Ordo definitely are receiving legitimate sacramental graces from the sacraments of the Novus Ordo.  Whereas back in the day the Archbishop was exceedingly careful to say that we simply did not know such matters and that only time would tell.  Two quite different views regarding the legitimacy of Novus Ordo sacraments!  

If this is true then,

1) Apparently for Bishops Williamson and Faure, time has indeed told, and their opinions have now come down on the side of the legitimacy of the conciliar sacraments.

2) This makes the second R in the formula very questionable, if not untenable.

3) We are on our own.

When +Williamson and +Faure both tell us that they know of Catholics in the Novus Ordo who are receiving graces there, do we have any right to say they're misleading us?  Notice they are not suggesting that we start trying to imitate those people by going to the Newmass.  

We are in a different time now than in the days of ABL, and the audience is different for these two bishops today.  +W & +F are talking to second generation traditionalists who have begun to look down their noses at Newchurch Catholics and these bishops discern a need for them to give out a message that ABL didn't need to give out.  Back in those days he was defending his Resistance to worldwide abandonment of the TLM and he had to make his point stick if it was to survive the deluge.

Today, the point has already stuck for over a generation or a quarter century, and it still needs to keep sticking.  However, we should not forget that it's no good to abandon charity in the process.

.

Exactly what are these bishops saying?  Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith?  Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.

Regarding the idea that Catholics are receiving grace at the NO:

I would argue that they are receiving graces WHILE at the NO or DESPITE attending the NO.  Why is the assumption that they are receiving graces because they are at the NO or due to the NO?  Couldn't we say those same things for those who are in other non-Catholic religions who receive the grace from God to leave those religions (including the schismatic Orthodox who have a "valid consecration") and convert to Catholicism?  We don't and the Church doesn't say that those religions provided the grace do we?

Exactly what are these bishops saying?  Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith?  Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.

If there is real and legitimate grace issuing forth from the Novus Ordo religion, what valid justification do these people for rejecting the conciliar sacraments and not joining the conciliar entity, as they in fact see it as being the True Church?

What one can see is that in both the SSPX and in the resistance so called, firm principles which over the years we have been conditioned to believe were being held and defended are being abandoned or they were never really there, and we have been taken in by an illusion.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Regarding the idea that Catholics are receiving grace at the NO:

I would argue that they are receiving graces WHILE at the NO or DESPITE attending the NO.  Why is the assumption that they are receiving graces because they are at the NO or due to the NO?  Couldn't we say those same things for those who are in other non-Catholic religions who receive the grace from God to leave those religions (including the schismatic Orthodox who have a "valid consecration") and convert to Catholicism?  We don't and the Church doesn't say that those religions provided the grace do we?

Exactly what are these bishops saying?  Are they saying that the NO provides these graces or that despite the NO, God can still call others to the True Faith?  Up to now, I have gotten the impression that they are saying the former, not the latter.

The latter is what I always understood. That's why many pages ago I posted that I believe people can receive grace and be saved in spite of the danger of the NO. They are at a clear disadvantage since we need to receive grace from the Mass and the proper practice of the Faith. But if we believe that God gives the necessary grace for each person to be saved, yet not everyone is Catholic or has been to Latin Mass, then obviously He works outside those parameters as well. It would be unjust for Him not to. So each person receives enough grace throughout their lives or maybe all in one shot, who knows, to realize they need to turn to God, which would then lead them to the Faith and Baptism and so on and so forth. Of course many don't correspond but it doesn't mean God hasn't given them the chance. That's why it is so important for us to pray for hardened sinners and conversions so that God will pour down more and more graces upon them in the hopes that they will correspond eventually.

I imagine this is all as true in the NO and more so since at least subjectively, many believe they are practicing their Faith, and many are, to the best of their comprehension and ability. Only God knows at that point who is culpably ignorant and who isn't and to what degree.

It sounds like we could use some clarification on which way the Bishops tend. I am not sure what I would think if they believe the NO objectively gives grace. If it does, it is not nearly as much as people need, as is seen by the massive loss of Faith. I'd have to mull it over for a while for sure.